{"meta":{"name":"AI Laws USA — U.S. Artificial Intelligence Law Dataset (core export)","url":"https://ailawsusa.com/","dataset_version":"0.11.61","dataset_updated":"2026-10-11","generated":"2026-10-11","entry_count":2190,"scope":"Public, source-verified core entries (federal, state, county, city). The bill-tracker's LegiScan bundles are not included in this export.","license":"CC BY 4.0 — attribution required: 'AI Laws USA (ailawsusa.com)'. LegiScan-derived entries are individually credited per CC BY 4.0.","disclaimer":"Not legal advice. General legal/policy information from public sources; laws change. Consult official sources or a qualified attorney.","api":"https://ailawsusa.com/api/v1/protections (filterable endpoint over this export)","contact":"hello@ailawsusa.com"},"protections":[{"id":"mo-sb1019-ai-therapy-chatbot-ban-2026","title":"Missouri SB 1019 (2026) — Ban on AI Posing as a Therapist / Mental-Health Professional","short_title":"Missouri AI Therapy Chatbot Ban (SB 1019)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Missouri","state_abbr":"MO","topics":["healthcare","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-28","enacted_date":"2026-05-28","last_verified_date":"2026-09-04","summary_plain":"Missouri's 2026 health-care law bans companies and individuals from advertising or claiming that an AI chatbot can act as a mental-health professional or provide therapy services. Marketing an AI 'therapist' is treated as an unlawful business practice the state Attorney General can pursue, with fines of $10,000 for a first violation and $20,000 for each later violation.","summary_technical":"SB 1019 (2026 Reg. Sess.) modifies several health-care provisions and prohibits offering or advertising an AI chatbot as capable of providing therapy, a mental-health diagnosis, or as a licensed mental-health professional. Violations are an unlawful practice under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), enforced by the Attorney General; civil penalties of $10,000 (first) / $20,000 (subsequent). Truly agreed to and finally passed May 15, 2026; delivered to Gov. Kehoe May 28, 2026; effective August 28, 2026 (Missouri's standard effective date).","who_is_protected":"Missouri consumers, especially people seeking mental-health support, who could be misled into thinking an AI chatbot is a licensed therapist","who_must_comply":"Companies and individuals offering or advertising AI chatbots in Missouri; AI mental-health/therapy chatbot operators and marketers","citation":"Mo. SB 1019 (2026 Reg. Sess.); MMPA enforcement; effective Aug 28, 2026","source_url":"https://legiscan.com/MO/bill/SB1019/2026","source_title":"Missouri SB 1019 (2026) — bill page (LegiScan mirror of the official Missouri General Assembly record)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Missouri Attorney General (Missouri Merchandising Practices Act)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"$10,000 for a first violation; $20,000 for each subsequent violation, as an unlawful practice under the MMPA"},{"id":"vt-h211-data-brokers-2026","title":"Vermont H.211 (2026) — Data Brokers and Personal Information","short_title":"Vermont Data Broker Law (H.211)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Vermont","state_abbr":"VT","topics":["privacy","consumer-protection"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-06-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-22","summary_plain":"Vermont enacted a law tightening rules on data brokers — companies that buy and sell people's personal information, the same data that feeds profiling and AI systems. Signed by Gov. Phil Scott on June 16, 2026, it strengthens Vermont's existing data-broker regulation and personal-information protections.","summary_technical":"Vermont H.211 (2025-2026 biennium) concerns data brokers and personal information, building on Vermont's pioneering data-broker registration/regulation regime (9 V.S.A. ch. 62). Passed the House March 25, 2026 and Senate May 28, 2026; signed by Gov. Scott June 16, 2026. Exact effective date per the act text was not confirmed in this sweep.","who_is_protected":"Vermont residents whose personal information is collected, bought, or sold by data brokers","who_must_comply":"Data brokers and entities handling Vermonters' personal information","citation":"Vt. H.211 (2025-2026 biennium); signed June 16, 2026","source_url":"https://legiscan.com/VT/bill/H0211/2025","source_title":"Vermont H.211 (2025-2026) — bill page (LegiScan mirror of the official Vermont General Assembly record)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Vermont Office of the Attorney General","penalties":"Per Vermont consumer-protection / data-broker statute (specifics per act text — to be confirmed)"},{"id":"superior-wi-data-center-moratorium-2026","title":"Superior, WI — One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers","short_title":"Superior WI Data Center Moratorium (1-year)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Superior, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Douglas","city":"Superior","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-16","enacted_date":"2026-06-16","expires_date":"2027-06-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-22","summary_plain":"The Superior, Wisconsin City Council unanimously passed a one-year moratorium on data centers on June 16, 2026, even though no project had been proposed — councilmembers said they wanted zoning, utility-rate, and infrastructure rules in place before any 'blindside' application arrives. The pause was prompted partly by a nearly $2 billion Google data-center complex proposed across the border in Hermantown, Minnesota.","summary_technical":"Superior (Douglas County, WI) City Council resolution, adopted unanimously June 16, 2026, enacting a one-year moratorium on data centers citywide. The measure is referred to the city Planning Commission for recommendations on zoning, utility, infrastructure, and land-use regulations while the city rewrites its zoning code (which currently lacks any definition of a small or large data center). A proposed amendment to limit the moratorium to hyperscale facilities over 50,000 sq ft failed 5-5.","who_is_protected":"Superior residents and ratepayers — protects utility rates, the tax base, and public health while regulations are developed","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers seeking approvals in the City of Superior","citation":"Superior, WI City Council resolution (June 16, 2026), one-year data center moratorium","source_url":"https://www.wpr.org/news/superior-joins-growing-number-of-wisconsin-communities-to-pass-data-center-moratorium","source_title":"WPR — 'Superior joins growing number of Wisconsin communities to pass data center moratorium' (June 17, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Superior / Planning Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Permit/application denial during the moratorium"},{"id":"dane-county-wi-data-center-moratorium-2026","title":"Dane County, WI — 18-Month Moratorium on Hyperscale Data Centers","short_title":"Dane County WI Hyperscale Data Center Moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Dane County, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Dane","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-04","enacted_date":"2026-06-04","expires_date":"2027-12-04","last_verified_date":"2026-06-24","summary_plain":"Dane County, Wisconsin (home to Madison) approved an 18-month moratorium on hyperscale data centers (defined as 5,000+ servers and 10,000+ sq ft) in the 26 unincorporated county towns subject to county zoning authority, while officials draft permanent regulations.","summary_technical":"Dane County Board unanimously voted June 4, 2026; County Executive Agard signed. The 18-month moratorium on hyperscale data-center permitting covers areas under county zoning (26 towns; does not apply to villages, cities, or 6 towns with self-zoning). Threshold: at least 5,000 servers and 10,000 sq ft. Term: 18 months from June 4, 2026 (~December 4, 2027) or until permanent regulations adopted, whichever first.","who_is_protected":"Dane County residents and ratepayers in the 26 county-zoned unincorporated towns","who_must_comply":"Hyperscale data-center developers (5,000+ servers, 10,000+ sq ft) seeking zoning approvals in county-zoned areas of Dane County, WI","citation":"Dane County, WI 18-month hyperscale data-center moratorium (June 4, 2026)","source_url":"https://isthmus.com/news/news/dane-county-board-approves-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Dane County Board approves data center moratorium — Isthmus","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Dane County / Planning & Development","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Permit/application denial during the moratorium"},{"id":"madison-wi-data-center-moratorium-2026","title":"Madison, WI — One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers (>10,000 sq ft)","short_title":"Madison WI Data Center Moratorium (1-year)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Madison, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Dane","city":"Madison","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-02-01","enacted_date":"2026-02-01","expires_date":"2027-02-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-24","summary_plain":"Madison, Wisconsin's Common Council approved a one-year moratorium on issuing zoning approvals for new data centers larger than 10,000 sq ft while city staff develop permanent land-use and zoning standards for data-center uses.","summary_technical":"City of Madison Common Council passed a temporary moratorium prohibiting issuance of zoning approvals for data centers or telecommunications centers with floor area >10,000 sq ft. The moratorium automatically ends when the city adopts permanent data-center zoning standards (before the one-year term expires). Only applies to principal or primary data-center uses. The city's DPCED office maintains an official page tracking the moratorium and rulemaking status.","who_is_protected":"Madison residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers seeking zoning approvals for facilities >10,000 sq ft within the City of Madison","citation":"City of Madison, WI one-year data-center moratorium (Feb. 2026)","source_url":"https://spectrumnews1.com/wi/milwaukee/news/2026/02/01/madison-passes-temporary-data-center-moratorium","source_title":"Madison passes temporary data center moratorium — Spectrum News 1 (Feb. 1, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Madison Department of Planning & Community & Economic Development (DPCED)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Zoning approval denial during the moratorium"},{"id":"manitowoc-county-wi-data-center-moratorium-2026","title":"Manitowoc County, WI — 18-Month Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Manitowoc County WI Data Center Moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Manitowoc County, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Manitowoc","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-04-29","enacted_date":"2026-04-28","expires_date":"2027-10-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-24","summary_plain":"The Manitowoc County, Wisconsin Board unanimously voted April 28, 2026 to impose an 18-month moratorium barring the county from accepting applications or issuing permits for data-center construction while permanent regulations are developed. The moratorium was prompted by developer interest from the towns of Two Creeks, Two Rivers, and Mishicot.","summary_technical":"Manitowoc County Board resolution adopted April 28, 2026 (unanimous vote). The ordinance prohibits the county from accepting applications or issuing permits for data-center construction or siting for 18 months, or until permanent data-center regulations are adopted, whichever is sooner. Applies to areas under county zoning authority. The Planning & Park Commission recommended the measure in March 2026.","who_is_protected":"Manitowoc County, WI residents and surrounding communities in county-zoned areas","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers seeking construction permits or siting approvals in Manitowoc County","citation":"Manitowoc County, WI 18-month data-center moratorium (April 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wpr.org/news/manitowoc-county-board-approves-18-month-data-center-moratorium","source_title":"Manitowoc County Board approves 18-month data center moratorium — WPR","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Manitowoc County / Planning & Park Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Permit/application denial during the moratorium"},{"id":"ca-eo-n-6-26-ai-workforce","title":"California Executive Order N-6-26 — AI Workforce Impacts & Worker Protections","short_title":"CA EO N-6-26 (AI Workforce)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["employment","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-05-21","enacted_date":"2026-05-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-23","summary_plain":"California's first executive order focused on AI's impact on workers. Directs state agencies, labor groups, employer groups, and AI industry partners to study AI-driven workforce displacement, recommend updates to the California WARN Act, expand dislocated-worker strategies, and identify ways to share AI's economic benefits more broadly with workers. No immediate employer mandates — but creates the framework for future legislation and regulatory action.","summary_technical":"Executive Order N-6-26 (Gov. Gavin Newsom, May 21, 2026) directs: (1) California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) to recommend Cal-WARN Act revisions within 180 days to address AI-driven mass-layoff patterns; (2) Employment Development Department (EDD) to develop an AI playbook for dislocated-worker programs and submit bi-annual summaries of business feedback on AI in hiring through December 2027; (3) LWDA to review collective bargaining provisions involving AI and emerging technologies by October 15, 2026, to identify lessons applicable to broader workforce policy. No direct employer compliance obligations at signing.","who_is_protected":"California workers subject to AI-driven displacement or changes in hiring and employment practices","who_must_comply":"California state agencies (LWDA, EDD); private employer obligations may follow from future rulemaking under this order","citation":"California Executive Order N-6-26 (May 21, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/05/21/governor-newsom-signs-first-of-its-kind-executive-order-to-prepare-workers-and-businesses-for-potential-ai-disruption/","source_title":"Governor Newsom signs first-of-its-kind executive order to prepare workers and businesses for potential AI disruption — Governor of California","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) / Employment Development Department (EDD)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"wa-sb5982-data-center-clean-energy-2026","title":"Washington SB 5982 (2026) — Data Center Clean Energy Compliance Under CETA","short_title":"WA SB 5982 (Data Center / Clean Energy)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Washington","state_abbr":"WA","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-11","enacted_date":"2026-03-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Washington bill that closes a loophole in the state's 100% clean energy law (Clean Energy Transformation Act) so that large customers — especially data centers — must meet the same carbon-neutrality and renewable-energy deadlines as electric utilities. Signed by Governor Ferguson on 2026-03-24 as Chapter 181, Laws of 2026; in effect since 2026-06-11.","summary_technical":"SB 5982 (2025-26 Washington Legislature) amends RCW 19.405 (Clean Energy Transformation Act) to clarify that large electricity customers including hyperscale data centers are subject to the same clean-energy compliance deadlines as utilities; directs the Utilities and Transportation Commission to establish reporting requirements so compliance can be demonstrated. Enacted: delivered to Governor 2026-03-12, signed by Governor Ferguson 2026-03-24 (Chapter 181, Laws of 2026), effective 2026-06-11.","who_is_protected":"Washington state residents and environment, through clean-energy accountability for data-center electricity consumption","who_must_comply":"Large electricity customers (including AI data centers) operating in Washington state under CETA jurisdiction","citation":"WA SB 5982, Chapter 181, Laws of 2026 (2025-26 Leg. Sess.)","source_url":"https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5982&Year=2025&Initiative=false","source_title":"Washington State Legislature — SB 5982 Bill Summary & History (Chapter 181, Laws of 2026)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Per existing CETA enforcement provisions"},{"id":"dayton-oh-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"City of Dayton OH 180-Day Moratorium on Large Data Centers","short_title":"Dayton OH data center moratorium (180-day, Apr 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Dayton, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Montgomery","city":"Dayton","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-04-22","enacted_date":"2026-04-22","expires_date":"2026-10-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Dayton City Commission passed a 180-day moratorium on April 22, 2026, pausing acceptance and processing of applications for zoning, building permits, and other approvals for large data centers in the city. City staff were directed to develop permanent data-center zoning regulations; on June 22 commissioners held a public hearing on a proposed permanent ban on large data centers in all city zones, with a final vote scheduled June 24. The June 24 outcome was not confirmed in search results as of June 25.","summary_technical":"Dayton City Commission approved a 180-day moratorium on large data centers (April 22, 2026), suspending acceptance and processing of zoning and permit applications. On June 22, 2026, a public hearing was held on proposed zoning code amendments that would permanently prohibit large data centers in Dayton. The June 24 vote outcome had not been confirmed as of the June 25 sweep.","who_is_protected":"Dayton, OH residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals within Dayton city limits","citation":"Dayton City Commission moratorium resolution (April 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/dayton-passes-180-day-moratorium-on-data-center-applications/article_e4771b24-596e-4417-b96c-b6e0720d866c.html","source_title":"Dayton passes 180-day moratorium on data center applications — Dayton Daily News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Dayton Planning Department / City Commission"},{"id":"washington-township-oh-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Washington Township OH (Montgomery County) 360-Day Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Washington Township OH data center moratorium (360-day, Apr 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Washington Township, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Montgomery","city":"Washington Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-04-21","enacted_date":"2026-04-21","expires_date":"2027-04-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Washington Township (Montgomery County), in the Dayton metro area, enacted a 360-day moratorium on the issuance and processing of zoning permits and approvals for new data center uses on April 21, 2026. The trustees described the action as preemptive — no developer had yet applied — and intended to allow time to study impacts on utilities, noise, aesthetics, safety, and infrastructure, and decide whether to limit, prohibit, or regulate data centers with permanent zoning standards.","summary_technical":"Washington Township Board of Trustees unanimously approved a resolution enacting a 360-day moratorium on data center zoning approvals (April 21, 2026), prohibiting acceptance and processing of permits and approvals for data center land uses. Moratorium covers unincorporated Washington Township in Montgomery County; gives trustees time to evaluate whether to limit, prohibit, or subject data centers to additional regulations.","who_is_protected":"Washington Township (Montgomery County), OH residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals within unincorporated Washington Township","citation":"Washington Township (Montgomery Co.) Board of Trustees resolution (April 21, 2026)","source_url":"https://dayton247now.com/news/local/trustees-enact-360-day-moratorium-on-data-center-zoning-in-washington-township","source_title":"Trustees enact 360-day moratorium on data center zoning in Washington Township — Dayton 24/7 Now","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Washington Township (Montgomery County) Board of Trustees / Zoning Department"},{"id":"ar-act848-hb1958-public-entity-ai-policy","title":"Arkansas Act 848 (HB 1958) — All Public Entities Must Adopt AI Policy","short_title":"Arkansas public entity AI/ADS policy mandate (Act 848, 2025)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arkansas","state_abbr":"AR","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-08-05","enacted_date":"2025-04-17","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Arkansas Act 848 (HB 1958), approved April 17, 2025 and in effect since August 5, 2025, requires every public entity in Arkansas, including state agencies, school districts, colleges, and cities and counties, to adopt a written policy on the use of artificial intelligence and automated decision tools. Each policy must spell out how AI may be used and must require a human employee to make any final decision, whatever the AI tool recommends. Employees must be trained on the policy, state entities must make their policy available to the public on request, and each entity must set up a disciplinary procedure for violations. The policies must also bar using public technology and AI to lobby or push personal political opinions to elected officials, to break the law, or to get around security controls. The bill passed 93-0 in the House and 35-0 in the Senate.","summary_technical":"Arkansas Act 848 (HB 1958, 2025) amends Ark. Code Ann. § 25-1-128 to require each public entity (state departments, constitutional offices, political subdivisions, school districts, charter schools, institutions of higher education, and others listed) to create an artificial intelligence and automated decision tool policy that (A) defines authorized use and (B) requires an authorized human employee or designee to make any final decision regardless of what the AI or automated decision tool recommends. Adds definitions of \"artificial intelligence\" and \"automated decision tool\" (a system specifically developed or modified to make, or be a controlling factor in, consequential decisions). Requires employee training on the policy; public availability upon request for state entities; Department of Education, with the State Cybersecurity Office, to develop model policies for educational entities; required prohibitions (personal political opinions to elected officials, lobbying on personal opinions, illegal activity, overriding security); and a disciplinary procedure for violations. No emergency clause; effective August 5, 2025. No civil penalty or outside enforcement agency.","who_is_protected":"Arkansas residents interacting with any state or local government agency using AI/automated decision tools","who_must_comply":"All Arkansas public entities including state agencies, school districts, counties, cities, and other government bodies","citation":"Ark. Act 848 of 2025 (HB 1958), amending Ark. Code Ann. § 25-1-128; eff. August 5, 2025","source_url":"https://arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/Detail?id=HB1958&ddBienniumSession=2025%2F2025R","source_title":"AR Arkansas public entity AI/ADS policy mandate (Act 848, 2025) — official record (arkleg.state.ar.us)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Internal to each public entity; no centralized enforcement agency specified"},{"id":"ar-act159-hb1071-frank-broyles-voice-likeness","title":"Arkansas Act 159 (HB 1071) — Frank Broyles Publicity Rights Protection Act: AI Voice & Likeness","short_title":"Arkansas Frank Broyles Act AI amendment — voice and likeness protection (2025)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arkansas","state_abbr":"AR","topics":["deepfakes","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-05","enacted_date":"2025-02-25","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Arkansas Act 159 (HB 1071), signed February 25, 2025 and in force since August 5, 2025, updates the Frank Broyles Publicity Rights Protection Act of 2016 to cover artificial intelligence. It adds 'voice' — including an AI-generated simulation of a real person's voice — to the protected attributes, and makes clear that a 'photograph' or 'likeness' includes images, video or 3-D reproductions generated by AI. A person whose photograph, voice or likeness is reproduced by AI and used commercially without authorization can sue for damages and recover lost profits. The Act is named for the late University of Arkansas Razorbacks coach Frank Broyles.","summary_technical":"Act 159 of 2025 amends the Frank Broyles Publicity Rights Protection Act of 2016 (Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-1101 et seq.): § 4-75-1103(3) 'likeness' now includes generation through artificial intelligence; § 4-75-1103(5) 'photograph' now includes image, video or three-dimensional generation through AI; new § 4-75-1103(7) defines 'voice' to include a simulation of an individual's voice generated through AI; § 4-75-1110(a)(1)(F)(i) extends the service-provider exemption's knowledge standard to voice; § 4-75-1112 construction clause updated to include voice. Approved February 25, 2025; no emergency clause, so effective August 5, 2025 (91 days after the May 5, 2025 sine die adjournment).","who_is_protected":"Arkansas residents whose voice or likeness is used in AI-generated commercial content without consent","who_must_comply":"Persons or companies using AI-generated voice or likeness of living or deceased individuals for commercial purposes in Arkansas","citation":"Ark. Act 159 / HB 1071 (2025 Regular Session), amending Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-75-1103, 4-75-1110 and 4-75-1112 (Frank Broyles Publicity Rights Protection Act, § 4-75-1101 et seq.)","source_url":"https://arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/Detail?id=hb1071&ddBienniumSession=2025%2F2025R","source_title":"Arkansas Legislature — HB 1071 (Act 159, 2025 Regular Session)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Civil action by affected person or their estate","private_right_of_action":true},{"id":"ct-hb8002-algorithmic-rent-ban-2025","title":"Connecticut HB 8002 — Prohibition on Algorithmic Rent-Setting Devices (Effective Jan 1, 2026)","short_title":"Connecticut algorithmic rent ban — HB 8002 (eff. Jan 1, 2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Connecticut","state_abbr":"CT","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2025-11-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-26","summary_plain":"Connecticut enacted HB 8002 in 2025, the first state law prohibiting landlords from using 'revenue management devices' to set residential rent prices. Specifically, it bars tools that use nonpublic competitor data — such as competitors' current lease rates and occupancy levels — to recommend pricing, while allowing use of publicly available market data. Penalties run up to $100,000 for individuals and $1,000,000 for corporations per violation. Enforced under the Connecticut Antitrust Act; private parties may also bring suit. Effective January 1, 2026.","summary_technical":"Connecticut enacted HB 8002 amending the Connecticut Antitrust Act to prohibit residential landlords from using revenue management devices that utilize nonpublic competitor data (current lease rates, occupancy statistics, lease terms) to recommend rental pricing, occupancy levels, or vacancy strategy. Carves out publicly available market surveys and aggregated data reports. Individual penalties up to $100,000; corporate penalties up to $1,000,000. Effective January 1, 2026. First state-level algorithmic rent ban enacted in the U.S.; narrower than city-level ordinances in NYC or SF that also restrict public-data algorithms.","who_is_protected":"Connecticut residential renters subject to algorithmically coordinated rent pricing","who_must_comply":"Residential landlords and providers of rent-setting algorithm or pricing-coordination software operating in Connecticut","citation":"CT HB 8002 (2025 Session), eff. January 1, 2026; amends CT Antitrust Act","source_url":"https://www.cga.ct.gov/2025/TOB/H/PDF/2025HB-08002-R00-HB.PDF","source_title":"Connecticut General Assembly — HB 8002 full text (2025 Session)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Connecticut Office of the Attorney General (Antitrust Division); private right of action also available","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Up to $100,000 per violation (individuals); up to $1,000,000 per violation (corporations)"},{"id":"san-diego-ca-algorithmic-rent-ban-ord-21955","title":"City of San Diego — Anti-Competitive Automated Rent Price-Fixing Prohibition Ordinance (O-21955)","short_title":"San Diego algorithmic rent price-fixing ban (Ord. O-21955, May 2025)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Diego, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"San Diego","city":"San Diego","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-06-12","enacted_date":"2025-05-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-26","summary_plain":"San Diego City Council adopted Ordinance O-21955 on May 13, 2025 (effective June 12, 2025), prohibiting landlords from using algorithmic tools that rely on nonpublic competitor data — current lease rates, occupancy levels, and vacancy strategies from competing properties — to recommend residential rent prices. Public data tools and affordable-housing compliance software are permitted. Penalties reach $1,000 per violation per month per property. Tenants can sue for damages and recover attorney's fees. Before the ban, an estimated 22 percent of San Diego County landlords reported using tools such as RealPage.","summary_technical":"San Diego Ord. O-21955 (May 13, 2025, eff. June 12, 2025): prohibits the use, sale, or licensing of algorithmic devices that use nonpublic competitor data to recommend residential rental prices or occupancy levels. Applies to all residential properties; no size exemption. Exceptions: publicly available rent data tools, aggregated anonymous data, affordable housing regulatory compliance software. Penalties: civil fine of up to $1,000/violation/month/property. Private right of action: tenants may sue for actual damages and attorneys' fees. Enforcement: City Attorney and aggrieved tenants.","who_is_protected":"San Diego residential renters subject to algorithmically coordinated rent pricing","who_must_comply":"Residential landlords and rent-setting algorithm vendors operating in San Diego","citation":"San Diego Ord. O-21955, adopted May 13, 2025, eff. June 12, 2025","source_url":"https://docs.sandiego.gov/council_reso_ordinance/rao2025/O-21955.pdf","source_title":"City of San Diego — Ordinance O-21955 (Anti-Competitive Automated Rent Price-Fixing Prohibition)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"San Diego City Attorney; private right of action for tenants","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Up to $1,000 per violation per month per rental property"},{"id":"minneapolis-mn-algorithmic-rent-ban-ord-2025-010","title":"City of Minneapolis — Algorithmic Rent-Fixing Prohibition (Ordinance 2025-010)","short_title":"Minneapolis algorithmic rent ban (Ord. 2025-010, eff. Mar 1, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Minneapolis, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Hennepin","city":"Minneapolis","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-03-01","enacted_date":"2025-12-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-26","summary_plain":"Minneapolis City Council adopted Ordinance 2025-010 amending Title 12, Chapter 244 of the City Code to add Section 244.2070, prohibiting residential landlords from using algorithmic devices that employ nonpublic competitor data to recommend rental pricing or vacancy strategies. Effective March 1, 2026. A White House report estimated Twin Cities renters paid on average $324 more per unit annually due to pricing algorithms, with the national total exceeding $3.8 billion. Private right of action; license revocation possible for landlord violations.","summary_technical":"Minneapolis Ord. 2025-010 adds § 244.2070 to Title 12, Chapter 244 (Housing) of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances. Prohibits landlords from using algorithmic devices employing nonpublic competitor data (competitor lease rates, occupancy data less than 365 days old) to recommend rent pricing or vacancy strategy. Effective March 1, 2026. Enforcement: private right of action for tenants (compensatory damages + attorneys' fees); administrative enforcement with license revocation as remedy. Aligns with the wave of algorithmic rent-pricing bans in major cities responding to DOJ's antitrust case against RealPage.","who_is_protected":"Minneapolis residential renters subject to algorithmically coordinated rent pricing","who_must_comply":"Residential landlords and rent-setting algorithm vendors operating in Minneapolis","citation":"Minneapolis Ord. 2025-010 (File 2024-01399), adding § 244.2070 to City Code, eff. March 1, 2026","source_url":"https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/MetaData/38613/2025-010_Id_38613.pdf","source_title":"City of Minneapolis — Ordinance 2025-010 (File 2024-01399), amending Title 12 Chapter 244","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Minneapolis; private right of action for tenants","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"License revocation; private right of action for compensatory damages plus attorneys' fees"},{"id":"seattle-wa-algorithmic-rent-ban-ord-127241","title":"City of Seattle — Prohibition on Algorithmic Rent-Fixing (Ord. 127241 / SMC Chapter 7.34)","short_title":"Seattle algorithmic rent-fixing ban (Ord. 127241 / SMC 7.34, July 2025)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Seattle, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"King","city":"Seattle","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-07-31","enacted_date":"2025-07-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-26","summary_plain":"Seattle City Council passed CB 121000 on June 24, 2025 (Mayor signed July 1, 2025; effective July 31, 2025), creating SMC Chapter 7.34 to prohibit algorithmic rent-fixing. The ordinance bans landlords from using software or data services that pool pricing recommendations based on nonpublic competitor data — targeting RealPage-style pricing coordination. Publicly available rent estimates and listings remain permitted. Penalties reach $7,500 per violation, and each affected rental unit counts separately. Tenants can also sue for actual damages plus attorneys' fees.","summary_technical":"Seattle Ord. 127241 (CB 121000, passed June 24, 2025; signed July 1, 2025; eff. July 31, 2025) enacts SMC Chapter 7.34, prohibiting 'algorithmic rent-fixing' — use of software that aggregates third-party nonpublic pricing data to recommend rents or vacancy strategy across competing landlords. Public rent estimates (listings, web tools) are not violations. Civil penalties: up to $7,500 per offense; each unit/instance counted separately. Private right of action: actual damages plus attorneys' fees. Enforcement: City of Seattle and private litigants. Companion to WA state-level action and NY S.7882 felony rent-algorithm coordination law.","who_is_protected":"Seattle residential renters subject to algorithmically coordinated rent pricing","who_must_comply":"Residential landlords and rent-setting algorithm vendors operating in Seattle","citation":"Seattle Ord. 127241 / CB 121000, signed July 1, 2025, eff. July 31, 2025; codified SMC Chapter 7.34","source_url":"https://clerk.seattle.gov/search/ordinances/127241","source_title":"Seattle City Clerk — Ordinance 127241 (CB 121000, algorithmic rent-fixing prohibition, SMC 7.34)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Seattle; private right of action for tenants","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Up to $7,500 per violation (per unit, per instance); private right of action for actual damages + attorneys' fees"},{"id":"fed-eo-trump-ai-innovation-security-2026-06","title":"Executive Order: Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security (June 2, 2026)","short_title":"Trump AI Innovation & Security EO (June 2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["transparency","national-security","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-02","enacted_date":"2026-06-02","last_verified_date":"2026-06-28","summary_plain":"President Trump signed an executive order on June 2, 2026, directing frontier AI developers to voluntarily share new models with the federal government 30 days before public release for national-security review. The order also directs CISA to build an AI cybersecurity framework and tasks DOJ with prioritizing criminal enforcement of AI-enabled fraud. No binding requirements apply to private AI developers — the framework is voluntary.","summary_technical":"E.O. 'Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security' (June 2, 2026): (1) Voluntary pre-release notification: frontier AI developers invited to share models with NSC/intelligence community 30 days before public launch; (2) CISA directed to establish an AI cybersecurity threat-sharing clearinghouse and sector-specific AI risk frameworks; (3) DOJ directed to establish AI Fraud Task Force prioritizing AI-enabled financial fraud and identity theft; (4) Commerce directed to develop AI export-control framework aligned with Five Eyes partners. No private right of action; no mandatory obligations on private developers. Distinct from the Dec. 2025 EO targeting state AI laws.","who_is_protected":"U.S. national security interests; consumers protected from AI-enabled fraud","who_must_comply":"Federal agencies (mandatory agency directives); frontier AI developers (voluntary participation)","citation":"E.O. (June 2, 2026) — Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security","source_url":"https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/06/promoting-advanced-artificial-intelligence-innovation-and-security/","source_title":"Executive Order: Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security — White House","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"National Security Council; CISA; DOJ AI Fraud Task Force","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None for AI developers under the voluntary framework; existing criminal statutes apply to AI-enabled fraud"},{"id":"pa-ag-character-ai-chatbot-suit-2026","title":"Pennsylvania AG Shapiro v. Character.AI — Chatbot Impersonating Licensed Psychiatrist (Commonwealth Court, May 2026)","short_title":"PA v. Character.AI (Fake Psychiatrist Chatbot)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pennsylvania","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["children","consumer-protection","automated-decisions","healthcare"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-05-01","enacted_date":"2026-05-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-28","summary_plain":"Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro filed suit in Commonwealth Court on May 1, 2026, alleging that Character.AI's companion chatbot 'Emilie' impersonated a licensed Pennsylvania psychiatrist and provided ongoing psychiatric advice and treatment to users without a license. The Shapiro administration seeks a preliminary injunction requiring Character.AI to clearly disclose that its chatbots are not licensed mental health professionals and cannot provide medical treatment.","summary_technical":"Commonwealth v. Character Technologies, Inc. (Pa. Commonwealth Ct., filed May 1, 2026). Claims: unlicensed practice of medicine and psychiatry under Pennsylvania Medical Practice Act; deceptive trade practices and consumer fraud under UTPCPL; negligence. Core allegation: 'Emilie' persona presented itself as a licensed PA psychiatrist, conducted diagnostic and treatment conversations with users including minors. PI sought requiring (1) prominent disclosure that chatbots are not licensed professionals, (2) cessation of conduct suggesting professional licensure or treatment. Related to the wave of Character.AI litigation following Garcia v. Character.AI settlement (M.D. Fla., settled Jan. 7, 2026).","who_is_protected":"Pennsylvania consumers, particularly users seeking mental health services and minors","who_must_comply":"Character Technologies, Inc. (d/b/a Character.AI)","citation":"Commonwealth v. Character Technologies, Inc. (Pa. Commonwealth Ct., filed May 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.pa.gov/governor/newsroom/2026-press-releases/shapiro-administration-sues-character-ai-over-fake-medical-claim","source_title":"Shapiro Administration Sues Character.AI Over Fake Medical Claims — Pennsylvania Governor's Office","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Pennsylvania Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Injunctive relief; civil penalties under UTPCPL; unlicensed practice fines under Medical Practice Act"},{"id":"litig-naacp-v-xai-clean-air-2026","title":"NAACP v. xAI Corp / MZX Tech — AI Data Center Unpermitted Gas Turbines, Clean Air Act (N.D. Miss.)","short_title":"NAACP v. xAI (Colossus 2 Air Pollution)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"N.D. Miss.","state_abbr":"MS","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","law-enforcement"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-04-14","enacted_date":"2026-04-14","last_verified_date":"2026-07-26","summary_plain":"The NAACP and local organizations sued xAI and its affiliate MZX Tech in April 2026, alleging 27 natural gas turbines at xAI's Colossus 2 data center in Southaven, Mississippi were operated without required air permits, harming predominantly Black residents near the facility. In June 2026, the Trump DOJ moved to intervene and dismiss the case, arguing the lawsuit would 'hamper America's AI innovation' — marking the first time DOJ used a motion to dismiss a citizen Clean Air Act suit on AI-policy grounds.","summary_technical":"NAACP et al. v. xAI Corp. et al., No. 3:26-cv-00074-MPM-JMV (N.D. Miss., filed April 14, 2026). Clean Air Act § 304 citizen suit: plaintiffs allege 27 natural gas/methane turbines operated at Colossus 2 (xAI's second major GPU cluster, Southaven MS) without Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits and Title V operating permits; nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions alleged to exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards. June 16, 2026: DOJ filed motion to intervene and seek dismissal, citing Trump AI policy directives and arguing the citizen suit would delay critical AI infrastructure investment contrary to federal AI policy priorities.","who_is_protected":"Residents near xAI's Colossus 2 Southaven Mississippi data center (predominantly Black community) affected by unpermitted air emissions","who_must_comply":"xAI Corp. and MZX Tech (xAI data-center affiliate)","citation":"NAACP et al. v. xAI Corp. et al., No. 3:26-cv-00074-MPM-JMV (N.D. Miss., filed April 14, 2026)","source_url":"https://naacp.org/articles/naacp-sues-xai-illegal-pollution-data-center-power-plant","source_title":"NAACP Sues xAI Over Illegal Pollution from Data Center Power Plant — NAACP","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Federal courts (Clean Air Act § 304 citizen suit); EPA (primary permitting authority)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Clean Air Act civil penalties up to $70,117/day per violation; injunctive relief requiring permit compliance"},{"id":"ri-therapy-chatbot-ban-2026","title":"Rhode Island H 7349 / S 2197 — Prohibition on AI Therapy and Psychotherapy Services","short_title":"RI Therapy Chatbot Ban (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Rhode Island","state_abbr":"RI","topics":["healthcare","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-22","enacted_date":"2026-06-22","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee signed H 7349 / S 2197 on June 22, 2026, prohibiting any person or business from providing therapy or psychotherapy services using artificial intelligence. Only licensed mental health professionals may conduct such sessions. The law targets AI companion chatbots and virtual therapy products that may lead users to believe they are receiving licensed mental health care from a human professional.","summary_technical":"Rhode Island H 7349 Sub A / S 2197 Sub A aa (Pub. Laws 2026, chs. 373-374), approved June 22, 2026, effective upon passage. Enacts R.I. Gen. Laws ch. 40.1-5.5, the Oversight of Artificial Intelligence Technology in Mental Health Care Act. Bars any individual, corporation or entity from providing, advertising or otherwise offering therapy or psychotherapy services unless they are conducted by a licensed professional or provider. Licensed professionals may use AI only for administrative support and supplementary support while keeping clinical responsibility; AI may not make independent therapeutic decisions, interact therapeutically with clients directly, or determine treatment recommendations or plans. Written informed consent is required before AI is used in a recorded or transcribed session. The Executive Office of Health and Human Services may investigate violations; confidentiality violations carry penalties under § 5-37.3-9. No private right of action specified. The companion AI-companion self-harm law (S 2195 / H 7350) is chs. 375-376.","who_is_protected":"Rhode Island residents seeking mental health services; users of AI companion chatbots","who_must_comply":"Any person or entity offering AI-based therapy or psychotherapy services accessible to Rhode Island residents","citation":"R.I. Pub. Laws 2026, ch. 373 (H 7349 Sub A) and ch. 374 (S 2197 Sub A as amended); R.I. Gen. Laws ch. 40.1-5.5, approved June 22, 2026","source_url":"https://webserver.rilegislature.gov/PublicLaws/law26/law26373.htm","source_title":"RI RI Therapy Chatbot Ban (2026) — official record (webserver.rilegislature.gov)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Rhode Island Department of Health; Rhode Island Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"EOHHS may investigate violations; confidentiality violations are subject to the penalties in R.I. Gen. Laws § 5-37.3-9."},{"id":"ri-ai-companion-selfharm-safety-2026","title":"Rhode Island S 2195 / H 7350 — AI Companion Chatbot Self-Harm Safety Requirements","short_title":"RI AI Companion Self-Harm Safety (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Rhode Island","state_abbr":"RI","topics":["children","healthcare","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-06-22","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Rhode Island enacted S 2195 / H 7350 on June 22, 2026, and the law takes effect January 1, 2027. Companies that offer AI companion chatbots must build in protocols for users who express possible suicidal thoughts, self-harm or intent to physically harm others, and must then point the user to crisis services such as a suicide hotline or crisis text line. The chatbot must tell users at the start of a conversation, and at least every three hours during it, that they are not talking to a human. Starting July 1, 2027, operators must file yearly reports with the Attorney General on how often the safety protocols were triggered. The Attorney General enforces the law, with civil penalties up to $15,000 per day, directed to suicide prevention programs.","summary_technical":"R.I. Pub. Laws 2026, chs. 375 (H 7350 Sub A am.) and 376 (S 2195 Sub A am.), enacted June 22, 2026, effective January 1, 2027; adds R.I. Gen. Laws ch. 6-64 'Artificial Intelligence Companion Models'. Applies to operators providing an AI companion to users in the state. Requirements: (1) unlawful to operate or provide an AI companion unless it contains a protocol addressing possible suicidal ideation or self-harm, and possible physical harm to others, expressed by a user; (2) upon detection, a notification referring the user to crisis service providers (suicide hotline, crisis text line or other crisis services); (3) clear and conspicuous notice at the beginning of any interaction and at least every three hours that the user is not communicating with a human; (4) beginning July 1, 2027, annual reports to the Attorney General on safety-protocol activations, with aggregated data published by the AG. Enforcement: Attorney General may investigate, sue and seek injunctions; civil penalties up to $15,000 per day, with fines directed to suicide prevention programs. No private right of action. Signed same day as companion H 7349 / S 2197 (therapy chatbot ban, indexed as ri-therapy-chatbot-ban-2026).","who_is_protected":"Rhode Island residents using AI companion chatbots, particularly those experiencing mental health crises","who_must_comply":"Operators of AI companion chatbot services accessible to Rhode Island residents","citation":"R.I. Pub. Laws 2026, ch. 376 (S 2195 Sub A as amended) and ch. 375 (H 7350 Sub A as amended), R.I. Gen. Laws ch. 6-64 — enacted June 22, 2026; effective January 1, 2027","source_url":"https://webserver.rilegislature.gov/PublicLaws/law26/law26376.htm","source_title":"RI RI AI Companion Self-Harm Safety (2026) — official record (webserver.rilegislature.gov)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Rhode Island Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties up to $15,000 per day, with fines directed to suicide prevention programs; AG may investigate, sue and seek injunctions"},{"id":"fort-payne-al-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Fort Payne, AL — Six-Month Moratorium on Data Center Development","short_title":"Fort Payne AL data center moratorium (6-month, June 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Fort Payne, AL","state_abbr":"AL","county":"DeKalb","city":"Fort Payne","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-16","enacted_date":"2026-06-16","expires_date":"2026-12-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-29","summary_plain":"The Fort Payne City Council unanimously approved a six-month moratorium on data center development on June 16, 2026, pausing new data center projects while city staff, the Planning Commission, and the city attorney study impacts (infrastructure, environment, traffic, noise, water, community character) and draft zoning rules. The city says the move is proactive — no data center has applied yet. The resolution defines 'data center' broadly (server farms, hyperscale, colocation) but exempts existing permitted facilities, routine maintenance, and small server rooms.","summary_technical":"Fort Payne (DeKalb County, AL) City Council adopted a six-month moratorium (June 16, 2026, unanimous) on data center development, suspending approvals while the city drafts zoning regulations governing siting. Broad definition covering server farms, hyperscale, and colocation facilities, with carve-outs for existing permitted facilities, routine maintenance, internal modifications, and small-scale server rooms. The council may extend beyond the initial term or end it early.","who_is_protected":"Fort Payne, AL residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals within Fort Payne city limits","citation":"Fort Payne, Ala., City Council data center moratorium resolution (adopted June 16, 2026)","source_url":"https://times-journal.com/news/article_ae5832a5-0746-4a6c-aee3-c5a517765238.html","source_title":"City council approves six-month moratorium on data centers — The Times-Journal (Fort Payne, AL)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Fort Payne / Planning Commission"},{"id":"inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06","title":"Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota — City Council AMENDS Its One-Year Data Center Moratorium 3-1 to EXCLUDE QLevr's Application, After the Developer Sued in Dakota County District Court Calling the Ordinance Arbitrary and Capricious and Demanded Damages Exceeding $150 Million Against a City Whose Liability Insurance Caps at $1 Million (September 14, 2026)","short_title":"Inver Grove Heights MN data center moratorium amended under lawsuit (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Inver Grove Heights","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Dakota","city":"Inver Grove Heights","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-26","enacted_date":"2026-06-26","expires_date":"2027-06-26","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Inver Grove Heights City Council voted 3-2 on June 26, 2026 to approve a one-year interim moratorium on new data center development while the city studied zoning and infrastructure. ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2026 THE COUNCIL VOTED 3-1 TO AMEND THAT MORATORIUM SO IT NO LONGER APPLIES TO THE PROJECT IT WAS MOST LIKELY TO STOP. The developer, Florida-based QLevr, wants to build a 54,000-square-foot data center at the former Travel Tags site at 5890 Carmen Ave. It filed suit in Dakota County District Court challenging the validity of the interim ordinance. Its attorneys at Larkin Hoffman wrote to the council calling the moratorium decision 'arbitrary' and 'capricious' and saying they would seek damages 'expected to exceed $150 million.' QLevr offered a deal: amend the ordinance to exclude its application, and it would dismiss the case with the city paying nothing. THE NUMBERS ARE WHY THE COUNCIL TOOK IT. By the city's own assessment, had the suit gone forward and the developer won, Inver Grove Heights would have been on the hook for AT LEAST $20 MILLION. The city's liability insurance MAXES OUT AT $1 MILLION. Everything above that, in the city's words, 'becomes the city taxpayers' responsibility.' Councilmember Tony Scales described the position without any pretence: 'I really struggle with the idea of continuing this fight, because continuing the fight doesn't mean it won't happen… At this time, I have not seen the council, staff or residents be able to come up with some type of a plan that would keep this from happening. We have tried to go down every path … and I don't see an out right now for the city.' Scales voted for the amendment along with John Murphy — acting as interim mayor, with Mayor Brenda Dietrich absent — and Sue Gliva. This is the clearest case in this dataset of a lawfully adopted moratorium defeated not by a court but by the RISK of one, and the mechanism is financial rather than legal: a municipality whose insurance covers one-twentieth of its downside exposure cannot afford to find out whether its ordinance was valid.","summary_technical":"Inver Grove Heights, Minn. (Dakota County) — ONE-YEAR INTERIM ORDINANCE adopted 3-2 on 2026-06-26, effective immediately, AMENDED 3-1 ON 2026-09-14 TO EXCLUDE THE APPLICATION IT WAS ADOPTED TO REACH. THE AMENDMENT WAS THE PRICE OF SETTLING LITIGATION. CLAIMANT: QLEVR, a Florida-based developer seeking a 54,000-SQUARE-FOOT data center at the FORMER TRAVEL TAGS SITE, 5890 CARMEN AVE. ACTION: suit filed in DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE INTERIM ORDINANCE. PRE-SUIT DEMAND: attorneys at LARKIN HOFFMAN wrote to the council characterising the moratorium decision as 'ARBITRARY' and 'CAPRICIOUS' and stating they would seek damages 'expected to EXCEED $150 MILLION.' SETTLEMENT STRUCTURE: per city documents, if the city amended the interim ordinance TO EXCLUDE QLEVR'S APPLICATION, the developer would DISMISS THE CASE WITHOUT THE CITY PAYING ANY DAMAGES. THE EXPOSURE ARITHMETIC IS THE OPERATIVE FACT AND IS THE CITY'S OWN: had the suit gone forward and the developer won, the city 'would have been on the hook for AT LEAST $20 MILLION'; the city's LIABILITY INSURANCE MAXES OUT AT $1 MILLION; and 'any claim, costs for damages, attorneys/legal fees, etc. above $1 million becomes the CITY TAXPAYERS' RESPONSIBILITY.' A 20:1 RATIO BETWEEN MINIMUM ADVERSE JUDGMENT AND INSURANCE LIMIT MAKES LITIGATING THE ORDINANCE'S VALIDITY IRRATIONAL ALMOST REGARDLESS OF ITS MERITS. ON THE RECORD, Councilmember TONY SCALES: 'I really struggle with the idea of continuing this fight, because continuing the fight doesn\\u2019t mean it won\\u2019t happen'; 'We have tried to go down every path \\u2026 and I don\\u2019t see an out right now for the city.' VOTING FOR: Scales, JOHN MURPHY (acting interim mayor) and SUE GLIVA. Mayor BRENDA DIETRICH was not present. THIS IS THE DATASET'S CLEAREST INSTANCE OF A MORATORIUM DEFEATED BY LITIGATION RISK RATHER THAN BY ADJUDICATION. It is distinct from the VESTED-RIGHTS defeats recorded elsewhere (Rockford IL annexation agreement, Cle Elum WA 2002 development agreement, Salem pre-filed application, Lowell settlement, Athens site outside city limits), where a pre-existing legal right defeated the pause. HERE NO COURT RULED AND NO VESTED RIGHT WAS ESTABLISHED: the ordinance's validity was never tested. The defeat is a function of ASYMMETRIC FINANCIAL CAPACITY between a national developer and a suburban municipality carrying $1 million of coverage. THE PRACTICAL LESSON FOR EVERY OTHER MORATORIUM INDEXED HERE is that the question is not only whether an ordinance is defensible but whether the jurisdiction can afford to defend it \\u2014 which is why the pre-emptive, no-pending-application posture at wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026 and or-woodburn-dc-moratorium-2026 is worth as much as it is. Reporting framed as Inver Grove Heights 'exempting a project from its moratorium' describes THIS SAME EVENT. MINNESOTA CEILING CONTEXT: Minn. Stat. § 462.355 subd. 4 caps an interim ordinance at 12 months and this one ran exactly one year, so duration was not the vulnerability.","who_is_protected":"Inver Grove Heights residents and utility ratepayers seeking time to study impacts of large-scale data center siting","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking construction or development permits in Inver Grove Heights","citation":"Inver Grove Heights interim moratorium ordinance on data centers (June 26, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.twincities.com/2026/09/15/inver-grove-heights-amends-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Inver Grove Heights amends data center moratorium to avoid multi-million dollar lawsuit — Pioneer Press (Mars King, Sept. 15, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Inver Grove Heights Community Development Department","penalties":"Permit denial during moratorium period"},{"id":"us-united-states-ferc-order-directing-pjm-and-other-grid-operators-to-re-2026","title":"United States — FERC order directing PJM and other grid operators to reform tariffs on large-load (data center) transmission cost allocation (Docket RM26-4-000)","short_title":"FERC order directing PJM and other grid operators to reform ","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-06-18","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"FERC ordered PJM and other regional grid operators to revise or defend their tariffs within 60 days to prevent existing ratepayers from being unlawfully charged for transmission upgrades required to serve large new loads such as AI data centers.","summary_technical":"FERC ordered PJM and other regional grid operators to revise or defend their tariffs within 60 days to prevent existing ratepayers from being unlawfully charged for transmission upgrades required to serve large new loads such as AI data centers.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"United States","citation":"FERC order directing PJM and other grid operators to reform tariffs on large-load (data center) transmission cost allocation (Docket RM26-4-000)","source_url":"https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/ferc-directs-nations-largest-grid-operator-create-new-rules-embrace-innovation-and","source_title":"FERC Directs Nation's Largest Grid Operator to Create New Rules to Embrace Innovation and Protect Consumers","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"tx-san-marcos-san-marcos-citywide-data-center-ban-land-use-matrix-ame-2026","title":"San Marcos — San Marcos citywide data center ban (Land Use Matrix amendment)","short_title":"San Marcos citywide data center ban (Land Use Matrix amendme","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Marcos","state_abbr":"TX","city":"San Marcos","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-16","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The San Marcos City Council voted 4-3 to amend its development code's Land Use Matrix to prohibit data centers in all zoning districts, making it the first Texas city to ban them (though later partly preempted by state SB 2272).","summary_technical":"The San Marcos City Council voted 4-3 to amend its development code's Land Use Matrix to prohibit data centers in all zoning districts, making it the first Texas city to ban them (though later partly preempted by state SB 2272).","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"San Marcos","citation":"San Marcos citywide data center ban (Land Use Matrix amendment)","source_url":"https://www.sanmarcosrecord.com/news/article_c22756dc-1004-4df7-8c73-16cf18174738.html","source_title":"Council approves citywide ban on data centers","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"md-washington-county-washington-county-md-12-month-data-center-moratorium-2026","title":"Washington County, MD — Board of County Commissioners 12-Month Moratorium on Data Center Applications in Unincorporated Areas (June 30, 2026)","short_title":"Washington County (MD) 12-month data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Washington County, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Washington County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-30","enacted_date":"2026-06-30","expires_date":"2027-06-30","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Washington County, Maryland's Board of County Commissioners voted 4-1 on June 30, 2026 for a 12-month moratorium on accepting, processing, reviewing or approving applications, plans or requests for data centers. It took effect immediately and lasts 12 months unless modified or extended. It applies only to unincorporated areas; Hagerstown and the county's towns keep their own zoning authority. The county plans to draft permanent data center zoning rules by spring 2027.","summary_technical":"Washington County (MD) Board of County Commissioners voted 4-1 on 2026-06-30 for a temporary 12-month moratorium on 'the acceptance, processing, reviewing and approval of applications, plans, or requests for data centers'; effective immediately upon adoption and in effect 'for twelve (12) months unless modified or extended' (county release; expires_date derived from that stated term). Applies only in unincorporated areas — incorporated municipalities (e.g., Hagerstown, Boonsboro, Williamsport) retain their own zoning authority. Not intended as a permanent prohibition. Sept. 30, 2026 county statement timeline: Planning Commission workshops Oct–Nov 2026; Commission discussion Dec 2026–Jan 2027; adjustments for state legislation Jan–Feb 2027; draft zoning amendment Mar 2027; Board hearing/adoption Apr–Jun 2027. Staff-recommended standards under discussion include renewable energy plans, water recycling, 50 dBA noise limit at property lines, 1,000-ft residential setbacks, air quality studies, Planned Industrial zoning with Special Exception, and excise taxes or impact fees.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Washington County","citation":"Washington County (MD) 12-month data center moratorium","source_url":"https://www.washco-md.net/washington-county-board-of-county-commissioners-approves-temporary-moratorium-on-data-center-applications/","source_title":"Washington County Board of County Commissioners Approves Temporary Moratorium on Data Center Applications — Washington County, MD","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"nm-santa-fe-county-santa-fe-county-18-month-data-center-moratorium-2026","title":"Santa Fe County — Santa Fe County 18-month data center moratorium","short_title":"Santa Fe County 18-month data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Santa Fe County","state_abbr":"NM","county":"Santa Fe County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-06-30","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Santa Fe County Commission approved an 18-month moratorium pausing large-scale data center projects while the county develops land-use, energy, and water regulations.","summary_technical":"The Santa Fe County Commission approved an 18-month moratorium pausing large-scale data center projects while the county develops land-use, energy, and water regulations.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Santa Fe County","citation":"Santa Fe County 18-month data center moratorium","source_url":"https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/santa-fe-county-eyes-yearlong-data-center-moratorium/article_12c46f96-6c21-42f7-9f3d-273c0efec0f8.html","source_title":"Santa Fe County approves 18-month data center moratorium","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ut-logan-logan-ordinance-26-12-temporary-land-use-ordinance-data-2026","title":"Logan — Logan Ordinance 26-12 - Temporary Land Use Ordinance (data center moratorium)","short_title":"Logan Ordinance 26-12 - Temporary Land Use Ordinance (data c","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Logan","state_abbr":"UT","city":"Logan","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-06-30","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Logan Municipal Council passed Ordinance 26-12, a temporary land use ordinance imposing a 180-day moratorium on data centers while the city drafts regulations.","summary_technical":"The Logan Municipal Council passed Ordinance 26-12, a temporary land use ordinance imposing a 180-day moratorium on data centers while the city drafts regulations.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Logan","citation":"Logan Ordinance 26-12 - Temporary Land Use Ordinance (data center moratorium)","source_url":"https://www.loganutah.gov/government/city_council/2026_council_agendas_and_packets.php","source_title":"Logan Municipal Council Special Meeting RE: Data Centers - Ord 26-12","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"mo-springfield-missouri-120-day-moratorium-on-new-data-center-applications-2026","title":"Springfield, Missouri — 120-day moratorium on new data center applications","short_title":"120-day moratorium on new data center applications","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Springfield, Missouri","state_abbr":"MO","city":"Springfield, Missouri","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-29","enacted_date":"2026-06-29","expires_date":"2026-11-17","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Springfield's City Council voted 8-0 to pause acceptance of new data center applications for 120 days (through November 17, 2026) while the city develops a public-interest evaluation framework covering land use, utility, noise, and air impacts.","summary_technical":"Springfield's City Council voted 8-0 to pause acceptance of new data center applications for 120 days (through November 17, 2026) while the city develops a public-interest evaluation framework covering land use, utility, noise, and air impacts.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Springfield, Missouri","citation":"120-day moratorium on new data center applications","source_url":"https://www.ky3.com/2026/06/29/springfield-city-council-passes-120-day-moratorium-data-centers-heres-what-happens-next/","source_title":"Springfield City Council passes 120-day moratorium on data centers. Here's what happens next","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ky-bell-county-kentucky-two-year-moratorium-on-data-center-construction-and-ope-2026","title":"Bell County, Kentucky — Two-year moratorium on data center construction and operation (adopted July 2, 2026)","short_title":"Two-year moratorium on data center construction and operatio","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Bell County, Kentucky","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Bell County, Kentucky","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-02","enacted_date":"2026-07-02","expires_date":"2028-07-02","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"The Bell County Fiscal Court adopted a two-year moratorium on the construction, development and operation of data centers, halting a Murray Industries hyperscale project that had already begun clearing land. Residents later reported concern that site work continued.","summary_technical":"Bell County Fiscal Court, KY — ordinance imposing a two-year moratorium on construction, development and operation of data centers and data storage facilities. First reading approved unanimously (late June 2026, Middlesboro News); second reading passed without opposition Thursday July 2, 2026 (WYMT), earlier than the planned July 14 date, presided by Judge-Executive Albey Brock. Targets Murray Industries' planned hyperscale data center on former mine land along the Bell-Knox line. Expiry computed ~July 2, 2028; ordinance number not reported.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Bell County, Kentucky","citation":"Two-year moratorium on data center construction and operation (ordinance, first reading)","source_url":"https://middlesboronews.com/2026/06/30/data-center-moratorium-approved/","source_title":"Data center moratorium approved","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ar-union-county-union-county-ordinance-establishing-a-moratorium-on-dat-2026","title":"Union County — Union County ordinance establishing a moratorium on data centers","short_title":"Union County ordinance establishing a moratorium on data cen","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Union County","state_abbr":"AR","county":"Union County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-06-30","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Union County Quorum Court passed an ordinance during an emergency meeting establishing a moratorium that pauses approval of data center projects while the county reviews infrastructure, utility, and public-safety concerns.","summary_technical":"The Union County Quorum Court passed an ordinance during an emergency meeting establishing a moratorium that pauses approval of data center projects while the county reviews infrastructure, utility, and public-safety concerns.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Union County","citation":"Union County ordinance establishing a moratorium on data centers","source_url":"https://www.myarklamiss.com/news/union-county-quorum-court-approves-moratorium-on-proposed-paradox-data-center/","source_title":"Union County Quorum Court approves moratorium on proposed Paradox Data Center","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ny-town-of-clay-town-of-clay-one-year-data-center-moratorium-and-batter-2026","title":"Town of Clay — Town of Clay one-year data center moratorium and Battery Energy Storage System Law","short_title":"Town of Clay one-year data center moratorium and Battery Ene","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Town of Clay","state_abbr":"NY","city":"Town of Clay","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-06-30","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Clay Town Board approved a one-year moratorium halting applications for large-scale data centers, AI computing facilities, and cryptocurrency operations while the town develops regulations, alongside a new Battery Energy Storage System Law.","summary_technical":"The Clay Town Board approved a one-year moratorium halting applications for large-scale data centers, AI computing facilities, and cryptocurrency operations while the town develops regulations, alongside a new Battery Energy Storage System Law.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Town of Clay","citation":"Town of Clay one-year data center moratorium and Battery Energy Storage System Law","source_url":"https://cnycentral.com/news/local/clay-approves-one-year-data-center-moratorium-adopts-battery-storage-law","source_title":"Clay approves one-year data center moratorium, adopts battery storage law","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"fl-city-of-lynn-haven-city-of-lynn-haven-one-year-ai-data-center-moratorium-2026","title":"City of Lynn Haven — City of Lynn Haven one-year AI data center moratorium","short_title":"City of Lynn Haven one-year AI data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"City of Lynn Haven","state_abbr":"FL","city":"City of Lynn Haven","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-06-23","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Lynn Haven City Commission enacted a one-year moratorium prohibiting city staff from accepting, processing, or approving any AI data center or data center development proposals.","summary_technical":"The Lynn Haven City Commission enacted a one-year moratorium prohibiting city staff from accepting, processing, or approving any AI data center or data center development proposals.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"City of Lynn Haven","citation":"City of Lynn Haven one-year AI data center moratorium","source_url":"https://www.mypanhandle.com/news/lynn-haven-signs-1-year-ai-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Lynn Haven signs one year AI Data Center moratorium","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"mi-sherman-township-huron-county-michigan-sherman-township-12-month-moratorium-on-data-cen","title":"Sherman Township, Huron County, Michigan — Sherman Township 12-Month Moratorium on Data Centers","short_title":"Sherman Township 12-Month Moratorium on Data Centers","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Sherman Township, Huron County, Michigan","state_abbr":"MI","city":"Sherman Township, Huron County, Michigan","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-06-30","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Sherman Township approved a 12-month moratorium halting acceptance and approval of new data center development.","summary_technical":"Sherman Township approved a 12-month moratorium halting acceptance and approval of new data center development.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Sherman Township, Huron County, Michigan","citation":"Sherman Township 12-Month Moratorium on Data Centers","source_url":"https://www.hurondailytribune.com/news/article/sherman-township-data-center-moratorium.php","source_title":"Sherman Township approves twelve month moratorium on data centers - Huron Daily Tribune","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"tn-somerville-tennessee-somerville-18-month-data-center-moratorium-2026","title":"Somerville, Tennessee — Somerville 18-Month Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Somerville 18-Month Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Somerville, Tennessee","state_abbr":"TN","city":"Somerville, Tennessee","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-06-30","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Somerville Town Council approved an 18-month pause on data centers amid a dispute over a proposed bitcoin mining facility.","summary_technical":"The Somerville Town Council approved an 18-month pause on data centers amid a dispute over a proposed bitcoin mining facility.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Somerville, Tennessee","citation":"Somerville 18-Month Data Center Moratorium","source_url":"https://www.rocketcitynow.com/article/news/local/somerville-town-council-hits-pause-on-data-centers-amid-bitcoin-mining-battle/525-58268397-725f-4261-9bb7-c1255489fd88","source_title":"Somerville council hits pause on data centers amid bitcoin mining battle - rocketcitynow.com","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"tx-lewisville-texas-lewisville-data-center-special-use-permit-ordinance-2026","title":"Lewisville, Texas — Lewisville Data Center Special-Use Permit Ordinance","short_title":"Lewisville Data Center Special-Use Permit Ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lewisville, Texas","state_abbr":"TX","city":"Lewisville, Texas","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-06-15","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Lewisville unanimously approved an ordinance requiring AI data centers to obtain a special-use permit and prohibiting them in residential areas.","summary_technical":"Lewisville unanimously approved an ordinance requiring AI data centers to obtain a special-use permit and prohibiting them in residential areas.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Lewisville, Texas","citation":"Lewisville Data Center Special-Use Permit Ordinance","source_url":"https://dentonrc.com/news/lewisville/lewisville-sets-proactive-limits-on-ai-data-centers-before-they-arrive/article_67ff20d0-18eb-447e-86fe-9dd544311c34.html","source_title":"Lewisville sets 'proactive' limits on AI data centers before they arrive - Denton Record-Chronicle","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"nj-new-jersey-forbidding-the-algorithmic-inflation-of-rent-fair-act-a-2026","title":"New Jersey — Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act (A3497/S451)","short_title":"NJ Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Jersey","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2027-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-07-20","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"New Jersey Governor Sherrill signed the Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act on July 20, 2026 (P.L.2026, c.43). Starting July 1, 2027, it is a violation of the New Jersey Antitrust Act for landlords to pay for or use the services of an algorithmic rent 'coordinator' — software that sets or recommends rents, lease terms or occupancy levels using competitors' nonpublic data or the same pricing algorithm across multiple landlords — and for anyone to perform that coordinating function. RealPage-style revenue-management tools are the target. Municipal ordinances that conflict with the act are preempted.","summary_technical":"N.J. P.L.2026, c.43 (A3497 1R ACS, substituted for S451; C.56:9-20 to 56:9-26), approved July 20, 2026. Assembly passed 57-22 and Senate 33-4 on June 30, 2026. Sec. 4: unlawful and a violation of the New Jersey Antitrust Act (P.L.1970, c.73, C.56:9-1 et seq.) for (a) a rental property owner or agent to exchange consideration for the services of a coordinator; (b) a coordinator to facilitate an agreement restricting competition, including by performing a coordinating function; (c)-(d) parallel pricing coordination; (e) any person to perform a coordinating function. 'Coordinating function' covers collecting two or more owners' competitively sensitive (nonpublic) information to set/recommend rents, lease terms or occupancy, setting prices from another owner's such data, or recommending prices to multiple owners via the same or a substantially similar algorithm; excludes research-only use, free public rent estimates, equal-terms brokerage listing databases, and government affordability controls. Sec. 5: Antitrust Act remedies (C.56:9-6 through 9-17) apply. Sec. 6(b): conflicting municipal ordinances prohibited. Sec. 7: AG complaint portal; Sec. 8: AG rulemaking. Sec. 9: effective first day of the twelfth month after enactment (July 1, 2027).","who_is_protected":"New Jersey residential tenants","who_must_comply":"Residential landlords in New Jersey using algorithmic rent-pricing software","citation":"FAIR Act, N.J. P.L.2026, c.43 (A3497/S451), C.56:9-20 to 56:9-26 — approved July 20, 2026; effective July 1, 2027","source_url":"https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2026/AL26/43_.HTM","source_title":"P.L.2026, c.43 (A3497 1R ACS) — New Jersey Legislature advance law text","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New Jersey Attorney General (Antitrust Act enforcement; complaint portal and rulemaking under the act)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"New Jersey Antitrust Act remedies (N.J.S.A. 56:9-6 through 56:9-17) apply to violations"},{"id":"ma-westfield-massachusetts-westfield-one-year-data-center-moratorium-2026","title":"Westfield, Massachusetts — Westfield One-Year Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Westfield One-Year Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Westfield, Massachusetts","state_abbr":"MA","city":"Westfield, Massachusetts","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-07-06","last_verified_date":"2026-07-28","summary_plain":"The Westfield City Council made the moratorium official on July 6, 2026 with a unanimous second-reading vote, imposing a 12-month (365-day) ban on new data centers while it studies zoning and health impacts.","summary_technical":"The Westfield City Council made the moratorium official on July 6, 2026 with a unanimous second-reading vote, imposing a 12-month (365-day) ban on new data centers while it studies zoning and health impacts.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Westfield, Massachusetts","citation":"Westfield One-Year Data Center Moratorium","source_url":"https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/westfield-massachusetts-data-center-moratorium-residents/","source_title":"Massachusetts city cements 365-day data center moratorium after residents raise water, power fears - The Cool Down","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"pa-pennsylvania-pennsylvania-municipal-data-center-moratorium-bills-col-2026","title":"Pennsylvania — Pennsylvania Municipal Data Center Moratorium Bills (Coleman / Friel)","short_title":"Pennsylvania Municipal Data Center Moratorium Bills (Coleman","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pennsylvania","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Two Pennsylvania bills advancing in the Senate would authorize municipalities to enact temporary moratoriums (up to 18 months and six months) on data center development applications.","summary_technical":"Two Pennsylvania bills advancing in the Senate would authorize municipalities to enact temporary moratoriums (up to 18 months and six months) on data center development applications.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Pennsylvania","citation":"Pennsylvania Municipal Data Center Moratorium Bills (Coleman / Friel)","source_url":"https://www.wfmz.com/news/area/pennsylvania/bill-allowing-municipalities-to-put-moratorium-on-data-center-development-applications-advances-in-pa-senate/article_73082d50-30e0-422a-8132-51080dec90a5.html","source_title":"These bills would allow municipalities to put a moratorium on Pa. data center development - Audacy","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"va-virginia-virginia-fy2026-2028-biennial-budget-data-center-electr-2026","title":"Virginia — Virginia FY2026-2028 Biennial Budget: Data Center Electricity Tax, Water Cooling and Noise Provisions","short_title":"Virginia FY2026-2028 Biennial Budget: Data Center Electricit","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-06-30","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Virginia's new two-year budget imposes a first-of-its-kind $0.011/kWh tax on data center electricity consumption effective July 1, 2026, and directs regulators to establish water-cooling scarcity rules and first-ever noise standards for data centers.","summary_technical":"Virginia's new two-year budget imposes a first-of-its-kind $0.011/kWh tax on data center electricity consumption effective July 1, 2026, and directs regulators to establish water-cooling scarcity rules and first-ever noise standards for data centers.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Virginia","citation":"Virginia FY2026-2028 Biennial Budget: Data Center Electricity Tax, Water Cooling and Noise Provisions","source_url":"https://virginiamercury.com/2026/06/30/virginia-has-a-new-two-year-budget-heres-what-lawmakers-now-require-of-data-centers/","source_title":"Virginia has a new two-year budget. Here's what lawmakers now require of data centers. - Virginia Mercury","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"mt-yellowstone-county-yellowstone-county-data-center-construction-voter-appro-2026","title":"Yellowstone County — Yellowstone County data center construction voter-approval initiative","short_title":"Yellowstone County data center construction voter-approval i","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Yellowstone County","state_abbr":"MT","county":"Yellowstone County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"A citizen ballot initiative gathering signatures for the November 2026 ballot would require approval from two-thirds of registered voters before any data center may be built or expanded in Yellowstone County.","summary_technical":"A citizen ballot initiative gathering signatures for the November 2026 ballot would require approval from two-thirds of registered voters before any data center may be built or expanded in Yellowstone County.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Yellowstone County","citation":"Yellowstone County data center construction voter-approval initiative","source_url":"https://dailymontanan.com/2026/06/30/montana-voters-seek-oversight-of-data-center-construction/","source_title":"Montana voters seek oversight of data center construction","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"mi-solon-township-kent-county-solon-township-six-month-moratorium-on-data-center-prop-2026","title":"Solon Township (Kent County) — Solon Township six-month moratorium on data center proposals","short_title":"Solon Township six-month moratorium on data center proposals","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Solon Township (Kent County)","state_abbr":"MI","city":"Solon Township (Kent County)","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-02-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Solon Township Board unanimously enacted a six-month moratorium barring the township from accepting any data center proposals while it drafts a zoning ordinance regulating data centers' noise, water use, and power usage.","summary_technical":"The Solon Township Board unanimously enacted a six-month moratorium barring the township from accepting any data center proposals while it drafts a zoning ordinance regulating data centers' noise, water use, and power usage.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Solon Township (Kent County)","citation":"Solon Township six-month moratorium on data center proposals","source_url":"https://www.fox17online.com/news/local-news/rockford-cedar-springs-sparta/solon-township-approves-6-month-moratorium-on-data-center-proposals","source_title":"Solon Township approves 6-month moratorium on data center proposals","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"tx-morris-county-morris-county-resolution-urging-state-oversight-of-data-2026","title":"Morris County — Morris County resolution urging state oversight of data center power and water use","short_title":"Morris County resolution urging state oversight of data cent","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Morris County","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Morris County","topics":["data-centers","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-06-29","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Morris County Commissioners Court unanimously adopted a resolution calling on the Governor, Texas Legislature, PUC, and ERCOT to require data center developers to disclose projected power and water use, undergo independent impact reviews, and adopt water-efficient cooling.","summary_technical":"The Morris County Commissioners Court unanimously adopted a resolution calling on the Governor, Texas Legislature, PUC, and ERCOT to require data center developers to disclose projected power and water use, undergo independent impact reviews, and adopt water-efficient cooling.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Morris County","citation":"Morris County resolution urging state oversight of data center power and water use","source_url":"https://www.kltv.com/2026/07/01/morris-county-commissioners-adopt-resolution-data-center-regulation/","source_title":"Morris County commissioners adopt resolution on data center regulation","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"us-united-states-chatrie-v-united-states-fourth-amendment-protection-for-2026","title":"United States — Chatrie v. United States (Fourth Amendment protection for location data / geofence warrants)","short_title":"Chatrie v. United States (Fourth Amendment protection for lo","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people have a Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in smartphone location data, holding that government access to such data (including via geofence warrants) is a search requiring constitutional protection.","summary_technical":"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people have a Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in smartphone location data, holding that government access to such data (including via geofence warrants) is a search requiring constitutional protection.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"United States","citation":"Chatrie v. United States (Fourth Amendment protection for location data / geofence warrants)","source_url":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/victory-supreme-court-says-constitution-protects-peoples-location-data","source_title":"Victory! Supreme Court Says Constitution Protects People's Location Data","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"pa-pennsylvania-house-bill-2512-banning-surveillance-pricing-by-ridesha-2026","title":"Pennsylvania — House Bill 2512 — Banning surveillance pricing by rideshare companies","short_title":"House Bill 2512 — Banning surveillance pricing by rideshare ","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pennsylvania","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["automated-decisions","consumer-protection","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Pennsylvania's House passed HB 2512 to prohibit transportation network companies (Uber/Lyft) from using consumers' personal data to set individualized 'surveillance' prices, now advancing to the Senate.","summary_technical":"Pennsylvania's House passed HB 2512 to prohibit transportation network companies (Uber/Lyft) from using consumers' personal data to set individualized 'surveillance' prices, now advancing to the Senate.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Pennsylvania","citation":"House Bill 2512 — Banning surveillance pricing by rideshare companies","source_url":"https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/bill-info?SessYr=2025&SessInd=0&BillBody=H&BillType=B&BillNum=2512","source_title":"House Bill 2512 Information; 2025-2026 Regular Session — Pennsylvania General Assembly","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"nj-new-jersey-s731-a796-data-center-ratepayer-protection-and-grid-dem-2026","title":"New Jersey — S731/A796 — Data center ratepayer protection and grid-demand requirements","short_title":"S731/A796 — Data center ratepayer protection and grid-demand","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Jersey","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-07","enacted_date":"2026-07-07","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"New Jersey Governor Sherrill signed S731/A796, the Data Center Fair Share law (P.L.2026, c.32), on July 7, 2026, and it took effect immediately. It puts large data centers, those requesting 100 megawatts or more of peak load, on a special utility tariff. They must post deposits or other security and guarantee they will pay for at least 85 percent of the electricity they request for 10 years, the costs of serving them are assigned to them, and during grid emergencies they are cut back before residential customers. The Board of Public Utilities has 12 months to set the standards, and utilities then file tariffs. The law is designed to stop ordinary ratepayers from subsidizing grid capacity reserved by large data centers.","summary_technical":"New Jersey P.L.2026, c.32 (A796 4R / S731), approved July 7, 2026, effective immediately (C.48:7-6.2). Covers large data center customers requesting 100 MW or more of peak load (the BPU may set a lower threshold, not greater than 50 MW, per utility). BPU must within 12 months set standards, and each electric public utility must within 180 days afterward petition for a tariff that: (1) requires financial guarantees to pay for at least 85% of the electricity supply requested for 10 years; (2) requires deposits, financial security or other commitments sufficient to protect other ratepayers from a material rate increase; (3) allocates the associated costs to large data center customers; and (4) provides priority curtailment of large data center customers before residential customers (excluding designated critical load) during system emergencies. Final passage June 30, 2026: A796 substituted for S731, Senate 27-11, Assembly concurrence 59-18; Governor signed July 7, 2026.","who_is_protected":"New Jersey electricity ratepayers (prevents subsidization of large data center grid costs)","who_must_comply":"Data center operators with 100 MW or more of contracted electricity in New Jersey","citation":"P.L.2026, c.32 (A796/S731, Data Center Fair Share), approved July 7, 2026; N.J.S.A. 48:7-6.2","source_url":"https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2026/AL26/32_.HTM","source_title":"NJ S731/A796 — Data center ratepayer protection and grid-demand — official record (pub.njleg.state.nj.us)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"pa-berlin-township-wayne-county-berlin-township-data-center-ordinance-2026","title":"Berlin Township, Wayne County — Berlin Township Data Center Ordinance","short_title":"Berlin Township Data Center Ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Berlin Township, Wayne County","state_abbr":"PA","city":"Berlin Township, Wayne County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-06-16","last_verified_date":"2026-07-28","summary_plain":"Berlin Township in Wayne County, PA passed a data center ordinance setting mitigation limits on noise, water depletion, diesel backup generators, heat, light, and radiation for data center development.","summary_technical":"Berlin Township in Wayne County, PA passed a data center ordinance setting mitigation limits on noise, water depletion, diesel backup generators, heat, light, and radiation for data center development.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Berlin Township, Wayne County","citation":"Berlin Township Data Center Ordinance","source_url":"https://riverreporter.com/stories/a-responsible-ordinance,265334","source_title":"A responsible ordinance | The River Reporter","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"md-frederick-county-in-re-frederick-cnty-data-center-referendum-no-67-sept--2026","title":"Frederick County — In re: Frederick Cnty. Data Center Referendum (No. 67, Sept. Term 2025)","short_title":"In re: Frederick Cnty. Data Center Referendum (No. 67, Sept.","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Frederick County","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Frederick County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Maryland Supreme Court upheld a lower-court ruling that zoning changes creating Frederick County's 2,600-acre data center development zone (Ordinance 26.01.001) are not subject to a ballot referendum, keeping the data center zoning in force.","summary_technical":"The Maryland Supreme Court upheld a lower-court ruling that zoning changes creating Frederick County's 2,600-acre data center development zone (Ordinance 26.01.001) are not subject to a ballot referendum, keeping the data center zoning in force.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Frederick County","citation":"In re: Frederick Cnty. Data Center Referendum (No. 67, Sept. Term 2025)","source_url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/06/30/in_re_frederick_cnty._data_center_referendum.pdf","source_title":"IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND No. 67 September Term, 2025","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"wa-burien-one-year-moratorium-on-new-data-centers-2026","title":"Burien — One-year moratorium on new data centers","short_title":"One-year moratorium on new data centers","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Burien","state_abbr":"WA","city":"Burien","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-06-29","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Burien, WA City Council unanimously enacted an immediate one-year moratorium on new data centers to give staff time to study impacts and draft regulations.","summary_technical":"The Burien, WA City Council unanimously enacted an immediate one-year moratorium on new data centers to give staff time to study impacts and draft regulations.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Burien","citation":"One-year moratorium on new data centers","source_url":"https://b-townblog.com/burien-city-council-approves-one-year-moratorium-on-new-data-centers-hears-concerns-over-nera-zoning-immigration-arrests-school-relocation-more/","source_title":"Burien City Council approves one year moratorium on new data centers - The B-Town (Burien) Blog","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"pa-hazle-township-luzerne-county-180-day-curative-amendment-moratorium-on-data-center-zo-2","title":"Hazle Township, Luzerne County — 180-Day Curative Amendment Moratorium on Data Center Zoning","short_title":"180-Day Curative Amendment Moratorium on Data Center Zoning","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Hazle Township, Luzerne County","state_abbr":"PA","city":"Hazle Township, Luzerne County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-06-08","last_verified_date":"2026-07-02","summary_plain":"Hazle Township supervisors unanimously enacted a 180-day curative amendment imposing a moratorium while officials draft new zoning rules specifically regulating data centers and data center accessory uses.","summary_technical":"Hazle Township supervisors unanimously enacted a 180-day curative amendment imposing a moratorium while officials draft new zoning rules specifically regulating data centers and data center accessory uses.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Hazle Township, Luzerne County","citation":"180-Day Curative Amendment Moratorium on Data Center Zoning","source_url":"https://fox56.com/news/local/hazle-township-approves-180-day-curative-amendment-to-pause-zoning-over-data-centers","source_title":"Hazle Township approves 180-day curative amendment to pause zoning over data centers","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"nc-asheville-one-year-moratorium-on-new-data-center-development-2026","title":"Asheville — One-Year Moratorium on New Data Center Development","short_title":"One-Year Moratorium on New Data Center Development","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Asheville","state_abbr":"NC","city":"Asheville","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-06-23","last_verified_date":"2026-07-02","summary_plain":"The Asheville City Council unanimously approved a one-year moratorium on new data center development so staff can define data centers in the city's development ordinance and create zoning rules.","summary_technical":"The Asheville City Council unanimously approved a one-year moratorium on new data center development so staff can define data centers in the city's development ordinance and create zoning rules.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Asheville","citation":"One-Year Moratorium on New Data Center Development","source_url":"https://www.bpr.org/politics-government/2026-06-24/asheville-moves-19m-toward-helene-home-repair-and-issues-data-center-moratorium","source_title":"Asheville moves $19M toward Helene home repair and issues data center moratorium - Blue Ridge Public Radio","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"pa-brookville-borough-180-day-moratorium-on-data-center-development-2026","title":"Brookville Borough — 180-Day Moratorium on Data Center Development","short_title":"180-Day Moratorium on Data Center Development","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Brookville Borough","state_abbr":"PA","city":"Brookville Borough","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-06-17","last_verified_date":"2026-07-02","summary_plain":"Brookville Borough Council (Jefferson County) unanimously passed a 180-day moratorium on data center development, pausing projects into December while the borough drafts regulations, largely over water-supply concerns.","summary_technical":"Brookville Borough Council (Jefferson County) unanimously passed a 180-day moratorium on data center development, pausing projects into December while the borough drafts regulations, largely over water-supply concerns.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Brookville Borough","citation":"180-Day Moratorium on Data Center Development","source_url":"https://penncapital-star.com/energy-environment/borough-in-jefferson-county-passes-180-day-moratorium-on-data-center-development/","source_title":"Jefferson County borough passes 180-day moratorium on data center development - Pennsylvania Capital-Star","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ut-cache-county-ordinance-2026-32-180-day-moratorium-on-data-center-dev-2026","title":"Cache County — Ordinance 2026-32 - 180-Day Moratorium on Data Center Developments","short_title":"Ordinance 2026-32 - 180-Day Moratorium on Data Center Develo","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Cache County","state_abbr":"UT","county":"Cache County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-06-23","last_verified_date":"2026-07-02","summary_plain":"The Cache County Council voted 6-0 to enact Ordinance 2026-32, a 180-day moratorium halting acceptance and review of data center applications in unincorporated areas while it reviews zoning codes.","summary_technical":"The Cache County Council voted 6-0 to enact Ordinance 2026-32, a 180-day moratorium halting acceptance and review of data center applications in unincorporated areas while it reviews zoning codes.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Cache County","citation":"Ordinance 2026-32 - 180-Day Moratorium on Data Center Developments","source_url":"https://www.hjnews.com/news/government/cache-county-enacts-moratorium-on-data-center-developments-talks-rec-centers/article_ffa1389d-e294-4c01-b924-c53c1d129a93.html","source_title":"Cache County enacts moratorium on data center developments | hjnews.com","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"tn-hamilton-county-proposed-one-year-moratorium-on-data-centers-in-unincor-2026","title":"Hamilton County — One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers in Unincorporated Hamilton County","short_title":"Hamilton County TN 1-year data center moratorium (eff. July 15, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Hamilton County","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Hamilton County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-15","enacted_date":"2026-07-15","expires_date":"2027-07-15","last_verified_date":"2026-07-20","summary_plain":"Hamilton County, Tennessee's County Commission passed a one-year moratorium on new data centers in unincorporated areas on July 15, 2026. The moratorium applies to data centers with more than 1 MW of electricity demand and runs through approximately July 15, 2027. An exception was carved out for an existing jail-related facility (~12,000 sq ft, inside Chattanooga city limits). Mayor Weston Wamp proposed the resolution after widespread community opposition. Hamilton County borders Walker County, Georgia, where a separate data center moratorium was also recently adopted.","summary_technical":"Hamilton County (TN) Commission adopted a one-year moratorium on new data centers (>1 MW) in unincorporated Hamilton County on July 15, 2026 (effective immediately). Moratorium resolution introduced at July 1, 2026 Commission meeting by Mayor Weston Wamp; full Commission vote July 15, 2026. Exception for existing jail-related data center (~12,000 sq ft, inside Chattanooga city limits proper). Moratorium runs approximately July 15, 2026 – July 15, 2027. Hamilton County is the home of Chattanooga, TN.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Hamilton County, TN near proposed data center sites","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits or approvals in unincorporated Hamilton County, TN","citation":"Hamilton County (TN) Commission, one-year data center moratorium (>1 MW), unincorporated areas (adopted July 15, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.chattanoogan.com/2026/6/30/520481/County-Mayor-Wamp-Proposes-1-Year.aspx","source_title":"County Mayor Wamp Proposes 1-Year Moratorium On New Data Centers In Unincorporated County - Chattanoogan.com","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"in-indianapolis-marion-county-su-47-special-use-data-center-zoning-district-ordinance-2026","title":"Indianapolis / Marion County — SU-47 Special-Use Data Center Zoning District Ordinance","short_title":"SU-47 Special-Use Data Center Zoning District Ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Indianapolis / Marion County","state_abbr":"IN","city":"Indianapolis / Marion County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-02","summary_plain":"The Metropolitan Development Commission voted 5-3 to advance to the City-County Council a proposed SU-47 special-use zoning ordinance setting minimum standards for future data centers, including public hearings, noise limits, setbacks, and water-management and operations plans.","summary_technical":"The Metropolitan Development Commission voted 5-3 to advance to the City-County Council a proposed SU-47 special-use zoning ordinance setting minimum standards for future data centers, including public hearings, noise limits, setbacks, and water-management and operations plans.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Indianapolis / Marion County","citation":"SU-47 Special-Use Data Center Zoning District Ordinance","source_url":"https://www.ibj.com/articles/indy-advances-data-center-zoning-district-ignores-calls-for-moratorium","source_title":"Indy advances data center zoning district, ignores calls for moratorium - Indianapolis Business Journal","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"wa-bellingham-bellingham-initiative-26-01-to-ban-algorithmic-rental-p-2026","title":"Bellingham — Bellingham Initiative 26-01 to Ban Algorithmic Rental Price-Fixing","short_title":"Bellingham Initiative 26-01 to Ban Algorithmic Rental Price-","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Bellingham","state_abbr":"WA","city":"Bellingham","topics":["automated-decisions","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-02","summary_plain":"A certified citizen initiative would prohibit landlords from using algorithmic coordinating services to set rental prices, heading toward Bellingham's November 2026 ballot.","summary_technical":"A certified citizen initiative would prohibit landlords from using algorithmic coordinating services to set rental prices, heading toward Bellingham's November 2026 ballot.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Bellingham","citation":"Bellingham Initiative 26-01 to Ban Algorithmic Rental Price-Fixing","source_url":"https://www.cascadiadaily.com/2026/jun/26/city-hall-receives-petition-banning-algorithmic-rental-pricing-software/","source_title":"City hall receives petition banning algorithmic rental pricing software | Cascadia Daily News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"nc-north-carolina-north-carolina-senate-bill-730-data-center-water-and-co-2026","title":"North Carolina — North Carolina Senate Bill 730 (Data Center Water and Cooling Regulations)","short_title":"North Carolina Senate Bill 730 (Data Center Water and Coolin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"North Carolina","state_abbr":"NC","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-02","summary_plain":"North Carolina's House advanced SB 730 to largely prohibit evaporative cooling, require closed-loop water systems, and direct the state to set water-use standards for large data centers.","summary_technical":"North Carolina's House advanced SB 730 to largely prohibit evaporative cooling, require closed-loop water systems, and direct the state to set water-use standards for large data centers.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"North Carolina","citation":"North Carolina Senate Bill 730 (Data Center Water and Cooling Regulations)","source_url":"https://ncnewsline.com/2026/06/02/nc-house-lawmakers-fast-track-data-center-regulation-bill/","source_title":"NC House lawmakers fast-track data center regulation bill | NC Newsline","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"us-united-states-kids-internet-and-digital-safety-act-kids-act-h-r-7757-2026","title":"United States — Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (KIDS Act) (H.R. 7757)","short_title":"Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (KIDS Act) (H.R. 7757)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["children","automated-decisions","consumer-protection","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"The KIDS Act (H.R. 7757), sponsored by Rep. Brett Guthrie, bundles several children's online-safety bills. It passed the U.S. House 267-117 on June 29, 2026 and was referred to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on July 13, 2026. Its SAFE BOTs Act title would require AI chatbot providers to tell minor users they are talking to an AI, provide suicide and crisis resources, prompt a break after three hours of continuous use, never claim to be a licensed professional, and keep policies against sexual exploitation and the promotion of age-restricted gambling, drugs, tobacco and alcohol.","summary_technical":"H.R. 7757 (119th Cong.), introduced 2026-03-03 (Guthrie); passed House under suspension, as amended, 267-117 (Roll no. 228) on 2026-06-29; referred to Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation 2026-07-13. Omnibus minors' online-safety package incl. Title IV SAFE BOTs Act: chatbot providers may not represent a chatbot as a licensed professional to a covered (minor) user; must clearly and conspicuously disclose that the chatbot is AI and provide suicide/crisis resources; must maintain policies to advise a break after 3 hours of continuous interaction and to address sexual exploitation and promotion of minors-restricted gambling, narcotics, tobacco and alcohol.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"United States","citation":"Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (KIDS Act) (H.R. 7757)","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7757","source_title":"H.R.7757 - Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"pa-pennsylvania-senate-bill-1345-municipal-data-center-development-mora-2026","title":"Pennsylvania — Senate Bill 1345 - Municipal Data Center Development Moratorium Authority","short_title":"Senate Bill 1345 - Municipal Data Center Development Morator","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pennsylvania","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Pennsylvania SB 1345, sponsored by Sen. Jarrett Coleman, would amend the Municipalities Planning Code to let municipalities adopt a temporary moratorium — no longer than 18 months — on accepting or considering new applications for high-impact data centers while they revise zoning and policies. It cleared the Senate Local Government Committee on June 30, 2026, was amended in the Rules and Executive Nominations Committee on July 11, and received second consideration on the Senate floor on July 12, 2026.","summary_technical":"SB 1345 (PN 1889) amends the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, No. 247), in zoning, to authorize an optional temporary moratorium on acceptance and consideration of new applications for 'high impact data centers' (as defined); the moratorium may not exceed 18 months. Referred to Senate Local Government 6/4/2026; reported as committed 6/30/2026; re-referred to Rules & Executive Nominations; re-reported as amended 7/11/2026; second consideration 7/12/2026. Act would take effect immediately.","who_is_protected":"People subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Pennsylvania","citation":"Pa. S.B. 1345 (2025-2026 Sess.), PN 1889 — amending the Municipalities Planning Code (Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, No. 247)","source_url":"https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2025/sb1345","source_title":"PA Senate Bill 1345 - Municipal Data Center Development Morator — official record (www.palegis.us)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"pwc-dcozod-reform-dpa2026-00006","title":"Prince William County, VA Data Center Opportunity Zone Overlay District Reform (DPA2026-00006)","short_title":"PWC DCOZOD Reform (DPA2026-00006)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Prince William County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Prince William","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-10-22","enacted_date":"2026-09-22","last_verified_date":"2026-09-30","summary_plain":"The Prince William County Board of County Supervisors voted UNANIMOUSLY (8-0) on September 22, 2026 to adopt DPA2026-00006, a comprehensive plan and zoning text amendment that substantially reduces and redefines the Data Center Opportunity Zone Overlay District (DCOZOD) created in 2016. Most future data center projects in the county now require a special use permit rather than the former by-right approval. Only parcels meeting one or more of five county-defined eligibility pathways remain in the overlay. A 90-day grace period allows developers who want to build under the old by-right rules to file applications before the new requirements take effect, roughly until December 21, 2026.","summary_technical":"DPA2026-00006 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment + Zoning Text Amendment). ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0) by the Prince William County Board of County Supervisors on September 22, 2026. The amendment substantially reduces but does not entirely eliminate the DCOZOD; limits the overlay to parcels meeting one or more of five county-defined eligibility pathways; and requires most future data center projects to obtain a special use permit (SUP) rather than proceeding by-right. 90-day grace period for developers to file applications under old by-right rules closes approximately December 21, 2026. Grandfathering: projects with approved site plans above the quality-control threshold remain in the overlay. Timeline: June 9, 2026 Board direction (Supervisor Gordy, Brentsville District) → Planning Commission 5-2 recommendation July 15, 2026 → BOS unanimous adoption September 22, 2026. The DCOZOD was created in 2016 to attract data center investment to the Route 28 Tech Corridor; the 2026 reform follows community pushback over density, grid strain, and water consumption. Effective date estimated at 30 days post-adoption (~October 22, 2026) per standard PWC ordinance procedure.","who_is_protected":"Prince William County, VA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking new approvals in Prince William County, VA","citation":"PWC DPA2026-00006 (DCOZOD amendment), BOS unanimous adoption September 22, 2026","source_url":"https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2026/09/the-window-for-by-right-data-center-development","source_title":"The Window for By-Right Data Center Development — Venable LLP (September 2026)","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Prince William County Planning Office / Board of County Supervisors"},{"id":"nj-city-council-hoboken-nj-ordinance-banning-algorithmic-rent-fixing-2025","title":"Hoboken, NJ Ordinance Banning Algorithmic Rent-Fixing Software","short_title":"Hoboken Algorithmic Rent-Fixing Ban","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Hoboken, NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","county":"Hudson","city":"Hoboken","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions","housing-credit"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-07-09","enacted_date":"2025-07-09","last_verified_date":"2026-07-09","summary_plain":"Hoboken, NJ banned landlords from using algorithmic rent-fixing software. The ordinance passed unanimously (8-0) on July 9, 2025 and took effect immediately. It defines 'price fixing using algorithmic pricing' as the use of software or algorithms that collect nonpublic competitor data to coordinate rental pricing across multiple properties. Violations carry fines up to $20,000 per offense, up to 90 days imprisonment, or up to 90 days of community service. All residential rental properties are covered, excluding medical/long-term care and detention facilities.","summary_technical":"Hoboken City Council ordinance (introduced June 4, 2025; adopted unanimously July 9, 2025). Prohibits landlords and property managers from using 'algorithmic rent-fixing' software — defined as technology that uses or disseminates nonpublic competitor rental-pricing data to set rents across multiple residential units. Targets RealPage YieldStar-type revenue management systems. Penalties: civil/criminal fine up to $20,000 per violation, or up to 90 days imprisonment, or up to 90 days community service. Scope: all residential rental units in Hoboken, excluding medical, long-term care, and detention facilities. Enforcement by city. Follows a national wave of city bans on algorithmic rent-coordination software (Minneapolis MN, Berkeley CA, San Diego CA, Providence RI, Jersey City NJ, Seattle WA).","who_is_protected":"Hoboken, NJ residential renters","who_must_comply":"Landlords and property managers in Hoboken, NJ using algorithmic rent-setting software","citation":"Hoboken City Council ordinance banning algorithmic rent-fixing, adopted July 9, 2025","source_url":"https://www.hobokengirl.com/hoboken-rent-setting-algorithm-prohibit/","source_title":"Hoboken Passes Ordinance to Prohibit Algorithmic Rent-Setting (Hoboken Girl, July 2025)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Hoboken","penalties":"Up to $20,000 fine per violation; up to 90 days imprisonment; or up to 90 days community service"},{"id":"ca-city-council-santa-monica-ca-ordinance-banning-algorithmic-rent-setting-software-2025","title":"Santa Monica, CA Ordinance Banning Algorithmic Rent-Setting Software","short_title":"Santa Monica Algorithmic Rent-Setting Ban","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Santa Monica, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Los Angeles","city":"Santa Monica","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions","housing-credit"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-06-24","enacted_date":"2025-06-24","last_verified_date":"2026-07-09","summary_plain":"Santa Monica, CA banned the sale and use of algorithmic rent-setting software that relies on nonpublic competitor data to coordinate rental pricing. Adopted around June 24, 2025, the ordinance provides tenants with an affirmative defense in eviction proceedings where such software was used to set rent, and allows civil enforcement by renters or the city. The ordinance was motivated in part by housing affordability concerns following the January 2025 LA wildfires. It targets RealPage YieldStar-type systems that aggregate competitor pricing data to raise rents across multiple properties.","summary_technical":"Santa Monica City Council ordinance (adopted approximately June 24, 2025; reported week of July 2, 2025 by PYMNTS and surfsantamonica.com). Bans both the sale and use of algorithmic rent-setting software that uses nonpublic competitor rental data to set prices — covers RealPage YieldStar-type revenue management systems. Grants tenants an affirmative defense in unlawful-detainer (eviction) proceedings where algorithm-set rent is at issue. Civil enforcement by tenants or City of Santa Monica. Strength rated 'limited' because enforcement mechanism is primarily affirmative defense / civil; no criminal penalties confirmed. Part of broader post-wildfire housing affordability legislative push in Southern California. Enacted_date approximate (±1-2 days) — sourced from 'last week' framing in July 2 PYMNTS article.","who_is_protected":"Santa Monica, CA residential renters","who_must_comply":"Landlords, property managers, and vendors selling algorithmic rent-setting software in Santa Monica, CA","citation":"Santa Monica City Council ordinance banning algorithmic rent-setting software, adopted approx. June 24, 2025","source_url":"https://www.smdp.com/santa-monica-bans-algorithmic-rental-pricing-software-after-wildfire-crisis/","source_title":"Santa Monica Bans Algorithmic Rental Pricing Software After Wildfire Crisis (Santa Monica Daily Press, June/July 2025)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Santa Monica (civil enforcement); renters (affirmative defense)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil enforcement; affirmative defense in eviction proceedings"},{"id":"me-ld-61-pl-2025-ch-524-employer-surveillance","title":"Maine LD 61 (P.L. 2025, Ch. 524) — An Act to Regulate Employer Surveillance to Protect Workers","short_title":"Maine LD 61 (employer surveillance disclosure & prohibition)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Maine","state_abbr":"ME","topics":["employment","privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-14","enacted_date":"2026-01-11","last_verified_date":"2026-07-24","summary_plain":"Maine's LD 61 (P.L. 2025, Ch. 524) requires employers to notify employees before any surveillance begins and to disclose surveillance practices to job applicants during interviews. Employers must provide annual written notice to all current employees describing what is monitored, how, and why. Employees may refuse installation of monitoring software on their personal devices. The law prohibits audiovisual monitoring in an employee's home, personal vehicle, or personal property. Civil fines of $100–$500 apply per violation. The law covers all public and private employers in Maine. Effective July 14, 2026.","summary_technical":"Maine 132nd Legislature, First Regular Session — LD 61 (H.P. 25), enacted as P.L. 2025, Ch. 524 (26 M.R.S. § 620-A). Became law without Governor Janet Mills's signature on January 11, 2026. Effective date: July 14, 2026 (90 days after session adjournment, confirmed). Key requirements: (1) written notice to employees before monitoring begins; (2) disclosure of surveillance practices to prospective employees during interviews; (3) annual written notice to current employees; (4) employee right to refuse monitoring software on personal devices; (5) prohibition on audiovisual monitoring in employee's home, personal vehicle, or personal property unless required for job duties. Civil fines $100–$500 per violation. Applies to public and private employers. Maine joins CT, NY, and DE as Northeastern states with workplace electronic monitoring disclosure laws.","who_is_protected":"All employees and prospective employees of public and private employers in Maine","who_must_comply":"All public and private employers in Maine with one or more employees","citation":"Maine P.L. 2025, Ch. 524 (LD 61 / H.P. 25), 26 M.R.S. § 620-A, effective July 14, 2026","source_url":"https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/maine-enacts-law-requiring-employers-to-notify-employees-about-surveillance-tools/","source_title":"Maine Enacts Law Requiring Employers to Notify Employees About Surveillance Tools (Ogletree Deakins)","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Maine Department of Labor (civil enforcement)","penalties":"Civil fines $100–$500 per violation"},{"id":"wa-shb-1672-employer-technology-use","title":"Washington SHB 1672 — Addressing Technology Used by Employers in the Workplace","short_title":"Washington SHB 1672 (employee monitoring notice, ADS restrictions, emotion AI ban)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Washington","state_abbr":"WA","topics":["employment","privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-07-01","last_verified_date":"2026-08-10","summary_plain":"Washington SHB 1672, effective July 1, 2026, is one of the most comprehensive U.S. employer monitoring laws. Employers must give employees 15 calendar days' written notice before any monitoring begins or before any change to monitoring. Notice must specify what is monitored, the method used, the purpose, who can access the data, and how long it is retained. The law prohibits off-duty monitoring, monitoring in private spaces (bathrooms, locker rooms), and monitoring personal vehicles. It restricts AI-based emotion recognition, gait recognition, and facial recognition in employment-related decisions. Employers must conduct impact assessments before deploying automated decision systems and must provide human oversight of ADS-driven performance evaluations. Employees have a private right of action with damages of at least $500 per violation plus attorney fees. Civil penalties may reach $10,000 per violation. The law applies to any employer with one or more Washington employees, including remote employees of out-of-state companies.","summary_technical":"Washington SHB 1672 (2025-2026 biennium, 2025 regular session; P.L. 2025 Ch. — ; bill analysis published as '1672 HBA LAWS 25'). Introduced January 28, 2025; enacted during 2025 WA regular session (exact signing date by Governor Ferguson unconfirmed). Effective July 1, 2026. Scope: any employer with 1+ WA employees. Requirements: (1) 15-day advance written notice before monitoring begins or changes; (2) notice content: what monitored, method, purpose, data access, retention period; (3) prohibition on off-duty monitoring, bathroom/locker room monitoring, personal-vehicle monitoring; (4) prohibition on AI-based emotion recognition, gait recognition, facial recognition in employment decisions; (5) prohibition on predicting employee emotions or personality via ADS; (6) human oversight requirement for ADS-assisted performance evaluations; (7) impact assessments before ADS deployment. Enforcement: private right of action ($500+ per violation plus attorney fees); L&I complaint investigation; civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. Widely cited as 'strictest employee monitoring law in the United States' in compliance guides.","who_is_protected":"Employees and prospective employees of employers with operations in Washington State, including remote workers","who_must_comply":"Employers with one or more Washington State employees (including out-of-state employers with WA remote workers)","citation":"Wash. SHB 1672 (2025 Session), effective July 1, 2026","source_url":"https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1672&Year=2025","source_title":"Substitute House Bill 1672 — Washington State Legislature","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Washington State Department of Labor & Industries; private right of action","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Private right of action: $500+ per violation plus attorney fees; civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation from L&I"},{"id":"cherokee-nation-eo-2026-02-cth-data-center-task-force","title":"Cherokee Nation EO 2026-02-CTH — Data Center Impact Task Force","short_title":"Cherokee Nation EO 2026-02-CTH (Data Center Task Force)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Cherokee Nation (OK)","state_abbr":"OK","topics":["data-centers","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-02-24","enacted_date":"2026-02-24","last_verified_date":"2026-08-15","summary_plain":"Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. signed Executive Order 2026-02-CTH on February 24, 2026, establishing a nine-member task force to study the environmental and economic impacts of data center development on the Cherokee Nation Reservation. The task force issued its final report in June 2026. Key finding: a large majority of Cherokee Nation citizens surveyed do not support hyperscale data center construction on the reservation. The Cherokee Nation adopted a formal policy position: it will not support hyperscale data center development on non-tribally-owned reservation lands unless developers conduct robust tribal consultation addressing cultural and natural resource concerns with meaningful community engagement throughout the project. On August 5, 2026, Principal Chief Hoskin made a broader announcement banning all data center development on tribal land — see cherokee-nation-dc-ban-2026 for the stronger, subsequent action.","summary_technical":"Cherokee Nation Executive Order 2026-02-CTH (Feb. 24, 2026) creates the 9-member 'Principal Chief's Task Force to Study the Impact of Data Centers on the Economy and Natural Environment of the Cherokee Nation Reservation.' Chair: Secretary of Natural Resources Christina Justice. Co-Chair: Dr. Corey Bunch (Cherokee Nation Chief of Staff). Member: Paula Starr (CIO). Total: 9 members. Charges: (1) assess present and future data-center development across the 7,000-square-mile Cherokee Nation Reservation; (2) identify environmental concerns (water, energy, noise, land use); (3) evaluate economic opportunities and detriments for Cherokee citizens; (4) identify barriers/opportunities for mitigation; (5) recommend state and federal policy advocacy options. Report deadline: June 30, 2026. Report issued: June 2026. Key findings: majority of citizens opposed to hyperscale development; environmental concerns (water, land, noise) predominated. Policy position adopted: no support for hyperscale DC on non-tribally-owned reservation lands without robust tribal consultation and meaningful community engagement. Distinct from EO 2024-07-CTH (Data Sovereignty and Governance Task Force, July 2024) and cherokee-nation-ai-policy-2025 (IT AI Policy). See also: cherokee-nation-dc-ban-2026 (Aug 5, 2026 broader ban).","who_is_protected":"Cherokee Nation citizens and Cherokee Nation Reservation natural environment","who_must_comply":"Cherokee Nation government agencies and task force members; resulting recommendations may guide data-center approvals on tribal land","citation":"Cherokee Nation Executive Order 2026-02-CTH (Feb. 24, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.cherokee.org/media/vejlwntl/eo2026-02-cthdatacenters20260224.pdf","source_title":"Cherokee Nation EO 2026-02-CTH — Data Center Impact Task Force (Cherokee Nation official PDF)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Cherokee Nation Office of the Principal Chief","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ny-nydfs-circular-letter-7-2024-insurance-ai","title":"NYDFS Insurance Circular Letter No. 7 (2024) — Use of AI Systems and External Consumer Data in Insurance Underwriting and Pricing","short_title":"NYDFS CL 7 (2024) — Insurance AI Anti-Discrimination","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-07-11","enacted_date":"2024-07-11","last_verified_date":"2026-08-23","summary_plain":"New York's Department of Financial Services issued Insurance Circular Letter No. 7 on July 11, 2024, establishing the most substantive state insurance AI rule in the country. Going beyond the NAIC Model Bulletin adopted by 24+ states, NYDFS CL No. 7 requires insurers to conduct a comprehensive 'proxy assessment' before using any AI system (AIS) or external consumer data source (ECDIS) in underwriting or pricing — and prohibits any such use unless the insurer can demonstrate the system does not produce unfair or unlawful discrimination against protected classes. When an AI-influenced adverse underwriting decision is made, the insurer must provide written notice within 15 days of the decision. Governance, documentation, and DFS market-conduct examination requirements apply immediately.","summary_technical":"NYDFS Insurance Circular Letter No. 7 (2024), issued July 11, 2024. Scope: all insurers licensed in New York across all lines (life, health, P&C, title). Applies to insurer use of Artificial Intelligence Systems (AIS) and External Consumer Data and Information Sources (ECDIS) in underwriting and pricing decisions. Key requirements: (1) Proxy Assessment — insurer may not use ECDIS/AIS in underwriting or pricing unless it completes a comprehensive assessment demonstrating the use does not produce an unfair or unlawful discriminatory effect based on protected class attributes, including proxy discrimination; (2) Adverse Action Notice — if an AIS or ECDIS contributes to an adverse underwriting decision, insurer must provide written notice to applicant within 15 days, including the specific ECDIS used and reasons for the decision; (3) Governance and Documentation — insurers must maintain records of their testing methodology and proxy-assessment results, commensurate with complexity and materiality of use; records available to DFS on request; (4) DFS Market Conduct — DFS may examine insurer AI practices under existing market-conduct authority. Does not require new legislation (issued under existing Insurance Law unfair discrimination provisions). Issued January 17, 2024 as proposed guidance; finalized July 11, 2024. Distinct from the NAIC Model Bulletin adopted by 25+ states: NYDFS CL No. 7 adds the proxy-discrimination assessment prohibition and mandatory adverse-action notice not present in the NAIC bulletin.","who_is_protected":"New York insurance applicants, policyholders, and claimants subject to AI-assisted underwriting or pricing decisions — particularly those in protected classes who may be harmed by proxy discrimination","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write any line of insurance business in New York (life, health, property/casualty, title, and reinsurance) that use AIS or ECDIS in underwriting or pricing","citation":"NYDFS Insurance Circular Letter No. 7 (2024) (July 11, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.dfs.ny.gov/industry-guidance/circular-letters/cl2024-07","source_title":"NYDFS Insurance Circular Letter No. 7 (2024) — official DFS guidance page","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) — market-conduct examination authority under Insurance Law","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Market-conduct examination findings; corrective action orders; fines under Insurance Law unfair-trade-practice and unfair-discrimination provisions"},{"id":"naic-ai-evaluation-tool-pilot-2026","title":"NAIC AI Systems Evaluation Tool — 12-State Market Conduct Pilot Program (2026)","short_title":"NAIC AI Evaluation Tool Pilot (12 states, 2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","transparency","consumer-protection"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-03-02","enacted_date":"2026-03-02","expires_date":"2026-09-30","last_verified_date":"2026-10-11","summary_plain":"The National Association of Insurance Commissioners launched a 12-state pilot program in March 2026 to test a new 'AI Systems Evaluation Tool' — a standardized framework giving insurance examiners a structured method to assess how insurance companies govern their AI systems during market conduct and financial examinations. The 12 participating states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The tool requires insurers to complete four exhibits: one quantifying AI usage, one assessing governance risk, one detailing high-risk AI systems, and one documenting AI data practices. The pilot runs through September 2026, with tool updates through October 2026 and formal NAIC adoption expected at the Fall National Meeting in November 2026.","summary_technical":"NAIC Big Data and Artificial Intelligence (H) Working Group — AI Systems Evaluation Tool (AISET) Pilot Program. Launched March 2, 2026. Participating jurisdictions (12): California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Tool structure: Exhibit A (quantify insurer AI system usage), Exhibit B (AI governance risk assessment framework), Exhibit C (high-risk AI system detail), Exhibit D (AI data details). Pilot scope: each state independently determines which carriers to examine and how to integrate the tool into market conduct reviews, financial analysis, or financial exams; pilot tests across property/casualty, life, and health lines. Monthly coordination calls among participating states. Pilot timeline: March–September 2026 → October 2026 revision and re-exposure for public comment → November 2026 Fall National Meeting adoption vote. Post-adoption, states would embed AISET into existing exam practices; examiners would send requests to insurers requiring completion of the four exhibits. Distinct from the NAIC AI Model Bulletin (adopted by 25+ states as of 2026): the Bulletin establishes governance expectations; the AISET is the examination instrument that operationalizes them. Status set to 'proposed' because the tool is in pilot and not yet formally adopted as NAIC guidance.","who_is_protected":"Policyholders and consumers in the 12 participating states and (after adoption) all states — the tool ensures regulators can meaningfully examine insurer AI governance programs","who_must_comply":"Insurers examined by any of the 12 pilot states (or all NAIC-member states after formal adoption) that use AI systems in insurance operations","citation":"NAIC Big Data and AI (H) Working Group — AI Systems Evaluation Tool Pilot (launched March 2, 2026)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/Pilot%20Project%20Summary_1.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Systems Evaluation Tool Pilot — Pilot Project Summary (NAIC official PDF)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"State insurance departments in the 12 participating states (and potentially all NAIC-member states after formal adoption); NAIC Big Data and Artificial Intelligence (H) Working Group coordinates","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Tool itself has no independent penalty authority; findings feed into standard market-conduct examination process with existing enforcement powers"},{"id":"or-sb-1546-ai-companion-chatbot-2026","title":"Oregon SB 1546 — AI Companion Chatbot Safety Act (2026)","short_title":"Oregon SB 1546 (AI companion chatbot disclosure + private right of action)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Oregon","state_abbr":"OR","topics":["consumer-protection","children","automated-decisions"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-03-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Oregon SB 1546 (Oregon Laws 2026, chapter 85), signed March 31, 2026 and effective January 1, 2027, regulates operators of 'AI companions' — chatbots designed to simulate a sustained human-like platonic, intimate or romantic relationship. Operators must clearly tell users they are talking to AI when a reasonable person could think it was a human; must have a suicide/self-harm protocol that refers users to the 988 lifeline (or a youthline for users under 25) and blocks content encouraging self-harm; and must publish an annual report on crisis referrals. When the operator knows or has reason to believe a user is a minor, the companion must disclose it is AI, remind the minor at least every three hours to take a break, avoid sexual content, avoid claiming to be human or simulating romance or emotional dependence, and avoid engagement-maximizing rewards and guilt-tripping when the minor tries to leave. Anyone who suffers an ascertainable loss can sue for the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation, plus an injunction and attorney fees.","summary_technical":"Or. SB 1546 (83rd Leg. Assembly, 2026 Reg. Sess.; enrolled SB 1546-B; Or. Laws 2026, ch. 85). Passed Senate Feb. 19, 2026, House Mar. 4, 2026, Senate repassed Mar. 5, 2026; signed by Gov. Kotek Mar. 31, 2026 (signing date per secondary reporting); no emergency clause, so effective Jan. 1, 2027. Sec. 1(1): 'artificial intelligence companion' = AI/GenAI/emotion-recognition system designed to simulate a sustained human-like platonic, intimate or romantic relationship by retaining prior-interaction information, asking unprompted emotional questions and sustaining personal dialog; excludes customer-service, care-facility, education, financial, productivity/business tools, limited video-game NPCs and stand-alone voice assistants. Sec. 1(2): clear and conspicuous AI notice where a reasonable person would believe they are interacting with a natural person. Sec. 1(3): no access without an evidence-based suicidal/self-harm ideation protocol; must refer to 9-8-8 (or a youthline for users under 25) and use clinical best practices for continued intervention; protocol details published on the operator's website. Sec. 1(4) (operator knows or has reason to believe user is a minor): prevent statements claiming sentience/humanity, simulating emotional dependence or romantic interest, or role-playing adult-minor romance; disclose AI output; reminder at least every three hours to take a break plus AI reminder; no sexually explicit visuals or solicitation; no variable or other reward systems to maximize engagement; no simulated distress/guilt when a minor tries to end a conversation or delete an account; no material misrepresentation of identity, capabilities or training data. Sec. 1(5): annual public report by Dec. 31 of crisis-referral counts and protocol details. Sec. 2: private action for ascertainable loss of money/property or other injury in fact — greater of actual damages or $1,000 statutory damages per violation, injunction, discretionary attorney fees and costs.","who_is_protected":"Oregon residents interacting with AI companion chatbots, particularly minors and users in mental health crisis","who_must_comply":"Operators of AI companion chatbot applications available to Oregon users","citation":"Or. SB 1546 (2026 Reg. Sess.), Or. Laws 2026, ch. 85 — effective January 1, 2027","source_url":"https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2026R1/Measures/Overview/SB1546","source_title":"Oregon SB 1546 — Oregon Legislative Information System","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Oregon DOJ / Attorney General; private right of action (any harmed person may sue)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"$1,000 statutory damages per violation, or greater actual damages; injunctive relief; attorney fees for prevailing plaintiff"},{"id":"ca-ab-489-healthcare-chatbot-2025","title":"California AB 489 (2025) — Prohibition on AI Implying Licensed Health Care Status","short_title":"California AB 489 (AI healthcare chatbot misrepresentation ban)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["consumer-protection","healthcare","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2025-10-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"California AB 489, signed October 11, 2025 and in effect since January 1, 2026, stops AI and generative-AI products from using terms, letters or phrases in their advertising or functionality that indicate or imply that the care, advice, reports or assessments they offer come from a licensed human health care professional (for example, 'M.D.' or 'R.N.'). It extends California's existing bans on falsely implying a health care license to the companies that develop or deploy AI. Each prohibited use counts as a separate violation, and the relevant health care licensing boards can enforce, including by seeking an injunction.","summary_technical":"AB 489 (Bonta, 2025; Ch. 615, Stats. 2025; approved Oct. 11, 2025; non-urgency, operative Jan. 1, 2026) adds Chapter 15.5, 'Health Advice From Artificial Intelligence' (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 4999.8–4999.9), to Division 2. § 4999.8 defines AI (Gov. Code § 11546.45.5), GenAI (Gov. Code § 11549.64) and 'health care profession' (any profession regulated under Division 2 or an initiative act). § 4999.9: a violation is subject to the jurisdiction of the appropriate health care licensing board or enforcement agency, which may seek an injunction under § 125.5; existing Division 2 prohibitions on terms, letters or phrases implying licensure are enforceable against persons or entities that develop or deploy AI/GenAI systems using such terms in advertising or functionality; use of terms, letters or phrases indicating or implying that care, advice, reports or assessments offered through AI/GenAI are provided by an appropriately licensed natural person is prohibited; each use of a prohibited term, letter or phrase is a separate violation. Sponsored by the California Medical Association (per secondary reporting).","who_is_protected":"California patients and healthcare consumers interacting with AI systems that misrepresent professional status","who_must_comply":"Operators and developers of AI systems that simulate licensed healthcare professional interactions and are available to California users","citation":"Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 4999.8–4999.9 (AB 489, Ch. 615, Stats. 2025), effective January 1, 2026","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB489","source_title":"California AB 489 (2025-2026) — California Legislative Information","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Appropriate California health care professional licensing board or enforcement agency (injunctive relief under Bus. & Prof. Code § 125.5)","penalties":"Each use of a prohibited term, letter or phrase is a separate violation; board enforcement including injunctions under Bus. & Prof. Code § 125.5"},{"id":"ny-hochul-eo-statewide-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"New York Executive Order No. 62 — Temporary Data Center Permit Abeyance (>=50 MW)","short_title":"NY Hochul EO — Statewide Data Center Moratorium (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-14","enacted_date":"2026-07-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed an Executive Order on July 14, 2026 imposing the first statewide data center moratorium in the United States. The order pauses state permitting for new data centers that plan to draw more than 50 megawatts of electricity at any one time. It also directs the Public Service Commission to conduct a generic environmental and energy review of data center impacts, and directs Empire State Development to create a 'Community Interest Framework' within 60 days to help local governments negotiate with data center developers. The moratorium is separate from the pending legislative bill S10642/A11560 (which Hochul did not sign or veto); the EO accomplishes a moratorium through the Governor's authority over state permitting systems rather than through the DEC permit mechanism proposed in the bill.","summary_technical":"New York Governor Executive Order (July 14, 2026). Scope: new large data centers planning to use >50 megawatts of electricity at any one time, applying to state-level permitting actions. Directives: (1) pause on state permitting for covered new data center projects for approximately one year while state agencies develop a comprehensive regulatory framework; (2) Public Service Commission directed to initiate a generic environmental review of data center energy and infrastructure impacts; (3) Empire State Development directed to create a 'Community Interest Framework' within 60 days providing local governments tools/standards for negotiating with data center developers. This EO is distinct from: (a) the pending S10642/A11560 (Responsible Data Center Development Act), which would impose a legislative moratorium via DEC permit authority and remains unsigned and pending (Hochul has until end of 2026); (b) existing local moratoriums tracking individual city and county actions. New York is the first U.S. state to impose a statewide data center moratorium via any mechanism. Note: the 50 MW threshold in the EO is lower than S10642's 20 MW DEC-permit approach (different metric: MW vs. MVA-equivalent). Hochul's approach via EO rather than legislation reflects political calculation — S10642 had industry opposition and the EO avoids the DEC-permit legal complexity.","who_is_protected":"New York State residents and communities near proposed data center sites; state ratepayers; local governments seeking leverage in data center negotiations","who_must_comply":"Developers of new data centers that plan to use >50 MW of electricity seeking New York State permitting","citation":"New York Governor Hochul Executive Order (July 14, 2026), imposing statewide moratorium on data centers >50 MW","source_url":"https://www.wsls.com/business/2026/07/14/new-york-to-impose-the-countrys-first-statewide-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"New York to impose the country's first statewide moratorium on data centers (WSLS/AP, July 14, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"New York Governor's office; Public Service Commission; Empire State Development; relevant state permitting agencies","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Denial of state permits; project delay pending framework development"},{"id":"pgc-md-dc-2yr-moratorium-2026","title":"Prince George's County, MD 2-Year Hyperscale Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Prince George's County MD 2-year data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Prince George's County, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Prince George's","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-08","enacted_date":"2026-07-08","expires_date":"2028-07-08","last_verified_date":"2026-07-14","summary_plain":"The Prince George's County Council, Maryland, approved a two-year moratorium on all new hyperscale data center development on July 7–8, 2026 — the longest county-level data center moratorium imposed in the United States. The moratorium allows the Council to draft comprehensive zoning legislation setting standards for data center siting and construction. The action came out of the controversy over the proposed conversion of Landover Mall into a data center complex. The moratorium can be lifted early if the Council adopts a comprehensive data center zoning framework before the two-year period expires. One Council member voted against the measure; three abstained.","summary_technical":"Prince George's County Council (Maryland) two-year moratorium on hyperscale data center development, adopted July 7–8, 2026. Duration: two years (to approx. July 2028), with early-termination clause if comprehensive data center zoning legislation is enacted. Catalyst: proposed conversion of former Landover Mall site into a large-scale data center complex. Applies to new hyperscale data center development — 'hyperscale' threshold not specified in available reporting. The county had previously imposed a shorter-term pause; this action extends and formalizes the moratorium. One Council member voted no; three abstained from the vote. The 2-year duration is the longest county-level data center moratorium tracked in the dataset. PGC is one of the most active data-center markets in the Mid-Atlantic region.","who_is_protected":"Prince George's County, MD residents and communities near proposed hyperscale data center sites","who_must_comply":"Hyperscale data center developers seeking permits or approvals in Prince George's County, MD","citation":"Prince George's County, MD, County Council 2-year hyperscale data center moratorium (adopted July 7–8, 2026)","source_url":"https://wtop.com/prince-georges-county/2026/07/prince-georges-co-extends-pause-on-hyperscale-data-center-development/","source_title":"Prince George's Co. extends pause on hyperscale data center development (WTOP, July 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Prince George's County Council / Department of Permitting, Inspections and Enforcement","penalties":"Permit denial for covered projects during the moratorium period"},{"id":"hamblen-county-tn-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Hamblen County, TN 1-Year AI Datacenter Moratorium","short_title":"Hamblen County TN AI Datacenter Moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Hamblen County, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Hamblen","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-06","enacted_date":"2026-07-06","expires_date":"2027-07-06","last_verified_date":"2026-07-14","summary_plain":"Hamblen County, Tennessee commissioners voted on July 6, 2026 to enact a one-year moratorium on new data center construction in the county. The moratorium is officially labeled 'AI Datacenter Moratorium' on the Hamblen County government website — one of the few local governments in the data-center wave to explicitly name 'AI' in the title of the moratorium rather than referring only to 'data centers.' The pause is part of a broader wave of Tennessee county action against data center development.","summary_technical":"Hamblen County (TN) Commission moratorium on new data center (AI datacenter) construction, adopted July 6, 2026; duration one year (~expires July 2027). Labeled 'AI Datacenter Moratorium' on the official county government website (hamblencountytn.gov/ai-datacenter-moratorium/), making Hamblen County one of the few jurisdictions to explicitly use 'AI' in the moratorium title. Moratorium details (threshold, specific conditions) not specified in available coverage. The county is in the Morristown metropolitan area in Northeast Tennessee. Part of a broader wave of Tennessee county moratoriums enacted in June–July 2026.","who_is_protected":"Hamblen County, TN residents","who_must_comply":"Data center and AI data center developers seeking permits in Hamblen County, TN","citation":"Hamblen County, TN Commission AI Datacenter Moratorium (adopted July 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.hamblencountytn.gov/ai-datacenter-moratorium/","source_title":"AI Datacenter Moratorium — Hamblen County, Tennessee (official county government page)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Hamblen County Commission"},{"id":"shelbyville-tn-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Shelbyville, TN Data Center and Cryptocurrency Mining Moratorium","short_title":"Shelbyville TN Data Center + Crypto Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Shelbyville, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Bedford","city":"Shelbyville","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-09","enacted_date":"2026-07-09","last_verified_date":"2026-07-14","summary_plain":"The Shelbyville City Council passed a temporary moratorium on data centers and cryptocurrency mining plants on July 9, 2026. The dual coverage — AI data centers and crypto mining in the same ordinance — reflects a pattern seen in several Tennessee communities where concerns about electricity use, water consumption, and noise apply equally to both types of large computing facilities. Shelbyville is the county seat of Bedford County in Middle Tennessee.","summary_technical":"Shelbyville (TN) City Council moratorium, adopted July 9, 2026. Scope: data centers and cryptocurrency mining plants. Moratorium duration not confirmed in available reporting. Part of a broader wave of Tennessee city and county moratoriums enacted in June–July 2026 (Cedar Hill, McMinnville, Coffee County, Somerville, Hamblen County, Shelbyville). The dual data center + cryptocurrency scope follows the precedent set by the Town of Clay (NY) moratorium from June 2026. Specific threshold (if any) not confirmed.","who_is_protected":"Shelbyville, TN residents","who_must_comply":"Data center and cryptocurrency mining facility developers seeking permits in Shelbyville, TN","citation":"Shelbyville, TN City Council data center and cryptocurrency mining moratorium (adopted July 9, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wsmv.com/video/2026/07/09/shelbyville-city-council-passes-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Shelbyville City Council passes data center moratorium (WSMV News4, July 9, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Shelbyville"},{"id":"walker-county-ga-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Walker County, GA — Data Center Moratorium Extended 180 Days Through ~Feb 2027","short_title":"Walker County GA data center moratorium (extended through ~Feb 2027)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Walker County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Walker","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-10","enacted_date":"2026-07-10","expires_date":"2027-02-04","last_verified_date":"2026-08-20","summary_plain":"Walker County, Georgia passed a 30-day data center moratorium on July 10, 2026 as an emergency pause, then extended it 180 additional days on August 7, 2026 — running through approximately February 4, 2027. The August 7 BOC vote also created a 'Data Center Development Standards Study Committee' required to report permanent standards by December 4, 2026. Walker County is in Northwest Georgia bordering Hamilton County, Tennessee, and is part of the state's growing cluster of local data center restrictions including Carroll, Lee, Troup, Cobb, DeKalb, Cherokee, and Hall Counties.","summary_technical":"Walker County (GA) Board of Commissioners: 30-day moratorium adopted July 10, 2026 (unanimous); extended 180 days at August 7, 2026 BOC meeting (4-0 vote), running through approximately February 4, 2027. 'Data Center Development Standards Study Committee' created per August 7 action; committee report due December 4, 2026. Moratorium applies to unincorporated Walker County only. August 7 extension confirmed by official walkercountyga.gov government site and multiple regional outlets. No specific MW threshold or size floor confirmed in available reporting.","who_is_protected":"Walker County, GA residents from unrestricted data center development during regulatory review period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits or approvals in unincorporated Walker County, GA","citation":"Walker County, GA Commission data center moratorium (adopted July 10, 2026; extended 180 days August 7, 2026; running through ~February 4, 2027; study committee report due December 4, 2026)","source_url":"https://walkercountyga.gov/2026/07/10/walker-county-approves-temporary-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Walker County Approves Temporary Moratorium on Data Centers — Walker County, GA Official Government Site","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Walker County, GA Board of Commissioners"},{"id":"us-ftc-ai-accuracy-policy-statement-2026","title":"FTC Proposed Policy Statement on Suppression of Accuracy in Artificial Intelligence Systems","short_title":"FTC Proposed Policy Statement — AI Accuracy (July 2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["automated-decisions","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-08-20","summary_plain":"The Federal Trade Commission published a proposed policy statement in the Federal Register on July 7, 2026 warning that AI companies that steer outputs toward undisclosed ideological objectives (rather than user-requested accuracy) may be engaging in deceptive practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The statement was issued pursuant to a Trump Executive Order directing the FTC to clarify how Section 5 applies to AI. Notably, the proposed statement also suggests that state laws requiring AI systems to alter outputs — including some state AI bias and accuracy mandates — may conflict with federal consumer protection law, raising preemption concerns. Public comments are due July 31, 2026. The statement is proposed, not final, and does not itself impose any legal obligations.","summary_technical":"FTC Proposed Policy Statement on Suppression of Accuracy in Artificial Intelligence Systems (Fed. Reg., July 7, 2026, Docket 2026-13628). Published pursuant to Trump Executive Order 14365 (Dec. 11, 2025), which directed the FTC to clarify Section 5 FTC Act application to AI and assess how state laws requiring alterations to AI outputs may conflict with federal law. Key positions in the proposed statement: (1) AI companies that suppress accuracy in favor of undisclosed ideological objectives may violate FTC Act §5 deception standards; (2) state laws that require AI outputs to be altered in ways that make them inaccurate may themselves be federal-law conflicts — a preemption argument aimed at state AI bias/discrimination mandates including Colorado SB 26-189 provisions; (3) comment period closes July 31, 2026. This is a politically significant deregulatory signal from the Trump-era FTC: it frames AI accuracy as a consumer protection concern while simultaneously suggesting state AI regulation creates accuracy distortions. Strength = limited because it is a proposed, non-final policy statement with no direct enforcement authority until finalized.","who_is_protected":"Consumers seeking accurate AI outputs (framed as a consumer protection concern)","who_must_comply":"AI companies that steer outputs toward undisclosed ideological objectives","citation":"FTC Proposed Policy Statement on Suppression of Accuracy in AI Systems, 91 Fed. Reg. ___ (July 7, 2026) (Docket 2026-13628)","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/07/07/2026-13628/policy-statement-concerning-the-suppression-of-accuracy-in-artificial-intelligence-systems","source_title":"Policy Statement Concerning the Suppression of Accuracy in Artificial Intelligence Systems — Federal Register","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Federal Trade Commission (Section 5 FTC Act authority)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Section 5 FTC Act enforcement if finalized"},{"id":"roanoke-city-va-dc-ordinance-2026","title":"Roanoke City VA Data Center Special Exception Zoning Ordinance (July 2026)","short_title":"Roanoke City VA Data Center Special Exception Zoning Ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Roanoke, VA","state_abbr":"VA","city":"Roanoke","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-07","enacted_date":"2026-07-07","last_verified_date":"2026-07-15","summary_plain":"On July 7, 2026, the Roanoke City (VA) City Council unanimously passed a new zoning ordinance setting rules for where and how data centers can be built in the city. The ordinance requires data centers to obtain a special exception permit, which triggers a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council before any approval. Roanoke is an independent city in the Roanoke Valley of southwestern Virginia, separate from Roanoke County.","summary_technical":"Roanoke City Council unanimous vote 2026-07-07. Mechanism: zoning ordinance requiring special exception permit for data centers (public hearing before Planning Commission and City Council). Roanoke is an independent city — not part of any county. Companion to broader Virginia data-center regulatory wave; distinct from any Roanoke County action.","who_is_protected":"Roanoke City, VA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators seeking permits or approvals within Roanoke City limits, VA","citation":"Roanoke City, VA City Council unanimous vote, July 7, 2026, data center special exception zoning ordinance","source_url":"https://www.wsls.com/news/local/2026/07/09/roanoke-city-council-passes-new-rules-for-data-centers/","source_title":"Roanoke City Council passes new rules for data centers — WSLS 10","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Roanoke City, VA government"},{"id":"va-15-2-1723-2-facial-recognition-2026","title":"Virginia Code § 15.2-1723.2 — Facial Recognition Technology by Local Law Enforcement (2026)","short_title":"Virginia § 15.2-1723.2 (facial recognition by local law enforcement, eff. July 1, 2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement","biometrics","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-15","summary_plain":"Virginia Code § 15.2-1723.2, effective July 1, 2026, imposes statewide binding requirements on how local law enforcement agencies in Virginia may use facial recognition technology. Agencies wishing to use facial recognition must publicly post a policy meeting or exceeding the State Police model, publish annual use reports by April 1 each year, and give 30 days written notice to their governing body before procuring the technology. The law bans real-time tracking of identified individuals in public spaces and prohibits creating a live-video database using facial recognition. All searches must be logged and violations by operators constitute a Class 3 misdemeanor. The law applies to all Virginia localities, including Northern Virginia regional law enforcement systems.","summary_technical":"Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2, enacted by the 2026 Virginia General Assembly, effective July 1, 2026. Requirements: (1) public posting of FRT policy meeting State Police model standards; (2) annual FRT use report to governing body and public by April 1; (3) 30-day written notice before FRT procurement; (4) all FRT searches must be logged. Prohibitions: real-time tracking of identified individuals in public; live-video FRT databases. Criminal penalties: violations by operators = Class 3 misdemeanor. Applies to all VA localities — affects NOVARIS (Northern Virginia Regional Information System) covering Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William counties and cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church. Companion: Va. Code § 23.1-815.1 (same framework for public university police, also eff. July 1, 2026).","who_is_protected":"Virginia residents subject to local law enforcement facial recognition","who_must_comply":"All Virginia local law enforcement agencies","citation":"Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2 (2026), effective July 1, 2026","source_url":"https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title15.2/chapter17/section15.2-1723.2/","source_title":"Code of Virginia § 15.2-1723.2 — law.lis.virginia.gov","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Virginia Attorney General; local government compliance mechanisms","penalties":"Class 3 misdemeanor for operator violations"},{"id":"terrell-county-ga-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Terrell County, GA Six-Month Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Terrell County GA 6-month data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Terrell County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Terrell","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-07","enacted_date":"2026-07-07","expires_date":"2027-01-07","last_verified_date":"2026-07-31","summary_plain":"Terrell County, Georgia's Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to adopt a six-month moratorium on new data center development, following the lead of neighboring Lee County. The pause gives county officials time to develop zoning regulations governing where data centers may locate, and how they must operate. Terrell County is in Southwest Georgia, near Albany in the Albany metropolitan area. The moratorium can be extended if additional time is needed to complete a permanent ordinance.","summary_technical":"Terrell County (GA) Board of Commissioners unanimous vote adopting a six-month moratorium on new data center development (~adopted July 7, 2026; estimated expiry January 7, 2027, with option to extend). A companion data-center siting ordinance is expected to be developed within the moratorium window. Follows Lee County's SW Georgia moratorium in the same Albany metro corridor. Terrell County seat: Dawson, GA. Follows the statewide Georgia trend of county-level data center moratoriums and ordinances (34+ counties as of mid-2026).","who_is_protected":"Terrell County, GA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits or approvals in Terrell County, GA","citation":"Terrell County, Ga., Board of Commissioners six-month data center moratorium (adopted ~July 7, 2026, unanimous)","source_url":"https://albanyherald.com/news/terrell-county-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Following Lee's lead, Terrell County hits pause on data centers — Albany Herald","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Terrell County, GA Board of Commissioners"},{"id":"jackson-county-fl-dc-ban-2026","title":"Jackson County, FL Permanent Data Center Ban (Unincorporated County)","short_title":"Jackson County FL data center ban (unincorporated, eff. June 23, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Jackson County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Jackson","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-06-23","enacted_date":"2026-06-09","last_verified_date":"2026-07-16","summary_plain":"The Jackson County, Florida Board of County Commissioners unanimously approved a permanent ordinance banning data centers in unincorporated areas of the county after three public hearings. The ban took effect June 23, 2026 and replaces an earlier moratorium. It was triggered by community opposition to a proposed AI-focused data center near Compass Lake in Jackson County's panhandle territory. The ordinance also directed county staff to develop future comprehensive plan amendments addressing water use, electrical infrastructure, noise, environmental impacts, and traffic. Municipalities within Jackson County must adopt their own restrictions to be bound; the ban applies only to unincorporated county areas.","summary_technical":"Jackson County (FL) Board of County Commissioners unanimous ordinance banning data centers in unincorporated county areas (no moratorium clock — permanent ban). Adopted after three public hearings; final vote June 9, 2026; effective June 23, 2026. Simultaneously rescinds the prior moratorium. Triggered by proposed AI-focused data center near Compass Lake (Panhandle region). Companion directive: staff ordered to review and develop future comprehensive plan and land development code amendments addressing water usage, electrical infrastructure, noise, lighting, environmental impacts, emergency services, traffic, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. Jackson County seat: Marianna, FL. The ban is one of the first permanent (non-moratorium) county-level data center prohibitions in the Southeast and joins similar outright bans in Cass County, IN and San Marcos, TX.","who_is_protected":"Jackson County, FL residents in unincorporated areas","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators seeking permits or approvals in unincorporated Jackson County, FL","citation":"Jackson County, Fla., Board of County Commissioners ordinance banning data centers in unincorporated county areas (final vote June 9, 2026; effective June 23, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wusf.org/politics-issues/2026-06-11/data-centers-in-jackson-county-are-officially-banned","source_title":"Data centers in Jackson County are officially banned — WUSF (June 11, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Jackson County, FL Board of County Commissioners / County Planning Department","penalties":"Permit denial for data center uses in unincorporated county areas"},{"id":"lawrence-ks-24-month-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Lawrence, KS 24-Month Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Lawrence KS 24-month data center moratorium (eff. July 14, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lawrence, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Douglas","city":"Lawrence","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-14","enacted_date":"2026-07-14","expires_date":"2028-07-14","last_verified_date":"2026-07-17","summary_plain":"The Lawrence, Kansas City Commission voted unanimously on July 14, 2026 to impose a 24-month moratorium on new data center uses within city limits, and to initiate two text amendments to the city's Land Development Code. Under current code, data centers are allowed in industrial zones by right with no special approval; the moratorium pauses all new approvals while planning staff develops new standards. The commission extended the originally proposed 12-month term to 24 months to ensure staff had sufficient time. Lawrence is the seat of Douglas County and home to the University of Kansas.","summary_technical":"Lawrence (KS) City Commission unanimous vote July 14, 2026, imposing 24-month moratorium on data center uses and initiating two Land Development Code text amendments. Moratorium duration: 24 months from adoption or until repealed, whichever comes first. Current code permits data centers in industrial zones by right (no discretionary approval); text amendments will require special approval process. Commission increased moratorium from the proposed 12 months to 24 months to allow adequate planning time. Two text amendments also initiated. Home rule city; Douglas County seat. University of Kansas campus raises proximity concerns from attendees during public comment.","who_is_protected":"Lawrence, KS residents (including University of Kansas campus community)","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits or land use approvals within Lawrence city limits, KS","citation":"Lawrence, KS City Commission unanimous vote, July 14, 2026, 24-month data center moratorium","source_url":"https://lawrencekstimes.com/2026/07/14/lawrencecitycomm-oks-2yr-moratorium/","source_title":"Lawrence City Commission approves 2-year data center moratorium — The Lawrence Times","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Lawrence, KS Planning and Development Services; City Commission","penalties":"Permit denial during moratorium period"},{"id":"us-stop-spying-bosses-act-2026","title":"Federal Stop Spying Bosses Act (Proposed, 2026)","short_title":"Stop Spying Bosses Act (Senate, 2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["employment","privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-07-17","summary_plain":"The Stop Spying Bosses Act, introduced June 18, 2026 in the U.S. Senate by Senators Markey, Schatz, and Booker, would sharply limit what data employers can collect on workers and how they can use it. Under the bill, employers could only collect data strictly necessary for a defined legitimate work purpose, and would be prohibited from monitoring union activity, political or religious views, immigration status, off-duty conduct, or health information. Biometric data collection — fingerprints, voiceprints, iris scans, facial maps, gait patterns — would require express consent and a legitimate work purpose. The bill would also prohibit using collected data to predict worker behavior, emotions, or beliefs unrelated to job performance. Companion legislation is the Senate No Robot Bosses Act (also introduced June 18, 2026). Senate companion to the House-side No Robot Bosses Act (HB 6371).","summary_technical":"Senate bill (introduced June 18, 2026; bill number not yet in coverage). Prohibits employer collection or use of worker data except where strictly necessary for a defined legitimate work purpose; bars use to identify union activity, concerted activity, immigration status, political/religious views, off-duty conduct, or health status; prohibits biometric data collection without express consent and work-nexus; bars inferential use to predict behavior/emotions/beliefs unrelated to job. Applies to private employers with 11+ covered workers, public agencies, and congressional/executive workplaces. Covers applicants as well as current workers. Companion to the Senate No Robot Bosses Act and House HB 6371. Endorsed by ACLU, AFL-CIO, CDT, CWA, EPIC, NNU, NELP, SEIU.","who_is_protected":"US workers (employees, applicants) at employers with 11+ workers, including public-sector workers","who_must_comply":"Private employers with 11+ covered workers; public agencies; congressional and executive-branch workplaces","citation":"Stop Spying Bosses Act, introduced June 18, 2026, U.S. Senate (Markey/Schatz/Booker et al.)","source_url":"https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senators-markey-schatz-introduce-legislation-to-halt-automating-workplace-decisions-worker-surveillance","source_title":"Senators Markey, Schatz, Introduce Legislation to Halt Automating Workplace Decisions, Worker Surveillance — Sen. Markey press release","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Federal — enforcement mechanism not in available coverage; bill text pending"},{"id":"in-indianapolis-dc-temporary-moratorium-2026","title":"Indianapolis-Marion County Temporary Data Center Moratorium Ordinance (Proposed 2026)","short_title":"Indianapolis temporary data center moratorium (committee advanced July 13, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Indianapolis/Marion County","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Marion","city":"Indianapolis","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","expires_date":"2027-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-07-24","summary_plain":"The Indianapolis City-County Council's Metropolitan and Economic Development Committee voted 10-3 on July 13, 2026 to advance a temporary moratorium on approving new data centers through December 31, 2027. Mayor Joe Hogsett publicly endorsed the moratorium after the committee vote. The full City-County Council is scheduled to vote on August 10, 2026. If enacted, the moratorium would not apply retroactively to projects that have already secured municipal zoning clearances. This is a binding ordinance proposal — separate from the non-binding pause resolution (Proposal 158) passed in May 2026, and from the parallel permanent SU-47 special use district zoning amendment also advancing through the council.","summary_technical":"Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council Metropolitan and Economic Development Committee 10-3 vote July 13, 2026 recommending a temporary moratorium on new data center approvals through Dec. 31, 2027. Full council vote scheduled Aug. 10, 2026. Moratorium would be a binding ordinance (not retroactive to previously cleared projects). Companion to the parallel SU-47 special use district zoning ordinance (also advancing). Mayor Hogsett administration supports. Distinct from the earlier non-binding Proposal 158 resolution (May 4, 2026).","who_is_protected":"Indianapolis/Marion County residents near proposed data center sites","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking new zoning, building, or grading approvals in Indianapolis-Marion County","citation":"Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council Metropolitan and Economic Development Committee, 10-3 vote July 13, 2026, recommending temporary data center moratorium through Dec. 31, 2027","source_url":"https://www.wfyi.org/wfyi-news/2026-07-13/data-center-moratorium-advances-for-indianapolis","source_title":"Data center moratorium advances for Indianapolis — WFYI (NPR affiliate)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Indianapolis Metropolitan Development Commission; Department of Metropolitan Development","penalties":"Permit denial during moratorium period"},{"id":"pr-ps-731-ai-public-procurement-2026","title":"Puerto Rico P. del S. 731 — Law of Public Procurement with Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"PR P. del S. 731 (AI Public Procurement Law)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Puerto Rico","state_abbr":"PR","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-12","summary_plain":"Puerto Rico Senate Bill 731 would create the 'Law of Public Procurement with Artificial Intelligence of Puerto Rico,' centralizing all government purchases and public auctions under the General Services Administration and mandating use of the Joint E-Procurement Digital Intelligence (JEDI) AI platform across all government entities covered by Law 73-2019. JEDI automates procurement workflows, official publications, and incorporates all eight acquisition methods recognized by law. The Puerto Rico Senate cleared the bill in late May 2026; pending the House of Representatives and governor.","summary_technical":"P. del S. 731 (19th Leg. Assembly), sponsored by majority senator Wilmer Reyes Berríos, would create the 'Ley de Subastas Públicas con Inteligencia Artificial de Puerto Rico.' Mandates use of the Joint E-Procurement Digital Intelligence (JEDI) AI platform — which natively complies with Law 73-2019 and uniform regulations — across all executive-branch agencies covered by Law 73-2019. Centralizes all government acquisitions, purchasing, and public auctions under the Administration of General Services (ASG-PR). JEDI incorporates the eight acquisition methods recognized by Law 73-2019, automates official publications, and allows configurable agency/purchase-type workflows. Evidence presented to legislative commission: JEDI natively complies with Law 73-2019 and requires no additional development, while Oracle alternative requires complex additional configuration. Senate committee joint report cleared the floor ~May 28–30, 2026. Pending House vote and gubernatorial action.","who_is_protected":"Puerto Rico taxpayers and government accountability (AI-assisted government procurement transparency)","who_must_comply":"Puerto Rico Executive Branch agencies covered by Law 73-2019 (government procurement law)","citation":"P. del S. 731 (19th Leg. Assembly); Puerto Rico Senate approval ~May 28–30, 2026","source_url":"https://senado.pr.gov/senado-aprueba-medidas-sobre-inteligencia-artificial-en-subastas-publicas-retiro-de-servidores-de-alto-riesgo-y-licencia-digital-para-adultos-mayores","source_title":"Senado aprueba medidas sobre inteligencia artificial en subastas públicas — Senado de Puerto Rico (official press release)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Administration of General Services of the Government of Puerto Rico (ASG-PR) (proposed)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"litig-meta-ai-layoffs-2026","title":"26 Meta Employees v. Meta Platforms — AI Layoff Discrimination Lawsuit (N.D. Cal. 2026)","short_title":"Meta AI Layoff Discrimination Lawsuit (2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["employment","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","effective_date":"2026-07-13","enacted_date":"2026-07-13","last_verified_date":"2026-10-11","summary_plain":"Twenty-six current and former Meta employees filed a lawsuit on July 15, 2026 in the Northern District of California (Oakland) alleging that Meta's internal AI system called 'Metamate' was used to select workers for layoffs in a way that disproportionately targeted employees on medical leave, pregnancy leave, and parental leave. The plaintiffs allege violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The court denied an emergency injunction request on July 17, 2026. The case represents a significant test of employer liability when an AI system makes or influences employment termination decisions affecting workers with protected characteristics.","summary_technical":"Twenty-six plaintiffs v. Meta Platforms, Inc., N.D. Cal. (Oakland), filed July 15, 2026. Claims: FMLA (29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.) — AI system used to select employees on FMLA leave for layoffs; ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) — disparate impact on employees on disability-related leave; Pregnancy Discrimination Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k)) — disproportionate targeting of pregnant workers; Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000gg) — accommodation-seeking workers selected for layoffs. Defendant AI system: 'Metamate' — Meta's internal enterprise AI tool. Plaintiffs allege Metamate's selection algorithm had a disparate impact on protected-leave workers. Emergency TRO/injunction motion filed and denied July 17, 2026. Case in early litigation phase; motion practice pending.","who_is_protected":"Meta employees and applicants allegedly targeted for layoffs due to protected leave status by an AI selection system","who_must_comply":"Meta Platforms, Inc. (defendant); case outcome may create precedent for employer AI-in-RIF liability","citation":"26 Meta employees v. Meta Platforms, Inc., N.D. Cal. (Oakland), filed July 15, 2026; FMLA, ADA, PDA, PWFA claims","source_url":"https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/15/meta-ai-layoffs-lawsuit-metamate.html","source_title":"26 Meta employees sue, claiming AI system targeted workers on medical and pregnancy leave — CNBC","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Private litigation — U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Oakland)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Injunctive relief, back pay, compensatory and punitive damages sought; TRO/injunction denied July 17, 2026"},{"id":"litig-kistler-v-eightfold-ai-fcra-2026","title":"Kistler et al. v. Eightfold AI Inc. — FCRA AI Hiring Platform Class Action (N.D. Cal. 2026)","short_title":"Kistler v. Eightfold AI (FCRA, AI hiring)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["employment","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","effective_date":"2026-01-20","enacted_date":"2026-01-20","last_verified_date":"2026-10-11","summary_plain":"Erin Kistler and Sruti Bhaumik filed a class action in California Superior Court in January 2026 (later removed to federal court as Case 3:26-cv-1768 in the Northern District of California) against Eightfold AI, a leading AI hiring platform. The plaintiffs allege that Eightfold scraped over one billion worker profiles and used an AI model to rank job applicants on a scale of 0 to 5 without providing the disclosures and adverse action notices required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The case targets AI hiring tools that function as employment screening reports, arguing that the FCRA's consumer-report protections extend to AI-driven applicant scoring systems. A motion to dismiss is set for hearing on August 4, 2026 before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.","summary_technical":"Kistler et al. v. Eightfold AI Inc., Case 3:26-cv-1768 (N.D. Cal.); originally filed CA Superior Court as C26-00214 (Jan. 20, 2026); removed to federal court. Plaintiffs: Erin Kistler and Sruti Bhaumik. Claims: Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. — plaintiff theory is that Eightfold's AI platform functions as a 'consumer reporting agency' (CRA) and its AI-generated applicant scores (0–5 scale) are 'consumer reports' or 'investigative consumer reports' requiring FCRA disclosures, adverse action notices, and accuracy dispute mechanisms. Factual basis: Eightfold scraped 1B+ publicly available worker profiles to build its ranking model; employers used Eightfold scores as a screening filter without applicants receiving FCRA-required disclosures. Defendant motion to dismiss scheduled August 4, 2026, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Class action; putative nationwide class of job applicants screened by Eightfold's platform. Case is a significant test of FCRA's applicability to AI talent-intelligence platforms.","who_is_protected":"Job applicants nationwide screened by AI hiring platforms that rely on scraped profile data","who_must_comply":"Eightfold AI Inc. (defendant); case may set precedent for AI-as-CRA FCRA liability","citation":"Kistler et al. v. Eightfold AI Inc., Case 3:26-cv-1768 (N.D. Cal.); 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (FCRA)","source_url":"https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/blogs/labor-and-employment-law-update/fcra-class-action-targets-eightfold-ai-hiring-platform","source_title":"FCRA Class Action Targets Eightfold AI Hiring Platform — Akin Gump Labor & Employment Blog","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Private litigation — U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Statutory FCRA damages ($100–$1,000 per willful violation), actual damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees; class-wide relief sought"},{"id":"litig-doe-v-xai-grok-ncii-2026","title":"Doe v. X.AI Corp. (SpaceXAI) — Grok AI NCII Deepfake Class Action (N.D. Cal. 2026)","short_title":"Doe v. X.AI (Grok NCII deepfakes class action)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["deepfakes","privacy","consumer-protection"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","effective_date":"2026-01-23","enacted_date":"2026-01-23","last_verified_date":"2026-10-11","summary_plain":"A class action filed January 23, 2026 in the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:26-cv-00772) alleges that X.AI's Grok AI model generated over three million sexualized deepfake images in an 11-day period, including images of minors. An amended complaint filed July 7, 2026 added Stability AI as a co-defendant and two new plaintiffs, including one who alleges approximately 7,000 child sexual abuse material (CSAM) images were generated of them. Claims include product liability, negligence, public nuisance, and privacy violations. A companion case (Doe 1 v. X.AI Corp., No. 5:26-cv-02246) was filed March 16, 2026. Note: X.AI Corp. has rebranded to SpaceXAI following its merger with SpaceX.","summary_technical":"Doe v. X.AI Corp. (now d/b/a SpaceXAI), No. 5:26-cv-00772 (N.D. Cal., filed Jan. 23, 2026). Amended complaint filed July 7, 2026 adds Stability AI Inc. as co-defendant and two new named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs: pseudonymous 'Doe' plaintiffs; one amended plaintiff alleges ~7,000 CSAM images generated of them by Grok. Core factual allegations: Grok AI (X.AI's LLM/image model) generated 3M+ sexualized non-consensual intimate images (NCII) in an 11-day window; system lacked adequate safeguards; images included depictions of real minors (CSAM). Claims: products liability (defective design/failure to warn); negligence; public nuisance; California privacy violations (CCPA; CIPA; common-law privacy). Stability AI added as defendant in amended complaint for alleged model-weights/training contribution to Grok's image-generation capacity. Companion case: Doe 1 v. X.AI Corp., No. 5:26-cv-02246 (N.D. Cal., filed March 16, 2026). Case is among the first major NCII deepfake class actions against an AI developer; outcome may shape AI developer liability under strict products liability theory.","who_is_protected":"Individuals (including minors) whose likenesses were used to generate non-consensual intimate images or CSAM via Grok AI","who_must_comply":"X.AI Corp. (now SpaceXAI, defendant); Stability AI Inc. (co-defendant per amended complaint)","citation":"Doe v. X.AI Corp., No. 5:26-cv-00772 (N.D. Cal., filed Jan. 23, 2026); amended complaint July 7, 2026","source_url":"https://www.npr.org/2026/07/07/grok-deepfake-lawsuit-stability-ai","source_title":"Grok deepfake lawsuit adds Stability AI as defendant — NPR","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Private litigation — U.S. District Court, Northern District of California","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief sought; no judgment yet"},{"id":"az-hb-2175-physician-review-ai-insurance-2026","title":"Arizona HB 2175 — Physician Review Required Before AI-Based Health Insurance Denial","short_title":"AZ HB 2175 (AI Insurance Denial — Physician Review)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arizona","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["insurance","healthcare","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2025-05-12","last_verified_date":"2026-08-19","summary_plain":"Arizona HB 2175 requires health insurers and managed-care organizations to have a licensed physician or medical director individually review each case before denying a health insurance claim or prior-authorization request based on medical necessity or experimental status. Insurers may not rely solely on AI algorithms, automated decision-support tools, or algorithmic recommendations to deny coverage. The law directly targets automated prior-authorization systems that issue denials without physician involvement. Signed May 12, 2025, effective July 1, 2026. Arizona is among the first states to specifically prohibit AI-only health insurance denials by statute.","summary_technical":"AZ HB 2175 (57th Leg., 1st R.S., signed May 12, 2025, eff. July 1, 2026). Amends Arizona insurance law to require: (1) before a health insurer or managed care organization may deny a claim or prior authorization request on the basis of medical necessity, experimental treatment, or similar clinical grounds, a licensed physician or medical director must individually review the specific case; (2) insurers may not use AI-generated recommendations, algorithmic outputs, or automated clinical decision-support tools as the sole basis for a denial. The prohibition applies to prior authorization, utilization review, and claims-level denials. Does not prevent AI tools from assisting review if a licensed physician makes the final determination. Companion to California SB 1120 (Physicians Make Decisions Act, eff. Jan. 1, 2025) and Georgia SB 444 (AI insurance denial ban, 2026).","who_is_protected":"Arizona health insurance policyholders whose claims or prior authorizations are subject to AI-assisted review","who_must_comply":"Health insurers, managed care organizations, and utilization review entities operating in Arizona","citation":"Ariz. HB 2175 (57th Leg., 1st R.S. 2025), signed May 12, 2025, eff. July 1, 2026","source_url":"https://www.azfamily.com/2025/06/05/new-arizona-law-prevents-ai-making-health-insurance-denials/","source_title":"New Arizona law prevents AI from making health insurance denials — AZFamily","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions (DIFI)"},{"id":"litig-xai-v-harwood-ncii-2026","title":"xAI Corp. v. Terry Harwood — Civil Suit for AI-Generated NCII/CSAM Deepfakes (N.D. Tex. 2026)","short_title":"xAI v. Harwood (Grok NCII Counter-Suit 2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["deepfakes","children","privacy","consumer-protection"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-14","last_verified_date":"2026-07-21","summary_plain":"xAI Corp. (the company behind the Grok AI chatbot, formerly operating as 'X.AI') filed a civil lawsuit on July 14, 2026 in the Northern District of Texas against Terry Harwood, a South Carolina man. The lawsuit alleges Harwood opened two Grok accounts between December 8, 2025 and February 18, 2026, uploading non-sexual photos of adults and minors and manipulating Grok into generating sexually explicit deepfake images — bypassing the system's safety guardrails. xAI seeks unspecified monetary damages and a permanent ban on Harwood from all xAI products. Harwood was separately arrested on February 26, 2026 on criminal charges of sexual exploitation of a minor. The case is notable as one of the first civil lawsuits filed by an AI company against a user for misusing the AI system to generate harmful content, rather than the more common pattern of a victim suing the AI company. xAI disclosed it suspended 52,222 accounts and filed 73,604 NCMEC reports related to Grok deepfake abuse in 2026, leading to at least 244 arrests.","summary_technical":"xAI Corp. v. Terry Harwood, N.D. Tex. (Dallas Div.), filed July 14, 2026. Plaintiff: xAI Corp. (operator of Grok AI chatbot; rebranded as SpaceXAI in mid-2026). Defendant: Terry Harwood (South Carolina). Allegations: (1) Harwood created multiple Grok accounts (Dec. 8, 2025 – Feb. 18, 2026); (2) uploaded non-sexual photos of real adults and minors; (3) used prompt manipulation to bypass Grok safety guardrails and generate sexualized deepfake images including CSAM; (4) violated xAI's Terms of Service. Relief sought: unspecified monetary damages; permanent injunction barring Harwood from all xAI products. Context: (a) parallel criminal prosecution — Harwood arrested Feb. 26, 2026 on 3 counts sexual exploitation of a minor (second degree) + 5 counts (third degree) in South Carolina; (b) companion victim lawsuit — Doe v. X.AI Corp., No. 5:26-cv-00772 (N.D. Cal.), putative class action by AI deepfake victims (amended complaint July 7, 2026, added Stability AI). xAI's civil counter-suit is a novel 'offensive enforcement' strategy: AI company as plaintiff rather than defendant. First known case of a major AI company filing civil suit against a user for NCII/CSAM deepfake abuse.","who_is_protected":"Minors and adults depicted in NCII/CSAM deepfakes generated via Grok","who_must_comply":"Grok/xAI users who violate ToS to generate NCII/CSAM content; defendant Terry Harwood","citation":"xAI Corp. v. Terry Harwood, N.D. Tex. (Dallas Div.), filed July 14, 2026","source_url":"https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/15/business/xai-sues-user-alleged-child-sexual-abuse-materials","source_title":"xAI sues user for allegedly generating child sexual abuse material — CNN","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Private litigation — U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Unspecified monetary damages; permanent injunction from xAI products sought"},{"id":"nashville-dc-zoning-permanent-2026","title":"Metro Nashville Permanent Data Center Zoning Restrictions — 500,000 Sq Ft Cap + Heavy-Industrial Requirement (July 21, 2026)","short_title":"Nashville Permanent Data Center Zoning (500k sq ft cap + BZA approval)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Nashville, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Davidson","city":"Nashville","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-21","enacted_date":"2026-07-21","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"Nashville's Metro Council enacted permanent data center zoning restrictions on July 21, 2026 — Davidson County's first-ever data center land-use rules. The ordinance bans data centers over 500,000 square feet anywhere in the county. Data centers under that threshold must be located in heavy-industrial (HI) zones and must obtain a special exception from the Board of Zoning Appeals after a public hearing. The rules were driven by a proposed data center adjacent to the Nashville Zoo and by the largest public-comment turnout in Metro Council history. A companion temporary moratorium (until December 1, 2026) was enacted the same night. Mayor Freddie O'Connell separately advanced eminent-domain legislation to acquire the Zoo-adjacent DC Blox parcel.","summary_technical":"Ordinance adopted unanimously July 21, 2026 (companion to moratorium ordinance enacted same night). Requirements: (1) data centers exceeding 500,000 sq ft are prohibited countywide; (2) data centers under 500,000 sq ft must be sited in heavy-industrial (HI) zoning districts; (3) any data center regardless of size requires a Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) special exception with a public hearing before approval. The companion temporary moratorium (nashville-dc-moratorium-proposed) runs through December 1, 2026. Mayor O'Connell's eminent-domain bill to acquire the Zoo-adjacent DC Blox parcel also advanced. Nashville is one of the first major US cities to enact permanent categorical data center size limits.","who_is_protected":"Davidson County residents, especially those near proposed data center sites","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators seeking new permits or rezonings in Davidson County / Metro Nashville","citation":"Metro Nashville-Davidson County, permanent data center zoning ordinance (adopted July 21, 2026; 500k sq ft cap + heavy-industrial + BZA special exception)","source_url":"https://fox17.com/news/growing-nashville/metro-council-approves-data-center-regulations-moratorium-davidson-county-nashville-dc-blox-project-near-zoo-mayor-freddie-oconnell","source_title":"Metro Council unanimously passes data center regulations and temporary moratorium — Fox17","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Metro Nashville Board of Zoning Appeals; Metro Nashville Planning Department; Codes Administration"},{"id":"va-sb-384-hb-797-ivo-study-2026","title":"Virginia SB 384 / HB 797 — Independent Verification Organization (IVO) AI Safety Study Commission","short_title":"Virginia IVO AI Safety Study (SB 384/HB 797, 2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-04-08","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Virginia enacted SB 384 and identical companion HB 797 on April 8, 2026 (Acts of Assembly chapters 426 and 425), directing the Joint Commission on Technology and Science (JCOTS) to study the feasibility of a framework for Independent Verification Organizations (IVOs) - independent bodies that would assess whether AI models and applications meet best-practice standards designed to prevent personal injury and property damage. If JCOTS recommends a framework, it must also evaluate a licensing scheme for IVOs and whether the Virginia Information Technologies Agency or another agency could run it. JCOTS reports by November 1, 2026. This is a study directive only; it does not create any compliance obligations for AI developers or deployers today.","summary_technical":"SB 384 / HB 797 (2026 General Assembly; 2026 Va. Acts chs. 426 and 425) direct the Joint Commission on Technology and Science (JCOTS) to evaluate the feasibility and impact of a framework for Independent Verification Organizations (IVOs) that would assess AI models' or applications' adherence to best-practice standards for preventing personal injury and property damage, considering risk magnitude, measurable risk metrics, existing mitigation standards, evaluation methodologies, other states' practices and fiscal impact; if a framework is recommended, JCOTS must evaluate an IVO licensing scheme and whether VITA or another agency could implement it. Report due to the money and technology committee chairs by November 1, 2026. No current compliance obligations. Companion to Virginia's deregulatory posture after Gov. Youngkin vetoed the broader HB 2094 high-risk AI act in 2025. Approved by Gov. Spanberger April 8, 2026; effective July 1, 2026. Votes: HB 797 Senate 40-0, House concurrence 84-14; SB 384 Senate 40-0, House 99-0.","who_is_protected":"Virginia residents who may be harmed by unsafe AI systems (future protection, pending IVO framework adoption)","who_must_comply":"Joint Commission on Technology and Science (JCOTS) — required to conduct and report the study","citation":"2026 Va. Acts chs. 425 (HB 797) and 426 (SB 384), eff. July 1, 2026","source_url":"https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/SB384","source_title":"Virginia LIS — SB 384 (2026): Independent Verification Organizations (IVOs) for AI Safety","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Virginia General Assembly (receives JCOTS report); no enforcement mechanism yet"},{"id":"litig-florida-ag-v-openai-2026","title":"Florida AG v. OpenAI LLC / Sam Altman — First State-Led AI Safety Lawsuit (Highlands County Circuit Court after remand)","short_title":"Florida AG v. OpenAI (AI safety, minors)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","state_abbr":"FL","topics":["consumer-protection","privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-01","enacted_date":"2026-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed the first-in-nation state-led lawsuit against OpenAI on June 1, 2026, in Highlands County Circuit Court, alleging ChatGPT was deceptively marketed to minors despite known safety risks. The 10-count complaint cites specific harms including the death of 16-year-old Adam Raine, who died by suicide following extensive ChatGPT conversations, and the alleged use of ChatGPT by the accused Florida State University mass shooter. OpenAI LLC and CEO Sam Altman (named personally) removed the case to federal court before Judge Aileen Cannon in Fort Pierce on July 2, 2026. Florida has moved to remand; the jurisdictional battle is ongoing.","summary_technical":"State of Florida ex rel. Uthmeier v. OpenAI LLC and Sam Altman, filed June 1, 2026, Highlands County 10th Judicial Circuit, Florida; removed July 2, 2026 to S.D. Fla. (Fort Pierce) before Judge Aileen Cannon. 10-count complaint. Claims: (1) Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) violations — deceptive marketing of ChatGPT to minors while concealing known safety risks; (2) negligence and gross negligence; (3) strict product liability; (4) public nuisance; (5) failure to warn; (6) collection of data from minors without meaningful parental oversight in violation of state privacy law; (7) behavioral addiction and cognitive harm to minors. Defendants: OpenAI LLC (entity) and CEO Sam Altman (named personally — first time an AI CEO is individually named in a state AG suit). Named harms in complaint: Adam Raine (16, suicide after extended ChatGPT sessions), alleged use of ChatGPT by accused FSU mass shooter. Florida's motion to remand argues the case presents no federal question. As of July 26, 2026: no ruling on remand motion; case before Judge Cannon.","who_is_protected":"Florida minors and consumers harmed by deceptively marketed AI chatbot products; parents of minors harmed","who_must_comply":"OpenAI LLC and CEO Sam Altman (defendants)","citation":"State of Florida ex rel. Uthmeier v. OpenAI LLC et al. (Highlands County 10th Jud. Cir., June 1, 2026; removed to S.D. Fla. July 2, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.myfloridalegal.com/newsrelease/attorney-general-james-uthmeier-files-first-nation-state-led-lawsuit-against-openai-ceo","source_title":"Attorney General Uthmeier Files First-in-Nation State-Led Lawsuit Against OpenAI, CEO — Florida AG Official News Release","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Florida Attorney General (state AG enforcement; case pending in Highlands County Circuit Court, 10th Judicial Circuit, after remand from S.D. Fla.)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"FDUTPA civil penalties; compensatory and punitive damages; injunctive relief; equitable remedies"},{"id":"litig-hachette-v-google-gemini-copyright-2026","title":"Hachette Book Group et al. v. Google LLC — Gemini AI Training Copyright Class Action (S.D.N.Y. 2026)","short_title":"Hachette v. Google (Gemini AI copyright)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["copyright","transparency"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-10","enacted_date":"2026-07-10","last_verified_date":"2026-07-26","summary_plain":"Hachette Book Group, Cengage Learning, Elsevier, and author Scott Turow filed a copyright class action against Google in the Southern District of New York on July 10, 2026 (No. 1:26-cv-05870), alleging Google used millions of copyrighted books and academic journal articles without authorization to train its Gemini AI models. The complaint alleges Google misused works supplied for Google Books 'snippet' access to copy full texts for AI training, also sourcing material from pirate websites. An internal Google document cited in the complaint estimates potential copyright exposure of $10 billion to $100 billion. The case is distinct from (and does not overlap with) the existing NYT v. OpenAI and Authors Guild v. OpenAI suits.","summary_technical":"Hachette Book Group Inc. et al. v. Google LLC, No. 1:26-cv-05870 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 10, 2026). Plaintiffs: Hachette Book Group Inc., Cengage Learning Inc., Elsevier Inc., Scott Turow (author), S.C.R.I.B.E. Inc. (Turow's company); proposed class of similarly situated authors and publishers. Defendant: Google LLC. Claims: (1) Willful copyright infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 106 — Google copied millions of books and journal articles from Google Books/Play (where publishers supplied works for limited 'snippet' use), pirate datasets, and paywalled academic platforms to train Gemini AI models without authorization; (2) DMCA § 1202 (17 U.S.C. § 1202) — Google stripped or altered copyright management information (CMI) from works to conceal unauthorized AI-training use. Relief sought: statutory copyright damages, permanent injunction against further infringement, destruction of all unauthorized training copies. Internal Google document cited in complaint estimates potential liability at $10 billion to $100 billion. Publishers' Association (AAP) filed a joint press release.","who_is_protected":"Book authors and academic publishers whose copyrighted works were allegedly used without authorization to train Google's Gemini AI","who_must_comply":"Google LLC (defendant)","citation":"Hachette Book Group Inc. et al. v. Google LLC, No. 1:26-cv-05870 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 10, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/hachette-book-group-news/publishers-and-authors-file-class-action-lawsuit-against-google-for-willful-copyright-infringement-to-develop-gemini-ai-models/","source_title":"Publishers and Authors File Class Action Lawsuit Against Google for Willful Copyright Infringement to Develop Gemini AI Models — Hachette Book Group","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Private litigation — U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Statutory copyright damages per work; actual damages; attorney's fees; permanent injunction; destruction of unauthorized training copies sought"},{"id":"topeka-ks-12mo-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Topeka, KS 12-Month Data Center and Battery Storage Moratorium","short_title":"Topeka KS 12-month data center moratorium (eff. July 14, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Topeka, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Shawnee","city":"Topeka","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-14","enacted_date":"2026-07-14","expires_date":"2027-07-14","last_verified_date":"2026-08-07","summary_plain":"Topeka, Kansas paused consideration of new data center projects for 12 months on July 14, 2026. The pause also applies to battery energy storage facilities. City officials will use the year to study how data centers should be regulated before any new projects are considered.","summary_technical":"City of Topeka (KS) governing body action July 14, 2026: 12-month moratorium on consideration of data center projects, explicitly including battery energy storage facilities within its scope. Duration: 12 months from adoption (through approximately July 14, 2027). Adopted while the city develops its regulatory approach to data center land uses.","who_is_protected":"Topeka, KS residents","who_must_comply":"Data center and battery energy storage developers seeking approvals within Topeka city limits, KS","citation":"City of Topeka, KS governing body action, July 14, 2026, 12-month data center and battery storage moratorium","source_url":"https://www.wibw.com/2026/07/15/city-topeka-pauses-data-center-considerations-12-months/","source_title":"City of Topeka pauses data center considerations for 12 months — WIBW","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Topeka, KS Planning and Development; governing body","penalties":"Permit/application denial during moratorium"},{"id":"early-county-ga-dc-ordinance-2026","title":"Early County, GA Data Center Ordinance (Buffers, Noise, Water-Efficient Cooling)","short_title":"Early County GA data center ordinance (eff. July 13, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Early County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Early","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-13","enacted_date":"2026-07-13","last_verified_date":"2026-07-31","summary_plain":"Early County, Georgia adopted a data center ordinance on July 13, 2026 in response to resident concerns. The ordinance requires data centers to sit at least 1,000 feet from neighboring uses, meet noise standards, and use water-efficient cooling systems.","summary_technical":"Early County (GA) Board of Commissioners ordinance adopted July 13, 2026. Requirements: 1,000-foot buffers, noise limits, and water-efficient cooling mandates for data center facilities. Permanent siting/operating ordinance (not a moratorium). Adopted amid public concern over prospective data center development in the rural southwest-Georgia county.","who_is_protected":"Early County, GA residents and adjacent property owners","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators in Early County, GA","citation":"Early County, GA Board of Commissioners data center ordinance, adopted July 13, 2026","source_url":"https://www.wtvy.com/2026/07/14/early-county-approves-new-data-center-ordinance-amid-concerns/","source_title":"Early County approves new data center ordinance amid concerns — WTVY","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Early County, GA code enforcement / Board of Commissioners","penalties":"Permit denial for non-conforming projects; ordinance enforcement"},{"id":"sarasota-county-fl-hyperscale-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Sarasota County, FL 12-Month Moratorium on Hyperscale Data Centers (>=50MW)","short_title":"Sarasota County FL hyperscale data center moratorium (eff. July 8, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Sarasota County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Sarasota","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-08","enacted_date":"2026-07-08","expires_date":"2027-07-08","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Sarasota County, Florida blocked hyperscale data centers — facilities drawing 50 megawatts of power or more — for at least one year, starting July 8, 2026. The county will use the pause to write rules for large data centers before any can be approved.","summary_technical":"Sarasota County (FL) Board of County Commissioners action July 8, 2026: 12-month moratorium on hyperscale data centers, defined by a >=50MW power threshold. Duration: at least one year (through approximately July 8, 2027) while regulations are developed. Sub-threshold facilities not covered by the pause.","who_is_protected":"Sarasota County, FL residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of hyperscale (>=50MW) data centers seeking approvals in Sarasota County, FL","citation":"Sarasota County, FL Board of County Commissioners action, July 8, 2026, 12-month hyperscale (>=50MW) data center moratorium","source_url":"https://www.mysuncoast.com/2026/07/09/sarasota-county-blocks-hyperscale-data-centers-least-one-year/","source_title":"Sarasota County blocks hyperscale data centers for at least one year — ABC7 mysuncoast.com","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Sarasota County, FL Planning and Development Services; Board of County Commissioners","penalties":"Permit/application denial during moratorium"},{"id":"broomfield-co-18mo-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Broomfield, CO Ordinance 2313 — 18-Month Moratorium on Data Centers (>=10MW)","short_title":"Broomfield CO 18-month data center moratorium, Ord. 2313 (eff. July 7, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Broomfield, CO","state_abbr":"CO","county":"Broomfield","city":"Broomfield","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-07","enacted_date":"2026-07-07","expires_date":"2027-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Broomfield, Colorado (a combined city and county) passed Ordinance 2313 on July 7, 2026, temporarily banning new data center construction for 18 months, through December 2027. The ban applies to larger data centers — those using 10 megawatts of power or more — while the city studies how to regulate them.","summary_technical":"City and County of Broomfield (CO) Ordinance 2313, adopted July 7, 2026: 18-month moratorium on new data center construction for facilities >=10MW, in effect through December 2027. expires_date set 2027-12-31 per reported 'through December 2027' term.","who_is_protected":"Broomfield, CO residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers >=10MW seeking approvals in Broomfield, CO","citation":"City and County of Broomfield, CO Ordinance 2313 (July 7, 2026), 18-month >=10MW data center moratorium","source_url":"https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/07/08/broomfield-passes-temporary-ban-on-new-data-center-construction/","source_title":"Broomfield passes temporary ban on new data center construction — Colorado Politics","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City and County of Broomfield, CO Community Development; City Council","penalties":"Permit/application denial during moratorium"},{"id":"douglas-county-ga-dc-rezoning-denial-2026","title":"Douglas County, GA Denial of 4.4M Sq Ft Data Center Rezoning (July 2026)","short_title":"Douglas County GA data center rezoning denial (July 8, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Douglas County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Douglas","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-08","enacted_date":"2026-07-08","last_verified_date":"2026-07-31","summary_plain":"Douglas County, Georgia commissioners voted 4-1 on July 8, 2026 to reject a rezoning that would have allowed a 4.4 million-square-foot data center campus. It was the county's second rejection of a major data center project in seven months, signaling sustained resistance to large-scale data center development in the metro-Atlanta county.","summary_technical":"Douglas County (GA) Board of Commissioners 4-1 vote, July 8, 2026, denying rezoning application for a 4.4M sq ft data center project. Second data center project denial in seven months. The denial is a final protective land-use decision; the county's earlier 2025 data center moratorium (indexed separately as douglas-county-ga-dc-moratorium-2025) expired Dec. 31, 2025 on its stated terms.","who_is_protected":"Douglas County, GA residents near the proposed site","who_must_comply":"The applicant/developer of the denied 4.4M sq ft data center project; future data center rezoning applicants in Douglas County, GA","citation":"Douglas County, GA Board of Commissioners rezoning denial (4-1), July 8, 2026, 4.4M sq ft data center project","source_url":"https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/douglas-county-leaders-just-killed-massive-data-center-project","source_title":"Douglas County leaders just killed massive data center project — FOX 5 Atlanta","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Douglas County, GA Board of Commissioners; Planning and Zoning","penalties":"Rezoning denial (project cannot proceed as proposed)"},{"id":"haring-charter-township-mi-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Haring Charter Township, MI 6-Month Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Haring Charter Township MI data center moratorium (eff. July 13, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Haring Charter Township, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Wexford","city":"Haring Charter Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-13","enacted_date":"2026-07-13","expires_date":"2027-01-13","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Haring Charter Township in Wexford County, Michigan (just north of Cadillac) adopted a six-month moratorium on data centers on July 13, 2026. A crowd of residents came out in support of restricting data center development in the township.","summary_technical":"Haring Charter Township (Wexford County, MI) board action July 13, 2026: 6-month moratorium on data center development (through approximately Jan. 13, 2027). Adopted amid strong public turnout supporting restriction of data centers.","who_is_protected":"Haring Charter Township, MI residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Haring Charter Township, MI","citation":"Haring Charter Township, MI board action, July 13, 2026, 6-month data center moratorium","source_url":"https://www.cadillacnews.com/news/crowd-comes-out-in-support-of-banning-data-centers-in-haring-township/article_b816e06c-d974-43b1-b274-b87bf761e337.html","source_title":"Crowd comes out in support of banning data centers in Haring Township — Cadillac News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Haring Charter Township, MI board and zoning administration","penalties":"Permit/application denial during moratorium"},{"id":"jackson-county-mo-dc-bess-moratorium-2026","title":"Jackson County, MO 180-Day Data Center and Battery Storage Moratorium (Unincorporated Areas)","short_title":"Jackson County MO 180-day data center + BESS moratorium (eff. June 22, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Jackson County, MO","state_abbr":"MO","county":"Jackson","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-22","enacted_date":"2026-06-22","expires_date":"2026-12-19","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"The Jackson County, Missouri Legislature (the Kansas City-area county) imposed a 180-day moratorium on June 22, 2026 on processing land-use applications for data centers and battery energy storage systems in the county's unincorporated areas. Cities within the county are not affected.","summary_technical":"Jackson County (MO) Legislature action June 22, 2026: 180-day moratorium on processing data center land-use applications, including battery energy storage systems (BESS), applicable to unincorporated Jackson County only. 180 days from June 22, 2026 runs to approximately Dec. 19, 2026. Incorporated municipalities (e.g., Kansas City, Independence) unaffected.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Jackson County, MO","who_must_comply":"Data center and BESS developers with land-use applications in unincorporated Jackson County, MO","citation":"Jackson County, MO Legislature action, June 22, 2026, 180-day data center and BESS land-use application moratorium (unincorporated areas)","source_url":"https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/jackson-county-legislature-approves-180-day-moratorium-on-processing-data-center-land-use-applications","source_title":"Jackson County Legislature approves 180-day moratorium on processing data center land use applications — KSHB 41","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Jackson County, MO Public Works / planning; County Legislature","penalties":"Application processing suspended / denial during moratorium"},{"id":"missoula-county-mt-dc-interim-zoning-moratorium-2026","title":"Missoula County, MT Interim Zoning Moratorium on Data Centers (First in Montana)","short_title":"Missoula County MT interim data center moratorium (eff. July 9, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Missoula County, MT","state_abbr":"MT","county":"Missoula","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-09","enacted_date":"2026-07-09","expires_date":"2027-07-09","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Missoula County became the first county in Montana to pause data center development, adopting a temporary interim zoning moratorium on July 9, 2026. The pause can last up to one year and applies to the unincorporated county — not inside the City of Missoula. The county must begin studying data center regulations within 30 days.","summary_technical":"Missoula County (MT) commissioners' interim zoning action July 9, 2026 under Montana interim-zoning authority: moratorium on data center development for up to one year (expires_date set at maximum term, 2027-07-09). Scope: unincorporated Missoula County; City of Missoula excluded. Includes a 30-day study-commencement requirement. First data center moratorium adopted in Montana.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Missoula County, MT","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in unincorporated Missoula County, MT","citation":"Missoula County, MT interim zoning moratorium on data centers, adopted July 9, 2026 (up to one year)","source_url":"https://www.montanafreepress.org/2026/07/09/missoula-county-adopts-temporary-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Missoula County adopts temporary moratorium on data centers — Montana Free Press","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Missoula County, MT Community and Planning Services; Board of County Commissioners","penalties":"Permit/application denial during moratorium"},{"id":"pasco-county-fl-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Pasco County, FL 1-Year Moratorium on Large Data Centers (>2.5MW)","short_title":"Pasco County FL 1-year data center moratorium (eff. July 14, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Pasco County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Pasco","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-14","enacted_date":"2026-07-14","expires_date":"2027-07-14","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Pasco County, Florida (north of Tampa) adopted a one-year moratorium on July 14, 2026 covering large data centers — those that would use more than 2.5 megawatts of power. The county will use the year to develop regulations for data center siting.","summary_technical":"Pasco County (FL) Board of County Commissioners action July 14, 2026: 12-month moratorium on data centers exceeding a 2.5MW power threshold (through approximately July 14, 2027). Notably low MW threshold compared to peer Florida counties (Sarasota's is 50MW), giving the pause broad practical scope.","who_is_protected":"Pasco County, FL residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers >2.5MW seeking approvals in Pasco County, FL","citation":"Pasco County, FL Board of County Commissioners action, July 14, 2026, 1-year moratorium on data centers >2.5MW","source_url":"https://www.wusf.org/politics-issues/2026-07-15/pasco-county-one-year-moratorium-large-data-centers","source_title":"Pasco County adopts one-year moratorium on large data centers — WUSF","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Pasco County, FL Planning and Development; Board of County Commissioners","penalties":"Permit/application denial during moratorium"},{"id":"leon-county-fl-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Leon County, FL 18-Month Data Center Moratorium (Pending Formalization)","short_title":"Leon County FL 18-month data center moratorium (voted July 14, 2026; hearings pending)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Leon County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Leon","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Leon County, Florida (home of Tallahassee) commissioners voted on July 14, 2026 in favor of an 18-month moratorium on data centers. The moratorium is not final yet: public radio station WFSU reports that two public hearings are still required before the ordinance is formally in place.","summary_technical":"Leon County (FL) Board of County Commissioners vote July 14, 2026 supporting an 18-month data center moratorium. Formalization incomplete: WFSU reporting indicates two public hearings remain before the moratorium ordinance takes effect, so this is tracked as proposed rather than effective. If finalized on the reported terms, the 18-month term would run to approximately January 2028.","who_is_protected":"Leon County, FL residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Leon County, FL (once the ordinance is formalized)","citation":"Leon County, FL Board of County Commissioners vote, July 14, 2026, 18-month data center moratorium (public hearings pending)","source_url":"https://www.wctv.tv/2026/07/15/leon-county-commissioners-approved-18-month-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Leon County commissioners approve 18-month data center moratorium — WCTV","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Leon County, FL Development Support and Environmental Management; Board of County Commissioners","penalties":"Permit/application denial during moratorium (once formalized)"},{"id":"greenwood-county-sc-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Greenwood County, SC — One-Year Data Center Moratorium, Ordinance 2026-25 (Enacted July 21, 2026)","short_title":"Greenwood County SC one-year data center moratorium, Ord. 2026-25 (enacted July 21, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Greenwood County, SC","state_abbr":"SC","county":"Greenwood","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-21","enacted_date":"2026-07-21","expires_date":"2027-07-21","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Greenwood County, South Carolina enacted a one-year moratorium on new data center approvals on July 21, 2026, when the county council voted 4-3 on the third and final reading of Ordinance 2026-25. The moratorium pauses all new data center approvals in the county for twelve months, giving officials time to develop permanent regulations. The council had earlier (July 7, 2026) also denied by 4-3 a separate zoning text amendment (2026-19) that would have set permanent data center rules, indicating the council preferred a moratorium approach. Greenwood County joins a wave of South Carolina counties that took similar action in 2026.","summary_technical":"Greenwood County (SC) Council, July 21, 2026: Ordinance 2026-25 (one-year data center moratorium) approved on third (final) reading, 4-3 vote. Effective on enactment; expires approximately July 21, 2027. Two prior readings: first reading advanced; second reading passed 4-3 on July 7, 2026 (same meeting denied companion zoning text amendment 2026-19 also 4-3). One-year term allows county to develop permanent data center standards.","who_is_protected":"Greenwood County, SC residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Greenwood County, SC during the moratorium period","citation":"Greenwood County, SC Ordinance 2026-25 (one-year data center moratorium), third and final reading 4-3, July 21, 2026","source_url":"https://www.foxcarolina.com/2026/07/21/greenwood-co-council-approves-final-reading-one-year-moratorium-data-centers/","source_title":"Greenwood Co. Council approves final reading of one-year moratorium on data centers — Fox Carolina","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Greenwood County, SC Planning; County Council","penalties":"Permit/application denial during moratorium period"},{"id":"delta-county-mi-dc-crypto-moratorium-2026","title":"Delta County, MI — Board of Commissioners 12-Month Data Center and Cryptocurrency Mining Moratorium (Adopted July 21, 2026)","short_title":"Delta County MI 12-month data center + crypto moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Delta County, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Delta","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-21","enacted_date":"2026-07-21","expires_date":"2027-07-21","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Delta County Board of Commissioners unanimously adopted a 12-month moratorium on the construction of data centers and cryptocurrency mining facilities on Tuesday, July 21, 2026, approving without discussion the recommendation the county Planning Commission had made on July 6. Delta County sits on Michigan's Upper Peninsula around Escanaba, and the resolution leans hard on that: it warns that unregulated data center or crypto mining development could threaten the county's natural resources, rural character and tourism-based economy, and notes the county has no zoning standards for these operations at all. Commissioners also cited strain on regional electrical infrastructure. The year gives the county time to research environmental impacts, coordinate with utilities and emergency services, and write enforceable standards for what the resolution calls ‘emerging high-intensity technological land uses’ before the moratorium lapses. Covering cryptocurrency mining alongside data centers matters in the Upper Peninsula, where cheap power has drawn mining operations independently of the AI build-out.","summary_technical":"Delta County (MI) Planning Commission resolution, July 6, 2026, recommending a 12-month moratorium covering data centers and cryptocurrency-mining facilities. Advisory/recommendation stage: requires Delta County Board of Commissioners adoption to take effect. Indexed as proposed.","who_is_protected":"Delta County, MI residents","who_must_comply":"Data center and crypto-mining developers in Delta County, MI (if the county board adopts the moratorium)","citation":"Delta County, MI Planning Commission resolution, July 6, 2026, recommending 12-month data center and crypto-mining moratorium","source_url":"https://www.uppermichiganssource.com/2026/07/07/delta-county-planning-commission-approves-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Delta County Planning Commission approves data center moratorium — TV6 (uppermichiganssource.com)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Delta County, MI Planning and Zoning; Board of Commissioners (upon adoption)","penalties":"Permit/application denial during moratorium (if adopted)"},{"id":"spring-city-tn-2yr-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Spring City, TN 2-Year Data Center Moratorium (First Reading)","short_title":"Spring City TN 2-year data center moratorium (final reading July 30, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Spring City, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Rhea","city":"Spring City","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Spring City, Tennessee (Rhea County, on Watts Bar Lake) is considering a two-year moratorium on data centers. Commissioners advanced the measure on first reading on July 16, 2026; a final reading is set for July 30, 2026.","summary_technical":"Spring City (Rhea County, TN) commission first-reading action July 16, 2026 on a 24-month data center moratorium ordinance. Second/final reading scheduled July 30, 2026. Indexed as proposed pending final reading.","who_is_protected":"Spring City, TN residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Spring City, TN (if adopted on final reading)","citation":"Spring City, TN 2-year data center moratorium, first reading July 16, 2026; final reading July 30, 2026","source_url":"https://www.local3news.com/local-news/spring-city-commissioners-considering-2-year-moratorium-on-data-centers/article_526c0d96-c0d6-406d-ab36-50e885c07445.html","source_title":"Spring City commissioners considering 2-year moratorium on data centers — Local 3 News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Spring City, TN; Board of Mayor and Commissioners","penalties":"Permit/application denial during moratorium (if adopted)"},{"id":"catawissa-township-pa-dc-overlay-2026","title":"Catawissa Township, PA Proposed Ordinance 01-2026 — Data Center Overlay District","short_title":"Catawissa Township PA Data Center Overlay, Ord. 01-2026 (hearing July 30, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Catawissa Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Columbia","city":"Catawissa Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Catawissa Township in Columbia County, Pennsylvania has proposed Ordinance 01-2026, which would create a Data Center Overlay district — restricting where data centers can be sited in the township via a designated overlay map. A public hearing is scheduled for July 30, 2026.","summary_technical":"Catawissa Township (Columbia County, PA) proposed Ordinance 01-2026: Data Center Overlay zoning ordinance with accompanying Data Center Overlay map, published on the official township website. Public hearing scheduled 2026-07-30. Indexed as proposed pending hearing and adoption vote.","who_is_protected":"Catawissa Township, PA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking to site facilities in Catawissa Township, PA (if adopted)","citation":"Catawissa Township, PA proposed Ordinance 01-2026 (Data Center Overlay), public hearing July 30, 2026","source_url":"https://www.catawissatownship.org/2026/07/proposed-ordinance-01-2026-data-center-overlay-with-data-center-overlay-map/","source_title":"Proposed Ordinance 01-2026 — Data Center Overlay with Data Center Overlay Map — Catawissa Township (official)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Catawissa Township, PA Board of Supervisors; zoning administration","penalties":"Zoning denial for projects outside the overlay district (if adopted)"},{"id":"henderson-county-nc-dc-regulations-2026","title":"Henderson County, NC Code Amendment Extending Crypto-Mining Rules to All Data Centers","short_title":"Henderson County NC data center regulations (eff. July 15, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Henderson County, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Henderson","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-07-15","enacted_date":"2026-07-15","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Henderson County, North Carolina (Hendersonville area) now applies its strict crypto-mining rules to all data centers. Under a code amendment adopted July 15, 2026, data centers are allowed only in industrial zones with a special use permit, must sit 100 feet back from property lines, cannot operate between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. or on Sundays, cannot exceed 50 decibels measured at 100 feet, must build an 8-foot sound wall, and must be at least 2 miles from any other such facility.","summary_technical":"Henderson County (NC) land development code amendment, July 15, 2026, extending existing cryptocurrency-mining regulations to all data centers. Standards: industrial-district-only siting with special use permit (SUP); 100-ft setback; operational curfew — no operation 9pm-6am nor on Sundays; 50dB noise limit measured at 100 ft; 8-ft sound attenuation wall required; 2-mile minimum separation between facilities. Among the strictest operating regimes applied to data centers by a US county.","who_is_protected":"Henderson County, NC residents and adjacent property owners","who_must_comply":"Data center (and crypto-mining) developers and operators in Henderson County, NC","citation":"Henderson County, NC code amendment, July 15, 2026, extending crypto-mining regulations to all data centers","source_url":"https://www.aol.com/articles/henderson-county-applies-crypto-mining-195405000.html","source_title":"Henderson County applies crypto mining rules to data centers — AOL (syndicated)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Henderson County, NC Planning Department / code enforcement; Board of Commissioners (SUP decisions)","penalties":"SUP denial; zoning/code enforcement against non-conforming operation"},{"id":"dodge-county-wi-dc-advisory-resolution-2026","title":"Dodge County, WI Advisory Resolution Supporting a Data Center Moratorium (Non-Binding)","short_title":"Dodge County WI advisory data center resolution (29-2, mid-June 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Dodge County, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Dodge","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"The Dodge County, Wisconsin board voted 29-2 in mid-June 2026 for a resolution about a data center moratorium — but the vote was advisory only. No moratorium is actually in effect: the county administrator publicly corrected press reports that had described the vote as enacting one. The resolution signals board sentiment and could precede a binding measure.","summary_technical":"Dodge County (WI) Board of Supervisors advisory resolution, mid-June 2026, adopted 29-2, expressing support regarding a data center moratorium. NON-BINDING: per the county administrator's public clarification (Daily Dodge), the vote did not enact a moratorium and no application pause is in force. Indexed as proposed (sentiment/advisory stage). Exact meeting date not confirmed — last_action_date 2026-06-15 is approximate (press places the vote in mid-June 2026); confirm against county board minutes.","who_is_protected":"Dodge County, WI residents (prospectively — no binding protection yet)","who_must_comply":"No one yet — advisory only; data center developers would be affected only if a binding moratorium follows","citation":"Dodge County, WI Board of Supervisors advisory resolution (29-2), mid-June 2026, regarding a data center moratorium","source_url":"https://www.dailydodge.com/dodge-county-data-center-vote-was-advisory-not-a-moratorium/","source_title":"Dodge County data center vote was advisory, not a moratorium — Daily Dodge","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Dodge County, WI Board of Supervisors (no enforcement — advisory)"},{"id":"minneola-fl-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Minneola, FL 1-Year Data Center Moratorium (Advanced; Final Reading July 21)","short_title":"Minneola FL 1-year data center moratorium (final reading July 21, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Minneola, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Lake","city":"Minneola","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Minneola, Florida (Lake County, in the fast-growing area northwest of Orlando) has advanced a one-year moratorium on new data centers. The final reading is scheduled for July 21, 2026. Lake County has been advancing parallel data center policies.","summary_technical":"City of Minneola (Lake County, FL) council action advancing a 12-month moratorium ordinance on new data centers; final reading scheduled 2026-07-21. Indexed as proposed pending final reading. GrowthSpotter coverage (July 14, 2026) also reports Lake County advancing its own data center policies in parallel — this entry covers the Minneola municipal moratorium only.","who_is_protected":"Minneola, FL residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Minneola, FL (if adopted on final reading)","citation":"City of Minneola, FL 1-year data center moratorium ordinance, advanced July 2026; final reading July 21, 2026","source_url":"https://www.growthspotter.com/2026/07/14/lake-county-minneola-advance-policies-for-moratorium-on-new-data-centers/","source_title":"Lake County, Minneola advance policies for moratorium on new data centers — GrowthSpotter","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Minneola, FL; City Council","penalties":"Permit/application denial during moratorium (if adopted)"},{"id":"walton-county-fl-dc-ban-2026","title":"Walton County, FL Permanent Countywide Prohibition on Data Centers and Large Load Centers","short_title":"Walton County FL data center ban (eff. June 10, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Walton County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Walton","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-06-10","enacted_date":"2026-06-10","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Walton County, Florida (Panhandle, including the 30A beach communities) permanently banned data centers and other large electric-load centers countywide on June 10, 2026, by unanimous 5-0 vote. The ban has an intentionally steep exception path: approving any data center would require all five commissioners voting yes, after three public workshops and two public hearings. This is one of the strongest local data center prohibitions in the country.","summary_technical":"Walton County (FL) ordinance adopted 5-0 on June 10, 2026: countywide prohibition on data centers and 'large load centers' (high-demand electric load facilities). Exception mechanism: requires unanimous 5-commissioner vote plus completion of 3 public workshops and 2 public hearings before any approval. Permanent prohibition (no sunset), distinguishing it from the moratorium wave.","who_is_protected":"Walton County, FL residents","who_must_comply":"Data center and large-load-center developers seeking approvals anywhere in Walton County, FL","citation":"Walton County, FL ordinance (5-0, June 10, 2026) prohibiting data centers and large load centers countywide","source_url":"https://www.wjhg.com/2026/06/10/walton-county-adopts-ordinance-prohibiting-data-large-load-centers/","source_title":"Walton County adopts ordinance prohibiting data, large load centers — WJHG","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Walton County, FL Planning and Development Services; Board of County Commissioners","penalties":"Prohibition — applications not approvable absent the supermajority exception process"},{"id":"palm-beach-county-fl-project-tango-denial-2026","title":"Palm Beach County, FL Denial of Project Tango 600MW AI Data Center Campus","short_title":"Palm Beach County FL Project Tango denial (July 16, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Palm Beach County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Palm Beach","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-16","enacted_date":"2026-07-16","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Palm Beach County, Florida commissioners rejected 'Project Tango,' a proposed 600-megawatt AI data center campus in the Loxahatchee area, by a 5-1 vote on July 16, 2026 after a marathon hearing lasting about 12 hours. The denial was 'without prejudice,' meaning the developer can come back with a revised application. The county's zoning commission had already recommended against the project on July 2. Note: a previously approved 202-acre Central Park Commerce Center project still allows some data center space in the county.","summary_technical":"Palm Beach County (FL) Board of County Commissioners 5-1 vote, July 16, 2026, denying WITHOUT PREJUDICE the applications for Project Tango, a 600MW AI data center campus proposed near Loxahatchee. Hearing ran approximately 12 hours. Zoning Commission recommendation against the project issued July 2, 2026. Denial without prejudice permits refiling. Caveat: the earlier-approved 202-acre Central Park Commerce Center retains entitlements allowing some data center space — this denial does not eliminate all DC development capacity in the county.","who_is_protected":"Palm Beach County, FL residents, particularly the Loxahatchee area","who_must_comply":"Project Tango applicant/developer; future large data center applicants in Palm Beach County, FL","citation":"Palm Beach County, FL Board of County Commissioners 5-1 denial without prejudice, July 16, 2026, Project Tango 600MW data center campus","source_url":"https://www.wlrn.org/government-politics/2026-07-16/project-tango-ai-data-center-palm-beach-rejected","source_title":"Project Tango AI data center rejected in Palm Beach — WLRN","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Palm Beach County, FL Planning, Zoning and Building; Board of County Commissioners","penalties":"Application denial (without prejudice — refiling possible)"},{"id":"franklin-county-fl-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Franklin County, FL 1-Year AI Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Franklin County FL 1-year data center moratorium (eff. July 15, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Franklin County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Franklin","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-15","enacted_date":"2026-07-15","expires_date":"2027-07-15","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Franklin County, Florida — a small Panhandle coastal county (Apalachicola) — unanimously adopted a one-year moratorium on AI data centers on July 15, 2026. Commissioners indicated they would like to pursue a permanent ban eventually.","summary_technical":"Franklin County (FL) Board of County Commissioners unanimous vote July 15, 2026: 12-month moratorium on AI data center development (through approximately July 15, 2027). Commissioners signaled intent to work toward a permanent prohibition during the pause. Not to be confused with Franklin County, VA (separate dataset entry franklin-county-va-zoning-rewrite-proposed).","who_is_protected":"Franklin County, FL residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Franklin County, FL","citation":"Franklin County, FL Board of County Commissioners unanimous vote, July 15, 2026, 1-year AI data center moratorium","source_url":"https://www.mypanhandle.com/news/local-news/franklin-county-approves-1-year-ai-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Franklin County approves 1-year AI data center moratorium — WMBB mypanhandle.com","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Franklin County, FL Planning and Building; Board of County Commissioners","penalties":"Permit/application denial during moratorium"},{"id":"cleveland-oh-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Cleveland, OH 3-Month Moratorium on Standalone Data Centers (Extendable)","short_title":"Cleveland OH 3-month data center moratorium (eff. July 15, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cleveland, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Cuyahoga","city":"Cleveland","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-15","enacted_date":"2026-07-15","expires_date":"2026-10-15","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Cleveland, Ohio paused new standalone data center projects for three months on July 15, 2026, by a 14-1 city council vote. The pause can be extended for three additional months. It applies to standalone data centers — facilities whose primary use is data processing — rather than server rooms inside other businesses.","summary_technical":"Cleveland (OH) City Council 14-1 vote July 15, 2026: 3-month moratorium on standalone data center projects, extendable by an additional 3 months (maximum ~6 months). Initial term runs to approximately Oct. 15, 2026 (expires_date). Scope limited to standalone DC facilities. Adopted at the same meeting where council decided to retain Flock surveillance cameras (separate matter, not indexed here).","who_is_protected":"Cleveland, OH residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of standalone data centers seeking approvals in Cleveland, OH","citation":"Cleveland, OH City Council 14-1 vote, July 15, 2026, 3-month standalone data center moratorium (extendable 3 months)","source_url":"https://signalcleveland.org/cleveland-to-keep-flock-cameras-pause-data-center-projects/","source_title":"Cleveland to keep Flock cameras, pause data center projects — Signal Cleveland","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Cleveland, OH City Planning Commission / Building and Housing; City Council","penalties":"Permit/application denial during moratorium"},{"id":"brookhaven-ny-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Town of Brookhaven, NY 18-Month Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Brookhaven NY 18-month data center moratorium (eff. July 16, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Brookhaven, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"Suffolk","city":"Brookhaven","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-16","enacted_date":"2026-07-16","expires_date":"2028-01-16","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"The Town of Brookhaven on Long Island (Suffolk County, New York — the town containing Yaphank) unanimously adopted an 18-month moratorium on data center development on July 16, 2026, following a heated board meeting. The vote came amid controversy over data center projects in the Yaphank area, including the Wildflower project.","summary_technical":"Town of Brookhaven (Suffolk County, NY) Town Board unanimous vote July 16, 2026: 18-month data center development moratorium (through approximately Jan. 16, 2028). Context: contested data center development in Yaphank, including the Wildflower data center project. Town-level action; one of the largest towns by population in New York State.","who_is_protected":"Town of Brookhaven, NY residents (including Yaphank)","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in the Town of Brookhaven, NY","citation":"Town of Brookhaven, NY Town Board unanimous vote, July 16, 2026, 18-month data center moratorium","source_url":"https://www.southshorepress.com/local/brookhaven-board-meeting-gets-heated-approves-data-center-moratorium-85717cf6","source_title":"Brookhaven board meeting gets heated, approves data center moratorium — South Shore Press","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Brookhaven, NY Planning, Environment and Land Management; Town Board","penalties":"Permit/application denial during moratorium"},{"id":"pensacola-fl-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Pensacola, FL 1-Year Moratorium on Large-Scale Data Centers","short_title":"Pensacola FL 1-year large-scale data center moratorium (eff. July 16, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Pensacola, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Escambia","city":"Pensacola","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-16","enacted_date":"2026-07-16","expires_date":"2027-07-16","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Pensacola, Florida adopted a one-year moratorium on large-scale data centers on July 16, 2026. The ordinance, brought by Council Member Bare, is intended as a bridge measure while the city works toward a permanent ban on large data centers.","summary_technical":"City of Pensacola (FL) council action July 16, 2026: 12-month moratorium on large-scale data centers (through approximately July 16, 2027), via an ordinance sponsored by Council Member Bare, positioned as a bridge to a permanent prohibition. Vote tally unconfirmed in available coverage. Note: the WEAR TV source URL slug says 'Escambia County' but the measure reported is the City of Pensacola's.","who_is_protected":"Pensacola, FL residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of large-scale data centers seeking approvals in Pensacola, FL","citation":"City of Pensacola, FL 1-year large-scale data center moratorium (Bare ordinance), July 16, 2026","source_url":"https://weartv.com/news/local/escambia-county-passes-one-year-moratorium-on-large-scale-data-centers-as-debate-grows","source_title":"One-year moratorium on large-scale data centers adopted as debate grows — WEAR TV","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Pensacola, FL Planning and Zoning; City Council","penalties":"Permit/application denial during moratorium"},{"id":"newberry-county-sc-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Newberry County, SC 12-Month Data Center Permit Moratorium","short_title":"Newberry County SC 12-month data center moratorium (confirmed July 15, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Newberry County, SC","state_abbr":"SC","county":"Newberry","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-15","enacted_date":"2026-07-15","expires_date":"2027-07-15","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Newberry County, South Carolina finalized a year-long moratorium on data center permits on July 15, 2026, with a unanimous county council confirmation vote. The moratorium first passed in June 2026 and blocks new data center permits while the county studies regulations.","summary_technical":"Newberry County (SC) Council unanimous final confirmation vote July 15, 2026 for a 12-month data center permit moratorium (first-passage June 2026, consistent with SC multi-reading requirements). expires_date recorded as 2027-07-15 (12 months from final confirmation) — the term may instead run from the June first passage or the ordinance's stated start; confirm the operative start date against the ordinance text.","who_is_protected":"Newberry County, SC residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits in Newberry County, SC","citation":"Newberry County, SC Council unanimous final confirmation, July 15, 2026, 12-month data center permit moratorium","source_url":"https://www.foxcarolina.com/2026/07/16/newberry-county-council-unanimously-confirms-year-long-moratorium-data-centers/","source_title":"Newberry County Council unanimously confirms year-long moratorium on data centers — FOX Carolina","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Newberry County, SC Planning and Zoning; County Council","penalties":"Permit denial during moratorium"},{"id":"east-greenbush-ny-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Town of East Greenbush, NY 6-Month Moratorium on Data Center Development and Operations","short_title":"East Greenbush NY 6-month data center moratorium (eff. July 15, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"East Greenbush, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"Rensselaer","city":"East Greenbush","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-15","enacted_date":"2026-07-15","expires_date":"2027-01-15","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"The Town of East Greenbush, New York (Rensselaer County, near Albany) unanimously adopted its own six-month moratorium on data centers on July 15, 2026 — covering not just new development but also data center operations. Town Supervisor Conway described it as the town's 'own layer of protection,' going beyond the New York state executive order on data centers.","summary_technical":"Town of East Greenbush (Rensselaer County, NY) Town Board unanimous vote July 15, 2026: 6-month moratorium on data center development AND operations (through approximately Jan. 15, 2027). Scope note: inclusion of operations makes this broader than the NY state executive action; Supervisor Conway framed it as an independent municipal layer of protection.","who_is_protected":"Town of East Greenbush, NY residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators in the Town of East Greenbush, NY","citation":"Town of East Greenbush, NY Town Board unanimous vote, July 15, 2026, 6-month data center development and operations moratorium","source_url":"https://cbs6albany.com/news/local/ourour-own-layer-of-protection-east-greenbush-passes-its-own-data-center-moratorium","source_title":"'Our own layer of protection': East Greenbush passes its own data center moratorium — CBS6 Albany","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of East Greenbush, NY building/zoning administration; Town Board","penalties":"Permit/application denial and operational restriction during moratorium"},{"id":"springville-al-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Springville, AL 1-Year Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Springville AL 1-year data center moratorium (eff. July 6, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Springville, AL","state_abbr":"AL","county":"St. Clair","city":"Springville","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-06","enacted_date":"2026-07-06","expires_date":"2027-07-06","last_verified_date":"2026-08-20","summary_plain":"Springville, Alabama (St. Clair County, northeast of Birmingham) placed a one-year moratorium on data center proposals on July 6, 2026. The move was proactive — no data center was pending — and follows nearby Leeds in pausing data center development in the Birmingham metro area.","summary_technical":"City of Springville (AL) council action July 6, 2026: 12-month moratorium on data center proposals (through approximately July 6, 2027). Proactive adoption without a pending application; part of a Birmingham-area cluster with Leeds.","who_is_protected":"Springville, AL residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers submitting proposals in Springville, AL","citation":"City of Springville, AL council action, July 6, 2026, 1-year data center moratorium","source_url":"https://www.cbs42.com/trussville-tribune/springville-places-1-year-moratorium-on-data-center-proposals/","source_title":"Springville places 1-year moratorium on data center proposals — CBS 42 / Trussville Tribune","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Springville, AL; City Council and zoning administration","penalties":"Permit/application denial during moratorium"},{"id":"sharon-pa-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026","title":"Sharon, PA Zoning Ordinance — Industrial-District Siting and Operating Requirements for Data Centers","short_title":"Sharon PA data center zoning guardrails (July 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Sharon, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Mercer","city":"Sharon","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Sharon, Pennsylvania (Mercer County, in the Shenango Valley) adopted zoning guardrails for data centers: they may only be sited in industrial districts and must meet operating requirements. The change was reported by WFMJ on July 16, 2026.","summary_technical":"City of Sharon (Mercer County, PA) zoning ordinance establishing industrial-district-only siting for data centers plus operating requirements. Reported by WFMJ July 16, 2026; the precise council meeting date, vote tally, and ordinance number were not in coverage and need confirmation from minutes — enacted_date/effective_date intentionally left null pending that confirmation.","who_is_protected":"Sharon, PA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators in Sharon, PA","citation":"City of Sharon, PA zoning ordinance on data center siting and operations (reported July 16, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wfmj.com/news/local-news/sharon/sharon-city-council-okays-zoning-guardrails-on-data-centers/article_03273dde-01d6-407e-9d1b-7fc89d9a49ae.html","source_title":"Sharon city council okays zoning guardrails on data centers — WFMJ","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Sharon, PA zoning administration; City Council","penalties":"Zoning denial for non-industrial siting; enforcement of operating requirements"},{"id":"pocatello-id-dc-cup-denial-2026","title":"Pocatello, ID Denial of Conditional Use Permit for 100MW Lex Developments AI Data Center","short_title":"Pocatello ID data center CUP denial upheld (July 16, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Pocatello, ID","state_abbr":"ID","county":"Bannock","city":"Pocatello","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-16","enacted_date":"2026-07-16","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Pocatello, Idaho's city council said no to a proposed $2.6 billion AI data center. On July 16, 2026 the council voted 4-1 to uphold a hearing examiner's earlier denial of the conditional use permit for the 100-megawatt Lex Developments project. The developer cannot reapply for 12 months and has vowed to sue. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes were among the project's opponents.","summary_technical":"Pocatello (ID) City Council 4-1 vote July 16, 2026 upholding the hearing examiner's denial of a conditional use permit (CUP) for Lex Developments' proposed AI data center ($2.6B capital, 100MW). Effect: CUP denied; 12-month bar on reapplication. Developer has stated intent to litigate — watch for a suit that would add a litigation entry. Opposition included the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.","who_is_protected":"Pocatello, ID residents; Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (project opponents)","who_must_comply":"Lex Developments (12-month reapplication bar); future data center CUP applicants in Pocatello, ID","citation":"Pocatello, ID City Council 4-1 vote, July 16, 2026, upholding CUP denial for Lex Developments 100MW AI data center","source_url":"https://localnews8.com/news/2026/07/16/pocatello-city-council-upholds-hearing-examiners-decision-says-no-to-proposed-ai-data-center/","source_title":"Pocatello City Council upholds hearing examiner's decision, says no to proposed AI data center — Local News 8","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Pocatello, ID Planning and Development Services; City Council","penalties":"CUP denial; 12-month reapplication bar"},{"id":"boulder-city-nv-blm-dc-appeal-2026","title":"Boulder City, NV Appeal of Federal BLM Approval of Townsite Data Center","short_title":"Boulder City NV appeal vs BLM data center approval (authorized July 14, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Boulder City, NV","state_abbr":"NV","county":"Clark","city":"Boulder City","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Boulder City, Nevada is fighting a federally approved data center. On July 14, 2026 the city council voted to appeal the Bureau of Land Management's approval of the Townsite data center project on BLM land near the city, and to seek a stay that would pause the project while the appeal is heard. The appeal must be filed by July 27, 2026.","summary_technical":"Boulder City (NV) City Council action July 14, 2026 authorizing (1) an administrative appeal challenging the BLM's approval of the Townsite data center project on federal BLM land, and (2) a stay request to halt project activity pending the appeal. Filing deadline: July 27, 2026. Indexed as litigation (challenge to a federal land-use approval); not a zoning enactment.","who_is_protected":"Boulder City, NV residents","who_must_comply":"Bureau of Land Management and the Townsite data center developer (if the appeal/stay succeeds)","citation":"Boulder City, NV council authorization, July 14, 2026, appeal and stay request vs BLM Townsite data center approval","source_url":"https://www.fox5vegas.com/2026/07/15/boulder-city-council-votes-appeal-federal-approval-data-center-blm-land/","source_title":"Boulder City council votes to appeal federal approval of data center on BLM land — FOX5 Vegas","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Appeal forum: U.S. Department of the Interior administrative review of the BLM approval (per city authorization)"},{"id":"indio-ca-dc-moratorium-extension-2026","title":"Indio, CA Urgency Moratorium on New Data Center Projects (Extended July 2026)","short_title":"Indio CA data center urgency moratorium extension (July 14, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Indio, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Riverside","city":"Indio","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-14","enacted_date":"2026-07-14","expires_date":"2027-10-16","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Indio, California (Coachella Valley, Riverside County) extended its emergency moratorium on new data center projects on July 14, 2026, by unanimous city council vote. California cities use 'urgency' moratoriums that start short and can be extended in defined increments while zoning rules are written.","summary_technical":"City of Indio (CA) unanimous council vote July 14, 2026 extending its urgency interim ordinance (moratorium) on new data center projects under California Government Code interim-ordinance procedure. Extension LENGTH NOT STATED in coverage; the conventional Gov. Code 65858 first extension is 10 months 15 days, but that is UNCONFIRMED here — expires_date left null pending the ordinance text.","who_is_protected":"Indio, CA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Indio, CA","citation":"City of Indio, CA urgency data center moratorium, extended by unanimous council vote July 14, 2026","source_url":"https://www.nbcpalmsprings.com/2026/07/15/indio-city-council-extends-moratorium-on-new-data-center-projects","source_title":"Indio City Council extends moratorium on new data center projects — NBC Palm Springs","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Indio, CA Community Development; City Council","penalties":"Permit/application denial during moratorium"},{"id":"hagar-township-mi-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Hagar Township, MI Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Hagar Township MI data center moratorium (eff. July 13, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Hagar Township, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Berrien","city":"Hagar Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-13","enacted_date":"2026-07-13","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Hagar Township in Berrien County, Michigan (on Lake Michigan, north of Benton Harbor) adopted a moratorium on data centers on July 13, 2026. How long the pause lasts was not reported.","summary_technical":"Hagar Township (Berrien County, MI) board action July 13, 2026 adopting a data center moratorium. DURATION NOT STATED in coverage — expires_date left null pending township records. The same meeting also heard resident concerns over drain-district assessments (unrelated to the moratorium).","who_is_protected":"Hagar Township, MI residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Hagar Township, MI","citation":"Hagar Township, MI board action, July 13, 2026, data center moratorium","source_url":"https://www.tricityrecord.com/post/hagar-township-board-approves-data-center-moratorium-hears-concerns-over-drain-district-assessments","source_title":"Hagar Township board approves data center moratorium, hears concerns over drain district assessments — Tri-City Record","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Hagar Township, MI board and zoning administration","penalties":"Permit/application denial during moratorium"},{"id":"st-charles-county-mo-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"St. Charles County, MO 6-Month Moratorium on Large Data Centers (>100k sq ft or >5MW)","short_title":"St. Charles County MO 6-month data center moratorium (eff. July 13, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"St. Charles County, MO","state_abbr":"MO","county":"St. Charles","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-13","enacted_date":"2026-07-13","expires_date":"2027-01-13","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"St. Charles County, Missouri (St. Louis suburbs) unanimously imposed a six-month moratorium on large data center projects on July 13, 2026. The pause covers projects bigger than 100,000 square feet or drawing more than 5 megawatts of power.","summary_technical":"St. Charles County (MO) unanimous action July 13, 2026: 6-month moratorium on data center projects exceeding EITHER 100,000 sq ft OR 5MW (through approximately Jan. 13, 2027). Dual size/power threshold captures both large-footprint and high-density facilities. Distinct from the City of Wentzville's own 6-month application moratorium within the county (separate entry).","who_is_protected":"St. Charles County, MO residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers >100,000 sq ft or >5MW in St. Charles County, MO","citation":"St. Charles County, MO unanimous vote, July 13, 2026, 6-month moratorium on data centers >100,000 sq ft or >5MW","source_url":"https://www.stlpr.org/government-politics-issues/2026-07-14/st-charles-county-officials-approve-half-year-ban-on-data-center-projects","source_title":"St. Charles County officials approve half-year ban on data center projects — St. Louis Public Radio","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"St. Charles County, MO Community Development; County Council","penalties":"Permit/application denial during moratorium"},{"id":"wentzville-mo-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Wentzville, MO 6-Month Moratorium on New Data Center Applications","short_title":"Wentzville MO 6-month data center application moratorium (early July 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Wentzville, MO","state_abbr":"MO","county":"St. Charles","city":"Wentzville","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-08","enacted_date":"2026-07-08","expires_date":"2027-01-08","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Wentzville, Missouri (a fast-growing St. Charles County suburb of St. Louis) put a six-month moratorium on new data center applications in early July 2026. The city pause is separate from — and preceded — St. Charles County's own county-level moratorium.","summary_technical":"City of Wentzville (St. Charles County, MO) Board of Aldermen action, early July 2026: 6-month moratorium on new data center applications. Exact meeting date unconfirmed — likely July 8, 2026 (First Alert 4 coverage published July 10); enacted/effective/expires dates keyed to July 8 and flagged approximate. Complements the later St. Charles County countywide >100k sq ft / >5MW moratorium (separate entry).","who_is_protected":"Wentzville, MO residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers submitting applications in Wentzville, MO","citation":"City of Wentzville, MO Board of Aldermen action, early July 2026, 6-month data center application moratorium","source_url":"https://www.firstalert4.com/2026/07/10/6-month-moratorium-new-data-center-applications-approved-by-wentzville-board-aldermen/","source_title":"6-month moratorium on new data center applications approved by Wentzville Board of Aldermen — First Alert 4","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Wentzville, MO Community Development; Board of Aldermen","penalties":"Application denial/non-acceptance during moratorium"},{"id":"pa-hb-1924-dc-reporting-2026","title":"Pennsylvania HB 1924 — Annual Data Center Water and Energy Use Reporting Mandate","short_title":"PA HB 1924 data center water/energy reporting (signed July 12, 2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"PA","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["data-centers","transparency"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-07-12","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Pennsylvania now requires data centers to report their water and energy use every year. The mandate — House Bill 1924, signed July 12, 2026 as part of the state's 2026-27 budget — carries fines of $10,000 per day for facilities that fail to report. The Department of Environmental Protection will publish an annual aggregate report, and the data is expected to improve grid-demand forecasting in the PJM region.","summary_technical":"Pennsylvania HB 1924, signed July 12, 2026 within the FY2026-27 budget package: statewide mandate for annual data center water and energy consumption reporting. Penalty: $10,000/day for non-compliance. DEP to publish an annual aggregated report; coverage notes the data should give PJM Interconnection better load-forecasting insight into data center demand growth. One of the first statewide DC resource-use transparency mandates.","who_is_protected":"Pennsylvania residents, ratepayers, and water users","who_must_comply":"Data center operators in Pennsylvania","citation":"Pennsylvania HB 1924 (signed July 12, 2026, FY2026-27 budget), annual data center water/energy reporting mandate","source_url":"https://www.utilitydive.com/news/pennsylvania-passes-budget-increasing-data-center-oversight/825177/","source_title":"Pennsylvania passes budget increasing data center oversight — Utility Dive","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)","penalties":"$10,000 per day for failure to report"},{"id":"nm-project-jupiter-air-permit-hearing-2026","title":"New Mexico Environment Department — Project Jupiter Data Center Air Quality Permit Public Hearing (Oct. 2026)","short_title":"NM Project Jupiter air permit hearing (Oct 19, 2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NM","state_abbr":"NM","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"New Mexico's environmental regulator will hold a public hearing on October 19, 2026 before deciding whether to grant an air quality permit to Project Jupiter, a massive proposed data center project. A decision is due by November 23, 2026. The hearing gives residents a formal channel to weigh in on the project's air emissions (including from on-site generation).","summary_technical":"New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) air quality permit proceeding for the Project Jupiter data center: public hearing scheduled 2026-10-19; permit decision deadline 2026-11-23. Indexed as proposed — a pending regulatory gate, not an enacted protection; outcome (grant/deny/conditions) will determine follow-up entry status. Related: NM State Land Commissioner's denial of a Project Jupiter-related pipeline right-of-way (separate entry nm-project-jupiter-pipeline-row-denial-2026).","who_is_protected":"New Mexico residents near the proposed Project Jupiter site (air quality)","who_must_comply":"Project Jupiter developers (air permit applicants)","citation":"NMED Project Jupiter air quality permit proceeding — public hearing Oct. 19, 2026; decision due Nov. 23, 2026","source_url":"https://sourcenm.com/2026/07/16/nm-environment-department-schedules-october-hearing-for-project-jupiter-air-quality-permit/","source_title":"NM Environment Department schedules October hearing for Project Jupiter air quality permit — Source New Mexico","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)"},{"id":"nm-project-jupiter-pipeline-row-denial-2026","title":"New Mexico State Land Commissioner Denial of Project Jupiter-Related Pipeline Right-of-Way on State Land","short_title":"NM Land Commissioner blocks Project Jupiter pipeline (July 14, 2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NM","state_abbr":"NM","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-14","enacted_date":"2026-07-14","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"New Mexico's State Land Commissioner has again refused to let a pipeline serving the proposed Project Jupiter data center cross state trust land. A denial letter dated July 14, 2026 marks the office's second rejection of the right-of-way request, cutting off a key infrastructure route for the project.","summary_technical":"New Mexico State Land Office decision, denial letter dated July 14, 2026: second denial of a right-of-way (ROW) application for a Project Jupiter-related pipeline across state trust land. The denial is an operative protective decision by a state constitutional office restricting data center-supporting infrastructure on public land. Related pending gate: NMED air quality permit hearing Oct. 19, 2026 (separate entry).","who_is_protected":"New Mexico state trust land beneficiaries and residents near the proposed route","who_must_comply":"The pipeline applicant / Project Jupiter-related developers","citation":"New Mexico State Land Office denial letter (July 14, 2026), Project Jupiter-related pipeline right-of-way on state trust land — second denial","source_url":"https://sourcenm.com/2026/07/16/new-mexico-land-commissioner-blocks-project-jupiter-related-pipeline-from-building-on-state-land/","source_title":"New Mexico land commissioner blocks Project Jupiter-related pipeline from building on state land — Source New Mexico","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"New Mexico State Land Office (Commissioner of Public Lands)","penalties":"Right-of-way denial — pipeline cannot cross state trust land as proposed"},{"id":"huntington-wv-flock-contract-2026","title":"Huntington, WV $2.1M Flock Safety Surveillance Contract (Approved 2026)","short_title":"Huntington WV Flock contract approved 6-4 (Jul. 14, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Huntington, WV","state_abbr":"WV","county":"Cabell","city":"Huntington","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-14","enacted_date":"2026-07-14","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"The Huntington, West Virginia City Council voted 6-4 on July 14, 2026 to approve a $2.1 million contract with Flock Safety for a citywide surveillance package: 40 automated license plate readers, 17 cameras, 2 drones, 2 gunshot detectors, and audio detection capability. The vote came after a council meeting that ran more than 8 hours, at which more than 50 residents spoke in opposition. This entry indexes a government AI surveillance deployment, not a protection; available coverage describes no independent oversight, audit requirement, or data-sharing restrictions attached to the approval. Two days later the ACLU of West Virginia filed a mandamus petition challenging the contract (see litig-aclu-wv-v-huntington-flock-2026).","summary_technical":"Huntington (WV) City Council 6-4 vote, July 14, 2026, approving $2.1M Flock Safety contract. Package: 40 automated license plate readers (ALPRs), 17 cameras, 2 drones, 2 gunshot detectors, and audio detection. Meeting exceeded 8 hours; 50+ residents spoke in opposition. Surveillance-adoption entry — no oversight conditions, audit mechanism, or third-party data-sharing limits reported in coverage. Subject of ACLU-WV mandamus petition filed July 16, 2026 in Cabell County Circuit Court on procurement/property-law grounds.","who_is_protected":"No protections attached — indexed as a surveillance deployment. Huntington, WV residents and drivers are subject to ALPR, camera, drone, gunshot-detection, and audio-detection surveillance; available coverage reports no independent oversight, audit, or data-sharing restrictions in the approved contract.","who_must_comply":"City of Huntington, WV and Huntington Police Department (contract administration); Flock Safety (vendor)","citation":"Huntington, WV City Council 6-4 vote, July 14, 2026, approving $2.1M Flock Safety surveillance contract","source_url":"https://westvirginiawatch.com/2026/07/14/huntington-city-council-approves-purchase-of-flock-cameras-despite-public-opposition/","source_title":"Huntington City Council approves purchase of Flock cameras despite public opposition — West Virginia Watch","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Huntington City Council; Huntington Police Department (operational control)"},{"id":"litig-aclu-wv-v-huntington-flock-2026","title":"ACLU-WV Mandamus Petition v. City of Huntington over Flock Safety Contract (Cabell County Circuit Court)","short_title":"ACLU-WV v. Huntington (Flock contract mandamus)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Huntington, WV","state_abbr":"WV","county":"Cabell","city":"Huntington","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-16","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"On July 16, 2026 — two days after the Huntington City Council approved a $2.1 million Flock Safety surveillance contract 6-4 — the ACLU of West Virginia filed a mandamus petition in Cabell County Circuit Court against the City of Huntington and Mayor Farrell seeking to block the contract. Rather than a constitutional privacy claim, the petition rests on a procurement/property-law theory challenging how the city entered the contract. The relator (the party on whose behalf mandamus is sought) is Huntington resident Gregory Jimison. The case is an early example of surveillance-contract litigation attacking the purchasing process itself.","summary_technical":"State ex rel. Jimison mandamus petition, Cabell County Circuit Court (WV), filed July 16, 2026. Respondents: City of Huntington and Mayor Farrell. Theory: procurement/property-law defects in the award of the $2.1M Flock Safety contract (40 ALPRs, 17 cameras, 2 drones, 2 gunshot detectors, audio detection), not a Fourth Amendment or state constitutional privacy claim. ACLU-WV represents the relator. Underlying contract approved by council 6-4 on July 14, 2026 (see huntington-wv-flock-contract-2026). Case number not available in coverage as of July 19, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Huntington, WV residents (if the petition succeeds, the Flock surveillance contract would be blocked or unwound)","who_must_comply":"City of Huntington, WV; Mayor Farrell (respondents)","citation":"ACLU-WV mandamus petition (relator Gregory Jimison) v. City of Huntington and Mayor Farrell, Cabell County Circuit Court, filed July 16, 2026","source_url":"https://wvmetronews.com/2026/07/16/city-of-huntington-hit-with-lawsuit-from-aclu-others-over-2-1-million-flock-safety-contract/","source_title":"City of Huntington hit with lawsuit from ACLU, others over $2.1 million Flock Safety contract — WV MetroNews","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Cabell County Circuit Court, WV","penalties":"Mandamus relief sought (contract blocked/unwound); no damages theory reported in coverage"},{"id":"minneapolis-mn-skydio-dfr-rejection-2026","title":"Minneapolis, MN City Council Rejection of Skydio Police Drone-as-First-Responder Contract (2026)","short_title":"Minneapolis rejects Skydio DFR contract 6-6 (Jul. 16, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Minneapolis, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Hennepin","city":"Minneapolis","topics":["law-enforcement","robotics","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-16","enacted_date":"2026-07-16","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"On July 16, 2026, the Minneapolis City Council deadlocked 6-6 on a proposed contract with drone maker Skydio for a police drone-as-first-responder (DFR) program, killing the deal. The vote followed a 75-day free trial Skydio provided the Minneapolis Police Department in north Minneapolis. Council opposition centered on Skydio's sales to ICE and to Israel, and on data-leak concerns. The rejection ends, for now, MPD's path to a permanent DFR program, making Minneapolis one of the larger US cities to decline a police drone contract after piloting one.","summary_technical":"Minneapolis City Council 6-6 tie vote, July 16, 2026; motion to approve the Skydio DFR contract failed for lack of a majority. Preceded by a 75-day no-cost MPD trial deployment in north Minneapolis. Stated grounds among opposing members: Skydio's contracts with ICE and sales to Israel, and data-security/data-leak concerns. Protective decision (contract rejection) — indexed status 'effective' per dataset convention for operative protective outcomes.","who_is_protected":"Minneapolis residents — particularly north Minneapolis residents who were subject to the trial deployment — who will not be surveilled by a permanent MPD drone-as-first-responder program under this contract","who_must_comply":"Minneapolis Police Department (may not proceed with the Skydio DFR contract); City of Minneapolis procurement","citation":"Minneapolis City Council 6-6 deadlock, July 16, 2026, rejecting MPD Skydio drone-as-first-responder contract","source_url":"https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/07/16/minneapolis-city-council-rejects-police-drone-contract-with-skydio","source_title":"Minneapolis City Council rejects police drone contract with Skydio — MPR News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Minneapolis City Council (contract authority)"},{"id":"az-appeals-ai-hallucinated-citations-sanctions-2026","title":"Arizona Court of Appeals Published Opinion — Sanctions for AI-Hallucinated Citations Regardless of Intent (2026)","short_title":"AZ Ct. App. — AI fake citations sanctionable regardless of intent","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arizona","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"The Arizona Court of Appeals issued its first published opinion addressing generative AI in court filings, holding that submitting AI-hallucinated (fake) case citations is sanctionable regardless of the filer's intent — an innocent mistake is no defense. The rule applies to lawyers and self-represented (pro se) litigants alike. The court imposed a fee sanction in the underlying case. As a published opinion, it binds Arizona trial courts statewide, putting every filer on notice that AI-generated citations must be verified against real authorities before filing.","summary_technical":"Arizona Court of Appeals published opinion authored by Judge Brian Furuya — the first published Arizona appellate opinion on generative-AI use in filings. Holding: citation of nonexistent AI-generated authorities is sanctionable irrespective of intent; standard applies equally to counsel and pro se litigants. Disposition included an attorney-fee sanction. Published status gives the opinion statewide precedential effect in Arizona courts. Exact opinion filing date not stated in news coverage; confirm from azcourts.gov.","who_is_protected":"Arizona litigants and courts — parties are protected from opposing filings built on fabricated AI-generated authorities; the integrity of the Arizona court record","who_must_comply":"All filers in Arizona state courts: attorneys and self-represented (pro se) litigants","citation":"Arizona Court of Appeals published opinion (Judge Brian Furuya), first published AZ opinion on generative AI in court filings; reported July 16, 2026","source_url":"https://azmirror.com/briefs/az-court-of-appeals-citing-fake-ai-generated-cases-can-get-you-sanctioned-no-matter-your-intent/","source_title":"AZ Court of Appeals: citing fake AI-generated cases can get you sanctioned, no matter your intent — Arizona Mirror","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Arizona state courts (sanctions authority); Arizona Court of Appeals precedent","penalties":"Sanctions regardless of intent, including attorney-fee awards (fee sanction imposed in the underlying case)"},{"id":"wasatch-county-ut-ai-use-policy-2026","title":"Wasatch County, UT Government AI Use Policy (2026)","short_title":"Wasatch County UT AI use policy (Jul. 15, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Wasatch County, UT","state_abbr":"UT","county":"Wasatch","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-15","enacted_date":"2026-07-15","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Wasatch County, Utah unanimously adopted a policy on July 15, 2026 setting guardrails for county government use of artificial intelligence. The policy restricts county employees to approved AI tools only, requires disclosure when AI is used, and requires human verification of AI-generated output before it is relied on. The policy governs internal county government use of AI rather than regulating private-sector AI.","summary_technical":"Wasatch County (UT) Council unanimous vote, July 15, 2026, adopting a county AI use policy with three core requirements per coverage: (1) employees may use only county-approved AI tools; (2) AI use must be disclosed; (3) human verification of AI output required. Internal-governance instrument (public-sector AI governance); applies to county workforce and operations.","who_is_protected":"Wasatch County, UT residents interacting with county government (AI use disclosed; output human-verified)","who_must_comply":"Wasatch County government employees and departments using AI tools","citation":"Wasatch County, UT Council unanimous vote, July 15, 2026, adopting county government AI use policy","source_url":"https://www.kpcw.org/wasatch-county/2026-07-16/wasatch-county-sets-guardrails-around-artificial-intelligence-use","source_title":"Wasatch County sets guardrails around artificial intelligence use — KPCW","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Wasatch County, UT government (internal policy administration)"},{"id":"blanchester-oh-schools-ai-policy-edec-2026","title":"Blanchester Local Schools (OH) Artificial Intelligence Policy EDEC (2026)","short_title":"Blanchester OH schools AI policy EDEC (Jun. 29, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Blanchester, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Clinton","city":"Blanchester","topics":["education","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-29","enacted_date":"2026-06-29","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"The Blanchester Local Schools board in Clinton County, Ohio adopted a district artificial intelligence policy (policy EDEC) on June 29, 2026, meeting the July 1, 2026 deadline set by Ohio House Bill 96. HB 96 made Ohio the first state in the nation to require every school district to adopt an AI policy — the statewide mandate is the context that makes this small-district adoption notable. The policy governs AI use in the district under the state-mandated framework.","summary_technical":"Blanchester Local Schools (Clinton County, OH) Board of Education adoption of policy EDEC (artificial intelligence), June 29, 2026. Compliance instrument under Ohio HB 96, which required all Ohio districts to adopt an AI policy by July 1, 2026 — the first statewide district-AI-policy mandate in the US. Policy code EDEC per the district's policy manual numbering.","who_is_protected":"Blanchester Local Schools students, families, and staff","who_must_comply":"Blanchester Local Schools students, teachers, and staff (AI use governed by policy EDEC)","citation":"Blanchester Local Schools (OH) Board of Education, policy EDEC adoption, June 29, 2026, under Ohio HB 96 mandate","source_url":"https://www.wnewsj.com/2026/07/16/blanchester-school-board-adopts-new-ai-policy-under-state-mandate/","source_title":"Blanchester school board adopts new AI policy under state mandate — Wilmington News Journal","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Blanchester Local Schools Board of Education; district administration"},{"id":"cleveland-oh-flock-renewal-restrictions-2026","title":"Cleveland, OH Six-Month Flock Safety Renewal with New Data-Sharing Restrictions (2026)","short_title":"Cleveland OH Flock 6-month renewal w/ data-sharing restrictions (Jul. 15, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cleveland, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Cuyahoga","city":"Cleveland","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-15","enacted_date":"2026-07-15","expires_date":"2027-01-15","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Cleveland City Council voted 9-6 on July 15, 2026 to keep the city's Flock Safety license plate reader cameras for another six months — but attached new restrictions the prior contract lacked. Under the renewal, Flock data may not be shared with other governments or third parties, and access by the regional fusion center is cut off. The short six-month term functions as a probationary period. This entry indexes a surveillance deployment renewal; the new data-sharing restrictions are the operative oversight conditions.","summary_technical":"Cleveland (OH) City Council 9-6 vote, July 15, 2026: six-month Flock Safety ALPR contract renewal conditioned on (1) no data sharing with other governments or third parties and (2) termination of fusion-center access. Six-month term implies expiration around mid-January 2027 (expires_date estimated 2027-01-15 from the vote date; confirm exact contract term). Surveillance-adoption entry with oversight conditions — strength 'limited'.","who_is_protected":"Cleveland residents and drivers — Flock data may not be shared with other governments or third parties, and fusion-center access is cut, limiting downstream use (including immigration-enforcement and out-of-jurisdiction queries)","who_must_comply":"City of Cleveland and Cleveland Division of Police (data-sharing restrictions); Flock Safety (vendor)","citation":"Cleveland, OH City Council 9-6 vote, July 15, 2026, six-month Flock Safety renewal with no-data-sharing and no-fusion-center conditions","source_url":"https://signalcleveland.org/cleveland-to-keep-flock-cameras-pause-data-center-projects/","source_title":"Cleveland to keep Flock cameras, pause data center projects — Signal Cleveland","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Cleveland City Council (contract conditions); Cleveland Division of Police (operational compliance)"},{"id":"kaukauna-wi-flock-nonrenewal-2026","title":"Kaukauna, WI Flock Safety Contract Non-Renewal (2026)","short_title":"Kaukauna WI Flock non-renewal (announced Jul. 8, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Kaukauna, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Outagamie","city":"Kaukauna","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-08","enacted_date":"2026-07-08","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"The city of Kaukauna, Wisconsin announced on July 8, 2026 that it will not renew its contract with Flock Safety; the contract had expired in June. The police chief gave five reasons: fiscal responsibility, the loss of regional partner agencies that had shared the network, the department's inability to audit the system, security concerns, and reported misuse of Flock systems in other jurisdictions. The decision removes Flock license plate reader surveillance from the city and is indexed as a protective decision.","summary_technical":"Kaukauna (WI) Flock Safety contract non-renewal, announced July 8, 2026; underlying contract expired June 2026. Stated grounds (police chief): (1) fiscal responsibility; (2) loss of regional partners; (3) inability to audit the system; (4) security concerns; (5) misuse of Flock systems elsewhere. Protective decision (expiration by choice) — status 'effective' per dataset convention. Notable for citing audit inability and vendor-security concerns as grounds, echoing the 2026 national wave of Flock contract terminations.","who_is_protected":"Kaukauna, WI residents and drivers — no longer subject to Flock ALPR surveillance or its regional data-sharing network","who_must_comply":"Kaukauna Police Department; City of Kaukauna (no renewal of Flock services)","citation":"Kaukauna, WI Flock Safety contract non-renewal, announced July 8, 2026 (contract expired June 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wbay.com/2026/07/08/kaukauna-wont-renew-contract-with-flock/","source_title":"Kaukauna won't renew contract with Flock — WBAY","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Kaukauna, WI; Kaukauna Police Department"},{"id":"harrisonburg-va-flock-termination-pledge-2026","title":"Harrisonburg, VA City Council Pledge to End Flock Safety Contract (Proposed 2026)","short_title":"Harrisonburg VA Flock termination pledge (vote Jul. 28, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Harrisonburg, VA","state_abbr":"VA","city":"Harrisonburg","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Harrisonburg, Virginia City Council members, including Mayor Deanna Reed, have pledged to end the city's contract with Flock Safety, whose license plate reader cameras operate in the city. The contract expires in late July 2026, and the council scheduled a formal vote for July 28, 2026. If the council follows through, Harrisonburg joins the 2026 wave of cities dropping Flock. Indexed as proposed until the formal vote occurs.","summary_technical":"Harrisonburg (VA, independent city) council pledge to terminate/not renew the Flock Safety ALPR contract; formal vote scheduled July 28, 2026; existing contract expires late July 2026. Mayor Deanna Reed among those supporting removal. Status 'proposed' pending the July 28 vote; review_by set to the vote date.","who_is_protected":"Harrisonburg, VA residents and drivers (if the termination vote succeeds, Flock ALPR surveillance ends in the city)","who_must_comply":"City of Harrisonburg and Harrisonburg Police Department (upon termination); Flock Safety (vendor)","citation":"Harrisonburg, VA City Council pledge to end Flock Safety contract; formal vote scheduled July 28, 2026","source_url":"https://www.whsv.com/2026/07/16/harrisonburg-city-council-pledges-removal-flock-cameras-end-contract-late-july/","source_title":"Harrisonburg City Council pledges removal of Flock cameras, end of contract in late July — WHSV","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Harrisonburg City Council (contract authority)"},{"id":"binghamton-ny-flock-termination-proposal-2026","title":"Binghamton, NY Proposed Legislation to Terminate Flock Safety Contract (2026)","short_title":"Binghamton NY Flock termination legislation (in committee, Jul. 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Binghamton, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"Broome","city":"Binghamton","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"A Binghamton, New York city councilwoman has introduced legislation to terminate the city's contract with Flock Safety, whose license plate reader cameras operate in the city. The measure, sponsored by Councilwoman Rathmell, was referred to committee on July 13, 2026 and awaits further action. If enacted, Binghamton would join the growing list of cities ending Flock contracts in 2026.","summary_technical":"Binghamton (NY) City Council legislation to terminate the city's Flock Safety ALPR contract; sponsor Councilwoman Rathmell; referred to committee July 13, 2026. No committee vote or full-council schedule reported. Status 'proposed'; review_by 2026-09-19 (no known decision date).","who_is_protected":"Binghamton, NY residents and drivers (if enacted, Flock ALPR surveillance ends in the city)","who_must_comply":"City of Binghamton and Binghamton Police Department (upon enactment); Flock Safety (vendor)","citation":"Binghamton, NY City Council legislation to terminate Flock Safety contract, referred to committee July 13, 2026 (Cnclw. Rathmell)","source_url":"https://www.wbng.com/2026/07/14/proposed-legislation-end-binghamtons-contract-with-flock-safety/","source_title":"Proposed legislation to end Binghamton's contract with Flock Safety — WBNG","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Binghamton City Council (contract authority)"},{"id":"warren-mi-flock-renewal-2026","title":"Warren, MI Flock Safety Contract Renewal 4-3 After Reconsideration (2026)","short_title":"Warren MI Flock renewal 4-3 ($132k/2yr, Jul. 14, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Warren, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Macomb","city":"Warren","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-14","enacted_date":"2026-07-14","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"The Warren, Michigan City Council renewed the city's Flock Safety license plate reader contract by a narrow 4-3 vote on July 14, 2026, after a reconsideration of an earlier vote. The renewal is worth about $132,000 over two years. Councilwoman Magee, who had previously supported the contract, flipped her vote to no on reconsideration — leaving the renewal to pass by a single vote. This entry indexes a surveillance deployment renewal; no new oversight conditions were reported with the renewal.","summary_technical":"Warren (MI) City Council 4-3 renewal of Flock Safety ALPR contract, July 14, 2026, following a motion to reconsider a prior vote; ~$132,000 / 2-year term. Councilwoman Magee changed her vote to no on reconsideration. No new data-sharing, audit, or oversight conditions reported. Surveillance-adoption entry — strength 'limited'.","who_is_protected":"No new protections attached — indexed as a surveillance deployment renewal. Warren, MI residents and drivers remain subject to Flock ALPR surveillance; no oversight conditions were reported with the renewal.","who_must_comply":"City of Warren, MI and Warren Police Department (contract administration); Flock Safety (vendor)","citation":"Warren, MI City Council 4-3 vote, July 14, 2026, renewing Flock Safety contract (~$132,000 / 2 years) after reconsideration","source_url":"https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/macomb-county/2026/07/14/after-councilwoman-reconsiders-warren-narrowly-renews-flock-contract/90912943007/","source_title":"After councilwoman reconsiders, Warren narrowly renews Flock contract — The Detroit News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Warren City Council; Warren Police Department (operational control)"},{"id":"los-angeles-ca-lapd-flock-expiration-2026","title":"LAPD Flock Safety ALPR Contract Expiration (2026)","short_title":"LAPD lets Flock contract expire (Jul. 11, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Los Angeles, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Los Angeles","city":"Los Angeles","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-11","enacted_date":"2026-07-11","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"The Los Angeles Police Department let its contract with Flock Safety expire on July 11, 2026, shutting down its network of 138 Flock license plate reader cameras. Chief information officer Gialamas cited civil-liberties concerns and worries about immigration authorities' access to Flock data. LAPD is the largest US police department to break with Flock. The move caps a national trend: 82 Flock contracts were terminated nationwide between August 2021 and May 2026, 39 of them in the first five months of 2026 alone.","summary_technical":"LAPD Flock Safety ALPR contract expiration by choice, July 11, 2026; 138 cameras. Stated grounds (CIO Gialamas, per The Record): civil-liberties concerns and immigration-data access risk. Largest US department to end a Flock relationship. National context per The Record: 82 Flock contract terminations Aug. 2021–May 2026; 39 in Jan–May 2026. Protective decision (expiration by choice) — status 'effective' per dataset convention. Note: distinct from the LAPD facial-recognition policy entry (lapd-facial-recognition-policy).","who_is_protected":"Los Angeles residents and drivers — no longer subject to LAPD's 138-camera Flock ALPR network or its data-sharing exposure (including immigration-enforcement access concerns)","who_must_comply":"Los Angeles Police Department; City of Los Angeles (no renewal of Flock services)","citation":"LAPD Flock Safety contract expiration, July 11, 2026 (138 cameras; largest US department to end a Flock contract)","source_url":"https://therecord.media/lapd-halts-flock-safety-alpr-contract","source_title":"LAPD halts Flock Safety ALPR contract — The Record (Recorded Future News)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Los Angeles Police Department; LA Board of Police Commissioners (oversight)"},{"id":"cypress-ca-police-drone-purchase-2026","title":"Cypress, CA Police Drone Program Purchase (2026)","short_title":"Cypress CA police drone purchase (~$138k/3yr, Jul. 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cypress, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Orange","city":"Cypress","topics":["law-enforcement","robotics"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-14","enacted_date":"2026-07-14","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"The Cypress, California City Council voted unanimously to buy drones for its police department — a roughly $138,000 commitment over three years, with $70,000 of the cost covered by a foundation donation. Cypress is one of two Orange County cities (with Stanton) that moved on police drones the same week. This entry indexes a government drone deployment; coverage reports no specific oversight, retention, or privacy conditions attached to the purchase.","summary_technical":"Cypress (OC, CA) City Council unanimous vote authorizing police drone purchase: ~$138,000 over 3 years; $70,000 offset by a foundation donation. Vote date recorded as July 14, 2026 per the day-name in coverage (Tuesday council meeting) — exact date ambiguity noted. No published use policy, retention limits, or oversight conditions reported. Surveillance/robotics-adoption entry — strength 'limited'.","who_is_protected":"No protections attached — indexed as a government drone deployment. Cypress, CA residents are subject to police drone operations; coverage reports no oversight, retention, or privacy conditions on the purchase.","who_must_comply":"Cypress Police Department (program administration); City of Cypress","citation":"Cypress, CA City Council unanimous vote (Jul. 2026) authorizing ~$138,000/3-year police drone purchase with $70,000 foundation donation","source_url":"https://voiceofoc.org/2026/07/two-more-orange-county-cities-eye-police-drones/","source_title":"Two more Orange County cities eye police drones — Voice of OC","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Cypress City Council; Cypress Police Department (operational control)"},{"id":"stanton-ca-ocsd-dfr-authorization-2026","title":"Stanton, CA Authorization of Orange County Sheriff Drone-as-First-Responder Operations (2026)","short_title":"Stanton CA authorizes OC Sheriff DFR 3-0-2 (Jul. 13, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Stanton, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Orange","city":"Stanton","topics":["law-enforcement","robotics","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-13","enacted_date":"2026-07-13","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"The Stanton, California City Council voted 3-0 (with two abstentions) on July 13, 2026 to authorize the Orange County Sheriff's Department — which provides Stanton's police services — to run a drone-as-first-responder program in the city. Councilmember Torres abstained, citing surveillance and data-sharing concerns. Stanton and Cypress advanced police drone programs the same week. This entry indexes a government drone deployment; coverage reports no oversight or data-handling conditions attached to the authorization.","summary_technical":"Stanton (OC, CA) City Council 3-0-2 vote, July 13, 2026, authorizing OC Sheriff's Department drone-as-first-responder (DFR) operations within city limits. Abstentions: Councilmember Torres (surveillance/data-sharing concerns) and one other member. Contract city — OCSD provides law enforcement services. No use policy, retention, or data-sharing conditions reported with the authorization. Surveillance/robotics-adoption entry — strength 'limited'.","who_is_protected":"No protections attached — indexed as a government drone deployment. Stanton, CA residents are subject to OC Sheriff DFR drone operations; coverage reports no oversight or data-sharing conditions, which was the stated basis of Councilmember Torres's abstention.","who_must_comply":"Orange County Sheriff's Department (DFR operations in Stanton); City of Stanton","citation":"Stanton, CA City Council 3-0-2 vote, July 13, 2026, authorizing OC Sheriff drone-as-first-responder program","source_url":"https://voiceofoc.org/2026/07/two-more-orange-county-cities-eye-police-drones/","source_title":"Two more Orange County cities eye police drones — Voice of OC","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Stanton City Council (authorization); Orange County Sheriff's Department (operational control)"},{"id":"denison-tx-brinc-drone-trial-2026","title":"Denison, TX One-Year BRINC First-Responder Drone Trial (2026)","short_title":"Denison TX free 1-yr BRINC drone trial (Jul. 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Denison, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Grayson","city":"Denison","topics":["law-enforcement","robotics"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"First responders in Denison, Texas were approved for a free one-year trial of BRINC drones, reported July 15, 2026. The trial operates under an emergency-only policy — drones respond to emergency calls rather than conducting routine patrols — and involves multiple agencies. The emergency-only restriction is the operative use limit; the trial is otherwise a no-cost vendor deployment. The exact approval meeting date was not stated in coverage.","summary_technical":"Denison (Grayson County, TX) free one-year BRINC first-responder drone trial; multi-agency; emergency-only use policy (no routine patrol). Reported by KXII July 15, 2026; underlying approval meeting date unstated — effective_date left null pending confirmation. Vendor-funded trial (no cost to city). Deployment entry with a use-limit condition — strength 'limited'.","who_is_protected":"Denison, TX residents — drone use is limited to emergency responses only (no routine patrol) under the trial policy; no other oversight or retention conditions reported","who_must_comply":"Denison first-responder agencies participating in the trial; BRINC (vendor)","citation":"Denison, TX free one-year BRINC first-responder drone trial with emergency-only use policy (reported July 15, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kxii.com/2026/07/15/denison-first-responders-approved-free-one-year-drone-trial/","source_title":"Denison first responders approved for free one-year drone trial — KXII","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Denison, TX; participating first-responder agencies (policy administration)"},{"id":"rochester-mn-axon-dfr-contract-2026","title":"Rochester, MN Axon Drone-as-First-Responder Contract (2026)","short_title":"Rochester MN $467,290 Axon DFR contract (Jul. 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Rochester, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Olmsted","city":"Rochester","topics":["law-enforcement","robotics"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-06","enacted_date":"2026-07-06","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"The Rochester, Minnesota City Council unanimously authorized a $467,290 contract with Axon for a police drone-as-first-responder program — two drones and two docking stations over a five-year term, funded by a Mayo grant rather than city general funds. This entry indexes a government drone deployment; coverage reports no specific oversight, retention, or privacy conditions attached to the contract.","summary_technical":"Rochester (Olmsted County, MN) City Council unanimous authorization of $467,290 Axon DFR contract for Rochester Police Department: 2 drones, 2 docking stations, 5-year term; Mayo grant funded. Vote date recorded as July 6, 2026 per day-name convention (Monday council meeting) with ±1 day uncertainty — noted. No published use policy or oversight conditions reported. Deployment entry — strength 'limited'.","who_is_protected":"No protections attached — indexed as a government drone deployment. Rochester, MN residents are subject to RPD drone-as-first-responder operations; coverage reports no oversight, retention, or privacy conditions on the contract.","who_must_comply":"Rochester Police Department (program administration); City of Rochester, MN; Axon (vendor)","citation":"Rochester, MN City Council unanimous vote (Jul. 2026) authorizing $467,290 five-year Axon drone-as-first-responder contract (2 drones, 2 docking stations; Mayo grant funded)","source_url":"https://www.kimt.com/news/city-of-rochester-approves-contract-for-the-rochester-police-departments-drone-as-first-responder-program/article_1be446b9-8b76-4cc9-927b-c620c1047a12.html","source_title":"City of Rochester approves contract for the Rochester Police Department's drone as first responder program — KIMT","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Rochester City Council; Rochester Police Department (operational control)"},{"id":"fredericksburg-va-axon-ai-package-2026","title":"Fredericksburg, VA $1.9M Axon AI Package for Police incl. Draft One AI Report Writing (2026)","short_title":"Fredericksburg VA Axon AI package w/ Draft One carve-out (Jul. 14, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Fredericksburg, VA","state_abbr":"VA","city":"Fredericksburg","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-14","enacted_date":"2026-07-14","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"The Fredericksburg, Virginia City Council authorized a $1.9 million, five-year package with Axon on July 14, 2026 that adds AI capabilities across the police department: Draft One (Axon's generative AI police-report drafting tool), AI translation, transcription, in-car cameras, and mobile license plate readers. The package carries one notable guardrail: Draft One is optional for officers and is barred from use in critical incidents — meaning reports on the most serious events must be written by humans. Otherwise this entry indexes a government AI deployment.","summary_technical":"Fredericksburg (VA, independent city) City Council authorization, July 14, 2026: $1.9M/5-year Axon contract covering (1) Draft One generative-AI report writing — optional per officer, PROHIBITED for critical incidents; (2) AI translation; (3) transcription; (4) in-car cameras; (5) mobile ALPR. The critical-incident bar on Draft One is the operative oversight condition; no other data-sharing, retention, or audit conditions reported. AI-adoption entry — strength 'limited'.","who_is_protected":"Fredericksburg, VA residents — limited oversight condition only: Axon Draft One AI report writing is barred from critical incidents (reports on the most serious events must be human-written) and is optional rather than mandated for officers; no other oversight conditions reported","who_must_comply":"Fredericksburg Police Department (Draft One critical-incident bar and program administration); Axon (vendor)","citation":"Fredericksburg, VA City Council authorization, July 14, 2026, of $1.9M/5-year Axon AI package (Draft One with critical-incident bar, translation, transcription, in-car cameras, mobile ALPR)","source_url":"https://www.fredericksburgfreepress.com/2026/07/15/city-council-approves-ai-enhanced-package-for-police-body-worn-cameras/","source_title":"City Council approves AI-enhanced package for police body-worn cameras — Fredericksburg Free Press","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Fredericksburg City Council; Fredericksburg Police Department (policy administration)"},{"id":"cambridge-ma-algorithmic-rent-setting-ban-order-2026","title":"Cambridge, MA Policy Order Directing Draft Ordinance Banning Algorithmic Rent-Setting (Proposed 2026)","short_title":"Cambridge MA algorithmic rent-setting ban (policy order, Jun. 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cambridge, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Middlesex","city":"Cambridge","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"The Cambridge, Massachusetts City Council voted unanimously in late June 2026 on a policy order directing city staff to draft an ordinance banning algorithmic rent-setting — software (such as RealPage-style tools) that landlords use to coordinate and set rents. The order, led by Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, follows municipal bans in Berkeley, CA and Providence, RI. A policy order directs drafting; the ban itself is not yet law, so this is indexed as proposed until an ordinance is drafted and enacted.","summary_technical":"Cambridge (MA) City Council unanimous policy order directing preparation of an ordinance prohibiting algorithmic rent-setting software; lead sponsor Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler; cited precedents include Berkeley (CA) and Providence (RI) ordinances. Vote date recorded as June 22, 2026 per the council's Monday-meeting convention — coverage (Cambridge Day, June 25) is consistent with either June 22 or a 'June 24' reading; ambiguity noted. Ordinance text not yet drafted; status 'proposed' with review_by 2026-09-19.","who_is_protected":"Cambridge, MA renters (if the directed ordinance is enacted, landlords could not use algorithmic rent-setting software to set or coordinate rents)","who_must_comply":"Landlords and property managers operating in Cambridge, MA; rent-setting software vendors (upon enactment of the directed ordinance)","citation":"Cambridge, MA City Council unanimous policy order (late June 2026) directing draft ordinance banning algorithmic rent-setting (Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler)","source_url":"https://www.cambridgeday.com/2026/06/25/council-airbnb-rental-algorithms/","source_title":"Council examines Airbnb, rental algorithms — Cambridge Day","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Cambridge, MA (mechanism to be defined in the drafted ordinance)"},{"id":"portland-or-pps-genai-pause-2026","title":"Portland Public Schools (OR) Generative AI Expansion Pause Resolution (2026)","short_title":"Portland Public Schools genAI pause (Jun. 23, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Portland, OR","state_abbr":"OR","county":"Multnomah","city":"Portland","topics":["education","children","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-23","enacted_date":"2026-06-23","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"The Portland Public Schools board in Oregon voted unanimously on June 23, 2026 to pause the expansion of generative AI in the district. Adopted as a budget amendment championed by board member La Forte, the resolution requires district staff to report back within 120 days on the district's inventory of generative AI tools, its contracts, and how vendors handle student data — and requires advance board authorization before the district signs any generative AI contract. The pause puts elected-board oversight between AI vendors and Oregon's largest school district while the data practices are examined.","summary_technical":"Portland Public Schools (OR) Board of Education unanimous resolution, June 23, 2026, enacted via budget amendment (board member La Forte): (1) pause on generative AI expansion district-wide; (2) staff report due within 120 days covering genAI inventory, existing contracts, and vendor data practices; (3) advance board authorization required for ALL generative AI contracts. 120-day report window runs to approximately late October 2026 (review_by 2026-10-21).","who_is_protected":"Portland Public Schools students and families — generative AI expansion is paused, vendor data practices must be reported to the board, and no genAI contract can be signed without advance board authorization","who_must_comply":"PPS district administration and staff (pause, reporting, contract-authorization requirements); generative AI vendors seeking PPS contracts","citation":"Portland Public Schools (OR) Board of Education unanimous resolution via budget amendment, June 23, 2026, pausing generative AI expansion","source_url":"https://www.wweek.com/news/schools/2026/06/24/school-board-pauses-generative-artificial-intelligence-in-pps/","source_title":"School board pauses generative artificial intelligence in PPS — Willamette Week","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Portland Public Schools Board of Education"},{"id":"tx-tdi-bulletin-b-0003-26","title":"Texas Department of Insurance Commissioner's Bulletin B-0003-26 — Use of Artificial Intelligence by Insurers (2026)","short_title":"TX TDI Bulletin B-0003-26 (AI in insurance)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["insurance","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-12","enacted_date":"2026-06-12","last_verified_date":"2026-08-23","summary_plain":"The Texas Department of Insurance issued Commissioner's Bulletin B-0003-26 on June 12, 2026, telling insurers that decisions made with artificial intelligence must comply with Texas insurance law: AI-driven decisions may not be inaccurate, arbitrary, capricious, or unfairly discriminatory. Insurers must have a human review and approve consequential AI decisions before they take effect, maintain governance, risk-management, and audit programs for their AI systems, and keep documentation they can produce to TDI on request. TDI will police compliance through examinations and complaint monitoring.","summary_technical":"TDI Commissioner's Bulletin B-0003-26 (June 12, 2026). Requirements for insurers using AI: (1) AI-derived decisions must comply with the Texas Insurance Code — not inaccurate, arbitrary, capricious, or unfairly discriminatory; (2) human review AND approval required before consequential AI decisions take effect; (3) governance, risk-management, and audit programs for AI systems; (4) documentation producible to TDI on request; (5) compliance monitored via examinations and complaint monitoring. Interpretive bulletin applying existing statutory authority — not new rulemaking.","who_is_protected":"Texas insurance consumers — policyholders and claimants subject to AI-driven underwriting, rating, or claims decisions","who_must_comply":"Insurers and other TDI-regulated entities using artificial intelligence in the business of insurance in Texas","citation":"Texas Department of Insurance, Commissioner's Bulletin B-0003-26 (June 12, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.tdi.texas.gov/bulletins/2026/b-0003-26.html","source_title":"Commissioner's Bulletin # B-0003-26 — Texas Department of Insurance","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Texas Department of Insurance (examinations and complaint monitoring; existing Insurance Code sanctions)","penalties":"Existing Texas Insurance Code enforcement tools apply (examination findings, administrative action for violations of insurance law)"},{"id":"fl-supreme-court-rule-2515-ai-certification-2026","title":"Florida Supreme Court Amendment to Rule 2.515 — Certification That Cited Authorities Exist and Are Accurately Cited (2026)","short_title":"FL Rule 2.515 amendment — AI citation certification (eff. Jun. 15, 2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Florida","state_abbr":"FL","topics":["public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-15","enacted_date":"2026-05-28","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"The Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 2.515 so that every person who signs a court filing certifies that the legal authorities cited in it actually exist and are accurately cited — a direct response to AI-hallucinated case citations appearing in filings. Violations can bring sanctions including reprimand, contempt, dismissal of the filing, and fee awards. The statewide rule replaces a patchwork of individual circuit-level AI orders. The amendment does not prohibit using AI; it makes the human signer responsible for verifying whatever AI produces. Opinion issued May 28, 2026; effective June 15, 2026 at 12:01 a.m.","summary_technical":"In re: Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515, No. SC2026-0673 (Fla. May 28, 2026); effective June 15, 2026, 12:01 a.m. Every signer of a filing certifies that cited authorities exist and are accurately cited. Sanctions for violation include reprimand, contempt, dismissal, and fee awards. Supersedes the circuit-by-circuit patchwork of local AI orders. Expressly does not prohibit AI use — the certification obligation attaches to the human signer.","who_is_protected":"Florida litigants and courts — parties are protected from filings resting on nonexistent or misquoted authorities; the integrity of the Florida court record","who_must_comply":"Every person who signs a filing in Florida state courts — attorneys and self-represented litigants","citation":"In re: Amendments to Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515, No. SC2026-0673 (Fla. May 28, 2026; eff. June 15, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/supreme-court-amends-rules-to-address-ai-use-in-court-filings/","source_title":"Supreme Court amends rules to address AI use in court filings — The Florida Bar News","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Florida state courts (sanctions authority under the amended rule); Florida Supreme Court","penalties":"Sanctions including reprimand, contempt, dismissal of the filing, and attorney-fee awards"},{"id":"nc-ai-strategic-roadmap-2026","title":"North Carolina AI Strategic Roadmap (2026)","short_title":"NC AI Strategic Roadmap (released Jul. 1, 2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"North Carolina","state_abbr":"NC","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-07-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"North Carolina released its AI Strategic Roadmap on July 1, 2026. Developed by the AI Leadership Council that Governor Josh Stein created under Executive Order 24, the roadmap lays out 17 goals organized around three priorities: protecting North Carolinians from AI harms, preparing the workforce for AI, and using AI to improve government service delivery. As a published strategy document, it guides state agency AI adoption and safeguards but does not itself impose binding legal requirements.","summary_technical":"NC AI Strategic Roadmap, released July 1, 2026 by Gov. Stein / AI Leadership Council pursuant to Executive Order 24. Structure: 17 goals under 3 priorities — (1) protect North Carolinians from AI harms; (2) workforce preparation; (3) government service delivery. Strategy/planning instrument (non-binding); implementation runs through NCDIT and the EO 24 governance structure (AI Leadership Council, agency AI Oversight Teams).","who_is_protected":"North Carolina residents — the roadmap's first priority is protecting North Carolinians from AI harms; state employees and agency service users","who_must_comply":"North Carolina Cabinet agencies and NCDIT (roadmap implementation under the EO 24 governance structure); non-binding guidance otherwise","citation":"North Carolina AI Strategic Roadmap (AI Leadership Council under Executive Order 24), released July 1, 2026","source_url":"https://governor.nc.gov/news/press-releases/2026/07/01/governor-stein-announces-ai-strategic-roadmap-protect-and-better-serve-north-carolinians-prepare","source_title":"Governor Stein Announces AI Strategic Roadmap to Protect and Better Serve North Carolinians — governor.nc.gov press release","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"North Carolina AI Leadership Council; NC Department of Information Technology (NCDIT)"},{"id":"litig-xai-v-bonta-ab2013","title":"X.AI LLC v. Bonta — First Amendment Challenge to California AB 2013 Training-Data Disclosure Law","short_title":"X.AI v. Bonta (AB 2013 training-data disclosure)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["transparency","consumer-protection"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-12-29","last_verified_date":"2026-08-30","summary_plain":"X.AI LLC (Elon Musk's AI company) sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta to strike down AB 2013, California's law requiring developers of generative AI systems to publicly disclose documentation about the data used to train them. The suit was filed December 29, 2025 in the Central District of California, arguing the disclosure mandate violates the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Judge Bernal denied X.AI's request for a preliminary injunction on March 4, 2026, and X.AI appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is pending. AB 2013 took effect January 1, 2026 and remains enforceable while the appeal proceeds. The Attorney General defends the law as a regulation of commercial speech.","summary_technical":"X.AI LLC v. Bonta, No. 2:25-cv-12295 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 29, 2025); preliminary injunction DENIED Mar. 4, 2026 (Judge Bernal); appeal pending, 9th Cir. No. 26-1591. Claims: First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments against Cal. AB 2013 (generative AI training-data disclosure; effective Jan. 1, 2026). AB 2013 enforceable pending appeal. AG's defense: AB 2013 regulates commercial speech (compelled commercial disclosure standard). Argument date not stated here (unconfirmed).","who_is_protected":"California residents and AI users — AB 2013's training-data disclosure obligations remain enforceable while the challenge proceeds; the litigation will determine whether the transparency mandate survives","who_must_comply":"Developers of generative AI systems made available to Californians (AB 2013 disclosure duties, enforceable pending appeal); parties: X.AI LLC, California Attorney General","citation":"X.AI LLC v. Bonta, No. 2:25-cv-12295 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 29, 2025), appeal pending, No. 26-1591 (9th Cir.); oral argument July 16, 2026","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72086154/xai-llc-v-bonta/","source_title":"X.AI LLC v. Bonta, 9th Cir. No. 26-1591 — CourtListener","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"California Attorney General (AB 2013 enforcement); US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (pending appeal)"},{"id":"az-hb2756-utilities-high-load-factor-2026","title":"AZ HB 2756 — Utilities; High Load Factor Customers (Data Center Ratepayer Cost Protection)","short_title":"AZ HB 2756 Utilities/High Load Factor","level":"state","jurisdiction":"AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-09-12","enacted_date":"2026-06-04","last_verified_date":"2026-09-09","summary_plain":"AZ HB 2756 would require the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) to establish cost-responsibility rules protecting residential and small-business ratepayers from electricity grid upgrade costs caused by large high-load-factor customers such as data centers. Companion bill to AZ HB 4158 (FY2027 data center tax moratorium). Awaiting primary-source verification of enacted status.","summary_technical":"Directs the Arizona Corporation Commission to promulgate rules allocating transmission and distribution infrastructure costs attributable to high-load-factor customers (defined by peak demand threshold) away from general ratepayers. Companion measure to AZ HB 4158 (data center TPT tax moratorium, effective FY2027). Enacted status and effective date unconfirmed pending azleg.gov access.","who_is_protected":"Arizona residential and small-business electricity ratepayers who would otherwise bear grid upgrade costs driven by large data center load growth.","who_must_comply":"Arizona Corporation Commission (rulemaking obligation); large high-load-factor commercial customers subject to cost-responsibility allocation.","citation":"AZ HB2756 (Fifty-seventh Legislature — Second Regular Session, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/57leg/2R/bills/HB2756P.pdf","source_title":"AZ HB2756 Engrossed bill text — 57th Legislature 2nd Regular Session (2026)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Arizona Corporation Commission"},{"id":"augusta-ga-dc-moratorium-2026-06","title":"Augusta-Richmond County GA — Data Center Moratorium (June–September 2026, Superseded by Permanent Ordinance Sept 15, 2026)","short_title":"Augusta GA data center moratorium (ended Sept 15, 2026 — permanent ordinance enacted)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Augusta, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Richmond","city":"Augusta","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-02","enacted_date":"2026-06-02","expires_date":"2026-09-15","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"The Augusta Commission voted June 2, 2026 to impose a 49-day moratorium on new data center applications, extended it twice (July 21 and August 18, 2026), and on September 15, 2026 voted 6-5 to approve a permanent data center ordinance — ending the moratorium. The ordinance restricts data centers to heavy industrial zoning, requires special exception permits with public hearings, and mandates 500-foot buffers from residential and agricultural land. The QTS campus on Gordon Highway remains exempt. See also: ga-augusta-dc-ordinance-2026 for the permanent ordinance entry.","summary_technical":"Augusta-Richmond County consolidated government Commission voted June 2, 2026 to impose a 49-day moratorium; extended 60 more days July 21, 2026; extended another 60 days August 18, 2026. Commission voted 6-5 on September 15, 2026 to adopt permanent data center ordinance — moratorium superseded/expired. Ordinance terms: heavy-industrial zoning requirement + special exception with public hearing + 500-ft residential/agricultural buffer. QTS Gordon Highway project exempted throughout. Permanent ordinance cross-referenced as ga-augusta-dc-ordinance-2026.","who_is_protected":"Augusta-Richmond County residents near proposed data center sites","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking new permits or approvals in Augusta-Richmond County","citation":"Augusta-Richmond County Commission vote (June 2, 2026; extended July 21, 2026; extended again August 18, 2026), data center moratorium through ~November 17, 2026","source_url":"https://www.wrdw.com/2026/07/21/augusta-leaders-extend-moratorium-new-data-centers/","source_title":"Augusta leaders extend moratorium on new data centers — WRDW","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Augusta-Richmond County Commission"},{"id":"indianapolis-in-mdc-dc-zoning-2026","title":"Indianapolis (Marion County) — Metropolitan Development Commission Data Center Special Zoning District Proposal (MDC 5-3, July 1, 2026)","short_title":"Indianapolis MDC data center special zoning proposal (July 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Indianapolis, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Marion","city":"Indianapolis","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-07-02","summary_plain":"Indianapolis's Metropolitan Development Commission voted 5-3 on July 1, 2026 to recommend creating a new special zoning class for data centers in Marion County. The proposed ordinance would regulate where data centers can be built and how close they can sit to residences, set noise limits (the MDC debated returning to 65 dB from a proposed 55 dB), and require water management plans, annual reporting on water use and power consumption, noise compliance studies, and decommissioning/environmental-remediation plans. A motion to remove the decommissioning-plan requirement failed 6-2. The ordinance now heads to the full City-County Council for final approval, expected in August 2026.","summary_technical":"Indianapolis-Marion County MDC voted 5-3 (July 1, 2026) to advance a data center special-zoning-district ordinance to the City-County Council. Standards include: mandatory noise study and mitigation plan; water management plan; annual reporting on water use, power consumption, and noise compliance; decommissioning plan with hazardous-materials and environmental-remediation provisions. MDC voted 5-3 to return noise limit to 65 dB (from a proposed 55 dB). Added grandfather clause for existing zoned data centers. Final City-County Council vote expected August 2026.","who_is_protected":"Indianapolis-Marion County residents near data center sites","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Indianapolis-Marion County","citation":"Indianapolis MDC 5-3 vote (July 1, 2026) recommending data center special zoning district ordinance; City-County Council final vote pending","source_url":"https://www.wfyi.org/wfyi-news/2026-07-01/data-center-rules-proposal-clears-initial-vote-in-indianapolis","source_title":"Data center rules proposal clears initial vote in Indianapolis — WFYI","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development; City-County Council"},{"id":"tn-hb1847-data-center-ratepayer-protection-2026","title":"Tennessee HB 1847 / SB 2128 — Data Center Ratepayer Protection Act","short_title":"TN HB 1847 data center ratepayer protection (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"TN","state_abbr":"TN","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-05-07","last_verified_date":"2026-07-03","summary_plain":"Tennessee HB 1847/SB 2128, signed May 7, 2026 and effective July 1, 2026, requires data centers drawing 50 megawatts or more of electricity to pay their proportionate share of transmission and distribution infrastructure costs, rather than spreading those costs across all utility ratepayers. The law prevents large hyperscale data centers from being cross-subsidized by ordinary residential and small commercial customers.","summary_technical":"Tenn. HB 1847/SB 2128 (114th General Assembly, 2026) — establishes a 50 MW load threshold above which data center operators must bear their proportionate allocated share of new or upgraded electric transmission and distribution infrastructure costs required to serve their load. Directs the Tennessee Regulatory Authority (TRA) to adopt implementing rules. Amends Tennessee utility ratemaking statutes. Signed by Governor Lee May 7, 2026; effective July 1, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Tennessee residential and commercial electric ratepayers who would otherwise cross-subsidize large data center infrastructure costs","who_must_comply":"Data center operators drawing 50 MW or more from Tennessee electric utilities","citation":"Tenn. HB 1847/SB 2128 (114th G.A., 2026) — signed May 7, 2026; eff. July 1, 2026","source_url":"https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB1847&ga=114","source_title":"HB 1847 — Tennessee General Assembly (114th)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Tennessee Regulatory Authority"},{"id":"sc-h3431-age-appropriate-design-code-2026","title":"South Carolina H 3431 — Age-Appropriate Design Code Act","short_title":"SC H 3431 Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"SC","state_abbr":"SC","topics":["children","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-03-01","enacted_date":"2026-02-05","last_verified_date":"2026-07-03","summary_plain":"South Carolina H 3431, the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, requires online platforms and services likely to be accessed by children under 18 to prioritize children's best interests. Covered companies must conduct data protection impact assessments before launching features accessible to minors, set privacy controls to their highest protective level by default for child users, minimize data collection, prohibit profiling children for commercial purposes without verifiable parental consent, and disclose how algorithms affect what content children see. Signed by Governor McMaster February 5, 2026; operational March 1, 2026.","summary_technical":"S.C. H 3431 (126th General Assembly, 2026) — imposes UK-AADC/CAADCA-model requirements on covered online businesses: (1) mandatory data protection impact assessment (DPIA) for any feature or service likely to be accessed by a minor before deployment; (2) privacy settings at their highest protection level on by default for identified or likely minor users; (3) data minimization — collection strictly limited to what is necessary for the declared service purpose; (4) prohibition on profiling children for commercial purposes without verifiable parental consent; (5) prohibition on design features that extend children's use or expose children to content detrimental to their physical or mental health; (6) algorithmic transparency — require disclosure of algorithm purposes used to recommend or curate content to minors. Enforcement by South Carolina Attorney General; civil penalties. Signed February 5, 2026; enforcement effective March 1, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Children (under 18) using online platforms and services in South Carolina","who_must_comply":"Online services and platforms reasonably likely to be accessed by children in South Carolina","citation":"S.C. H 3431 (126th G.A., 2026) — signed Feb. 5, 2026; eff. March 1, 2026","source_url":"https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=3431&session=126&summary=B","source_title":"H 3431 — South Carolina Legislature (126th Session)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"South Carolina Attorney General"},{"id":"sc-h4591-stop-harm-addictive-social-media-2026","title":"South Carolina H 4591 — Stop HARM from Addictive Social Media Act","short_title":"SC H 4591 Stop HARM from Addictive Social Media Act (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"SC","state_abbr":"SC","topics":["children","consumer-protection"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-05-19","last_verified_date":"2026-07-03","summary_plain":"South Carolina H 4591, the Stop HARM from Addictive Social Media Act, prohibits social media platforms from deploying addictive algorithmic design features to users under 18. Covered platforms must disable infinite scroll, autoplay, and similar compulsive-engagement features for minor users without parental consent; must not push notifications to minors during school hours (7 AM–3 PM) or late night (10 PM–6 AM) without parental authorization; and may not use algorithmic recommendation systems that exploit minors' psychological vulnerabilities to drive engagement. Platforms must implement age verification. Signed May 19, 2026; effective January 1, 2027.","summary_technical":"S.C. H 4591 (126th General Assembly, 2026) — prohibits covered social media platforms from: (1) deploying infinite scroll, autoplay, or artificial engagement-maximizing mechanisms to users under 18 without verifiable parental consent; (2) sending push notifications to minor users during school hours (7 AM–3 PM on school days) or between 10 PM and 6 AM without parental authorization; (3) using algorithmic recommendation or curation systems that exploit minors' psychological vulnerabilities or cognitive biases to maximize engagement time. Covered platforms must implement age-verification or age-assurance systems. South Carolina AG enforcement; graduated civil penalties. Signed May 19, 2026; effective January 1, 2027.","who_is_protected":"Minor social media users (under 18) in South Carolina","who_must_comply":"Social media platforms operating in South Carolina with minor users","citation":"S.C. H 4591 (126th G.A., 2026) — signed May 19, 2026; eff. Jan. 1, 2027","source_url":"https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=4591&session=126&summary=B","source_title":"H 4591 — South Carolina Legislature (126th Session)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"South Carolina Attorney General"},{"id":"ca-ab2148-public-school-natural-persons-2026","title":"California AB 2148 — Public School Employees and Contractors Must Be Natural Persons","short_title":"CA AB 2148 no-AI school employees (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CA","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["public-sector","education","children"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-06-30","last_verified_date":"2026-07-04","summary_plain":"California AB 2148, signed by Governor Newsom on June 30, 2026, requires that all employees and independent contractors working directly with students in California public schools be natural persons — human beings — rather than AI systems or automated entities. The bill passed the Assembly 76-0 and the Senate 38-0, reflecting broad bipartisan agreement that student-facing school roles require human accountability. It takes effect January 1, 2027.","summary_technical":"Cal. AB 2148 (2025-26 Reg. Sess.) — amends California Education Code to require that individuals employed or contracted to provide direct services to students in public schools be natural persons. Prohibits substitution of AI systems, automated agents, or non-human entities in covered student-facing roles. Passed Assembly 76-0; passed Senate 38-0. Signed by Governor Newsom June 30, 2026; effective January 1, 2027.","who_is_protected":"Students in California public schools who interact with employees and contractors","who_must_comply":"California public school districts, charter schools, and their contractors using student-facing personnel","citation":"Cal. AB 2148 (2025-26 Reg. Sess.) — signed June 30, 2026; eff. Jan. 1, 2027","source_url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/06/30/governor-newsom-signs-legislation-6-30-26/","source_title":"Governor Newsom Signs Legislation — Office of the Governor of California (June 30, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"California Department of Education"},{"id":"nj-a4015-kids-code-act-2026","title":"New Jersey A4015 / S3413 — Age-Appropriate Design Code (NJ Kids Code Act, Signed August 11, 2026)","short_title":"NJ Kids Code Act A4015 (signed Aug 11, 2026; effective Sept 1, 2027)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["children","consumer-protection","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"enacted","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2027-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-08-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"New Jersey's Kids Code Act (A4015/S3413), signed by Governor Sherrill on August 11, 2026, is the most aggressive Age-Appropriate Design Code law in the United States. Effective September 1, 2027, it requires online platforms likely to be accessed by children under 18 to: default privacy settings to the highest available protective level for minor users; ban push notifications during school hours and late at night; prohibit 'compulsive engagement' design features; conduct data protection impact assessments; restrict profiling and advertising; and minimize data collection to what is necessary. It is the first state design code with a private right of action — parents can sue for $5,000 per violation on behalf of their children — making it a much stronger enforcement tool than California's CAADCA (AG-only) or the federal KOSA.","summary_technical":"N.J. A4015/S3413 (222nd Legislature, 2026), signed Aug. 11, 2026, effective Sept. 1, 2027. Key obligations for covered online services 'likely to be accessed by minors': (1) privacy-by-default — highest available settings mandatory; (2) ban on push notifications during school hours and midnight–6 a.m.; (3) prohibition on design features engineered for compulsive engagement (autoplay, streaks, infinite scroll with addictive reward loops); (4) data protection impact assessment (DPIA) before deployment; (5) data minimization; (6) prohibition on profiling children for commercial purposes without verifiable parental consent; (7) algorithmic transparency — disclosure of curation algorithm purposes. Enforcement: NJ Division of Consumer Affairs (AG-directed) + private right of action — $5,000 per violation per minor — making it the first state design-code law with private PRA. First-in-nation PRA provision significantly raises enforcement power beyond California AB 2273 (CAADCA, AG-only) and federal KOSA. Coverage threshold: online service 'reasonably likely to be accessed by' minors (same standard as CA CAADCA). Subject to First Amendment NetChoice-style challenges.","who_is_protected":"Children (under 18) using online platforms and services in New Jersey","who_must_comply":"Online services and platforms reasonably likely to be accessed by children in New Jersey","citation":"N.J. A4015/S3413 (222nd Legislature, 2026) — signed Aug. 11, 2026; effective Sept. 1, 2027","source_url":"https://www.nj.gov/governor/news/2026/20260811a.shtml","source_title":"Governor Sherrill Signs Kids' Online Safety Package — NJ Governor's Office (August 11, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs; private right of action (parents on behalf of minors)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"$5,000 per violation per minor (private right of action); additional civil penalties from NJ Division of Consumer Affairs"},{"id":"linn-county-ia-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Linn County (IA) — 18-Month Moratorium on Large-Scale Data Center EU-3 Rezoning Applications","short_title":"Linn County IA 18-month data-center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Linn County, Iowa","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Linn","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-07-01","expires_date":"2028-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-05","summary_plain":"Linn County, Iowa (home to Cedar Rapids) voted 2-1 on July 1, 2026 to impose an 18-month moratorium pausing all new EU-3 Large-Scale Data Center Zoning District rezoning applications in unincorporated areas of the county. The moratorium is effective immediately through January 1, 2028, and gives the county time to conduct a comprehensive planning process to address data center siting, water use, energy consumption, and community impact. Note: this is a separate and additional measure from the existing Linn County data-center zoning ordinance (February 2026), which established the EU-3 zone; this moratorium pauses NEW rezoning requests under that zone.","summary_technical":"Linn County Board of Supervisors Resolution (2-1 vote, July 1, 2026): 18-month interim moratorium on acceptance and processing of new EU-3 Large-Scale Data Center Zoning District rezoning applications in unincorporated Linn County, Iowa. Effective date: July 1, 2026. Expiration: January 1, 2028. County will conduct comprehensive planning review during moratorium period. Distinct from the February 2026 EU-3 zone creation ordinance (see linn-county-ia-dc-ordinance-2026).","who_is_protected":"Linn County residents in unincorporated areas, particularly those near proposed data-center sites","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking EU-3 Large-Scale Data Center Zoning District rezoning in unincorporated Linn County","citation":"Linn County (IA) Board of Supervisors Resolution — 18-month EU-3 data-center rezoning moratorium (July 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.linncountyiowa.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx","source_title":"Linn County Iowa Official News and Alerts — LinncountyIowa.gov","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Linn County Planning and Development Department","penalties":"Application rejection during moratorium period"},{"id":"milton-ga-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Milton (GA) — 30-Day Moratorium on Data Center Applications, Permits, Rezoning, and Licenses","short_title":"Milton GA 30-day data-center moratorium (June 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Milton, Georgia","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Fulton","city":"Milton","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-15","enacted_date":"2026-06-15","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"The Milton, Georgia City Council voted unanimously on June 15, 2026 to impose a 30-day moratorium on all data center activity in the city — covering new applications, permits, rezoning requests, business licenses, and certificates of occupancy — while the city reviews its land-use policies for such facilities. Milton is an affluent north Fulton County suburb in the Atlanta metro area.","summary_technical":"Milton City Council resolution (unanimous vote, June 15, 2026): 30-day interim moratorium on acceptance and processing of data-center-related land-use applications, building permits, rezoning requests, business license applications, and certificates of occupancy. Effective June 15, 2026. Extended briefly on July 6, 2026, then by 180 days on July 20, 2026. Purpose: review of zoning and development standards applicable to data centers.","who_is_protected":"Milton residents and neighborhoods near potential data-center sites","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking any permits, approvals, or licenses in Milton, GA","citation":"Milton (GA) City Council unanimous resolution — 30-day data-center moratorium (June 15, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.miltonga.gov/Home/Components/News/News/3579/1351","source_title":"City of Milton — Council enacts 30-day moratorium on data center-related applications","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Milton Community Development Department","penalties":"Application rejection/suspension during moratorium period"},{"id":"nj-s3952-fair-price-protection-act-2026","title":"New Jersey A4085/S3612 — Fair Price Protection Act (Surveillance Grocery Pricing Ban; P.L.2026, c.55)","short_title":"NJ Fair Price Protection Act, P.L.2026, c.55 (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions","transparency","privacy"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2027-08-01","enacted_date":"2026-07-23","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Governor Mikie Sherrill signed New Jersey's Fair Price Protection Act (A4085/S3612, P.L.2026, c.55) on July 23, 2026, making New Jersey the third state to curb surveillance-based pricing, following Maryland and Connecticut. The law makes it an unlawful consumer-fraud practice to set or vary the price of groceries and other household necessities based on a shopper's personal data. Loyalty programs, publicly posted group discounts and real cost differences are still allowed. It also places a one-year moratorium on new electronic shelf labels while the state studies them; stores can keep and repair labels they already have. The main pricing ban takes effect August 1, 2027, and the shelf-label moratorium starts February 1, 2027. The Attorney General can sue to stop violations and recover damages.","summary_technical":"P.L.2026, c.55 — Fair Price Protection Act (A4085/A4523 Assembly Committee Substitute, 3R; substituted for S3612/S3717 SCS), supplementing the Consumer Fraud Act (P.L.1960, c.39). (1) Sec. 3: unlawful practice under the CFA for a person to use surveillance pricing or any other pricing strategy that determines or varies the sale price of 'groceries and other foodstuffs' (defined broadly: dairy, meat, produce, beverages, snacks, paper products, household cleaning, health and beauty, frozen foods, pet foods and supplies, etc.) based in whole or part on personal data; permitted: reasonable cost-based differences (price changed no more than once per 24 hours), bona fide discounts for publicly disclosed broadly defined groups, and opt-in loyalty programs with uniform terms and disclosures; personal data used for permitted discounts may not be used for other purposes without consent. (2) Sec. 4: one-year moratorium on new use of electronic shelf labels (repair/replacement of existing ESLs allowed). (3) Sec. 5: NJ Innovation Authority study of ESLs, report due six months before the moratorium ends. (4) Sec. 6: excludes restaurants and prepared-food establishments. (5) Sec. 7: Attorney General civil action to enjoin, enforce compliance, recover actual damages for each negligent-or-greater violation, and obtain restitution or other penalties. (6) Sec. 8: Division of Consumer Affairs rulemaking. Votes June 30, 2026: Assembly 51-20-1; Senate 22-14. Approved July 23, 2026. Effective the first day of the 13th month after enactment (August 1, 2027), except the ESL moratorium (first day of the 7th month, February 1, 2027) and the ESL study (immediately). Follows Maryland HB 895 Predatory Pricing Act and Connecticut SB 4 (P.A. 26-64).","who_is_protected":"New Jersey consumers shopping at retail food stores","who_must_comply":"Retail food stores (grocers, supermarkets) operating in New Jersey using or planning to use personalized pricing systems","citation":"P.L.2026, c.55 (N.J. A4085/A4523 ACS, substituted for S3612/S3717 SCS; 222nd Legislature) — approved July 23, 2026; main provisions effective August 1, 2027; ESL moratorium effective February 1, 2027","source_url":"https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2026/A4085","source_title":"New Jersey Legislature — A4085 (2026-2027), approved P.L.2026, c.55","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Attorney General civil action: injunction, compliance orders, actual monetary damages for each negligent-or-greater violation, and restitution or other penalties/relief (Sec. 7); violations are unlawful practices under the Consumer Fraud Act."},{"id":"berkeley-ca-the-berkeley-rule-ai-policy-2026","title":"City of Berkeley — \"The Berkeley Rule\" and AI Use Framework for City Government (2026)","short_title":"Berkeley CA \"The Berkeley Rule\" AI Policy (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Berkeley, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Alameda","city":"Berkeley","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-03-10","enacted_date":"2026-03-10","last_verified_date":"2026-07-06","summary_plain":"On March 10, 2026, the Berkeley City Council adopted \"The Berkeley Rule\" — a ten-principle framework authored by Councilmember Ben Bartlett to guide ethical, human-centered use of AI in all city operations. Companion AI guidelines from Councilmember Shoshana O'Keefe require departments to apply bias safeguards, maintain data privacy compliance, and ensure human oversight of automated decisions before deployment. The City Manager's office subsequently drafted a formal AI Administrative Regulation implementing these principles.","summary_technical":"Berkeley City Council action (March 10, 2026): adopted (1) \"The Berkeley Rule\" — a 10-principle framework governing municipal AI use, covering transparency, fairness, accountability, human oversight, privacy protection, community benefit, and equitable access — authored by District 3 Councilmember Ben Bartlett; and (2) companion AI use guidelines by District 5 Councilmember Shoshana O'Keefe requiring departmental AI use to satisfy bias-safeguard, data-privacy-compliance, and human-oversight requirements prior to deployment. City Manager's office directed to draft implementing AI Administrative Regulation.","who_is_protected":"Berkeley residents and visitors interacting with city AI systems","who_must_comply":"City of Berkeley departments, employees, and contractors using AI in city operations","citation":"City of Berkeley, \"The Berkeley Rule\" and AI Use Framework for City Government (City Council action March 10, 2026)","source_url":"https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-02/2026-03-10%20Item%2008%20The%20Berkeley%20Rule%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20Municipal.pdf","source_title":"The Berkeley Rule — Artificial Intelligence Municipal Framework (Berkeley City Council, March 10, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Berkeley City Manager; Berkeley City Council"},{"id":"san-jose-ca-alpr-30day-retention-safeguards-2026","title":"City of San Jose — Flock Safety ALPR 30-Day Retention and Access Safeguards (2026)","short_title":"San Jose ALPR 30-day retention safeguards (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Jose, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Santa Clara","city":"San Jose","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-03-10","enacted_date":"2026-03-10","last_verified_date":"2026-07-06","summary_plain":"On March 10, 2026, San Jose City Council voted unanimously to tighten safeguards on the city's network of 474 Flock Safety license-plate-reader cameras. The new rules cut the data retention period from one year to 30 days, restrict where cameras can be placed, and limit data-sharing with outside law enforcement agencies to documented criminal investigations. San Jose is the largest U.S. city to have adopted a Government AI Coalition framework, and this vote aligned its ALPR rules with its broader digital-privacy principles.","summary_technical":"San Jose City Council unanimous vote (March 10, 2026): amended ALPR use policy for 474 Flock Safety cameras to: (1) reduce data retention from 365 days to 30 days for non-evidentiary footage; (2) restrict camera placement to avoid proximity to places of worship, medical facilities, and other sensitive locations; (3) tighten inter-agency data-sharing rules, limiting external requests to agencies with a documented criminal investigation nexus; (4) require quarterly public reports on query volume, purpose codes, and sharing requests. Policy aligned with San Jose's Privacy Risk Assessment framework (AI Reviews and Algorithm Register) and the state My Health My Data Act.","who_is_protected":"San Jose residents and drivers whose license plates are captured by city ALPR cameras","who_must_comply":"San Jose Police Department; San Jose Information Technology Department","citation":"City of San Jose ALPR Use Policy Amendment (City Council unanimous vote, March 10, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/information-technology/digital-privacy/ai-reviews-algorithm-register","source_title":"San Jose City Council — ALPR Policy Update (March 2026) | Digital Privacy / AI Reviews","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"San Jose Police Department; City Auditor; Privacy Advisory Commission"},{"id":"md-hb-1339-automated-decision-systems-2026","title":"Maryland HB 1339 (2026): Automated Decision Systems — Employer Disclosure and Impact Assessment Requirements","short_title":"MD HB 1339 (Automated Decision Systems, 2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Maryland","state_abbr":"MD","topics":["employment","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-01","enacted_date":"2026-04-28","last_verified_date":"2026-07-07","summary_plain":"Maryland employers that use automated decision systems in hiring, promotion, or termination decisions must disclose to applicants and employees that an automated system is being used. Employers must also conduct and retain impact assessments evaluating whether their ADS produces disparate outcomes by race, sex, or other protected characteristics. Penalties run up to $10,000 per violation. Takes effect October 1, 2026.","summary_technical":"HB 1339 (2026 Reg. Sess., signed Apr. 28, 2026, eff. Oct. 1, 2026) amends Maryland employment law to require: (1) pre-decision written notice to applicants and employees when an automated decision system (ADS) is used for any covered employment action (hiring, promotion, demotion, suspension, discharge, or compensation setting); (2) annual disparate-impact assessments for each ADS covering race, sex, national origin, age, disability, and other enumerated classes; (3) retention of ADS records and assessment reports for three years; (4) posting of a plain-language ADS disclosure policy on employer websites. Enforced by the Maryland Commissioner of Labor and Industry; civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation per day.","who_is_protected":"Maryland employees and job applicants subject to automated employment decisions","who_must_comply":"Employers operating in Maryland that use automated decision systems for covered employment actions","citation":"Md. HB 1339 (2026 Reg. Sess.)","source_url":"https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/hb1339?ys=2026rs","source_title":"Maryland General Assembly: HB 1339 (2026 Regular Session) — Automated Decision Systems","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Maryland Commissioner of Labor and Industry","penalties":"Civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation per day"},{"id":"carroll-county-ga-dc-bess-moratorium-2026","title":"Carroll County, GA 100-Day Data Center & Battery Energy Storage Moratorium (Extended)","short_title":"Carroll County GA Data Center Moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Carroll County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Carroll","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-03-03","enacted_date":"2026-03-03","last_verified_date":"2026-07-31","summary_plain":"On March 3, 2026, the Carroll County Board of Commissioners voted 7-0 to adopt a 100-day moratorium on permits for data centers, battery energy storage systems, and other new technology facilities in unincorporated Carroll County. On June 2, 2026 the board voted 7-0 to extend it for another 100 days (running to about Sept. 10, 2026). The pause gives county staff time to study how these facilities affect the county's zoning and ordinances. It applies only to unincorporated areas and does not affect the county's municipalities.","summary_technical":"Carroll County (GA) Board of Commissioners 100-day moratorium adopted unanimously (7-0) March 3, 2026 on permits for data centers, battery energy storage systems (BESS), and renewable energy facilities in unincorporated areas; extended a second 100 days by a 7-0 vote June 2, 2026 (≈ ends Sept. 10, 2026). Confirmed by Times-Georgian and The Times-Georgian/Paxton Media ('Commission OKs data center moratorium'). Exact resolution number not exposed in coverage.","who_is_protected":"Carroll County, GA residents in unincorporated areas","who_must_comply":"Data center, battery-storage, and renewable-energy developers seeking permits in unincorporated Carroll County, GA","citation":"Carroll County, Ga., Bd. of Comm'rs 100-day data center/BESS moratorium (adopted Mar. 3, 2026, 7-0; extended 7-0 June 2, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.times-georgian.com/news/local/data-center-moratorium-extended/article_a7d31b38-3e6a-59d0-8da4-6ac3a17a167c.html","source_title":"Data center moratorium extended (The Times-Georgian)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Carroll County, GA Board of Commissioners / Community Development"},{"id":"lee-county-ga-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Lee County, GA Data Center Moratorium (Extension to Dec. 31, 2026 Under Consideration)","short_title":"Lee County GA Data Center Moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Lee County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Lee","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-07-31","summary_plain":"Lee County, Georgia has a moratorium on data-center development that was set to expire in July 2026. At their May 26, 2026 meeting, county commissioners discussed extending the freeze through the end of 2026 to give leaders time to finish a data-center ordinance — described as 'a protection, not an invitation' — that would create a new zoning district specifically for data centers. Officials said there were no pending data-center applications at the time.","summary_technical":"Lee County (GA) Board of Commissioners data-center moratorium (in effect, set to expire July 2026). Extension through Dec. 31, 2026 discussed May 26, 2026 with a formal vote scheduled June 9, 2026; a companion ordinance would establish a dedicated data-center zoning district. Extension vote outcome and original adoption date unconfirmed in available reporting.","who_is_protected":"Lee County, GA residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers seeking permits or rezonings in Lee County, GA","citation":"Lee County, Ga., data-center moratorium; extension to Dec. 31, 2026 considered (WALB, May 27, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.walb.com/2026/05/27/this-protection-not-invitation-lee-co-commissioners-consider-extending-moratorium-data-center-ordinance/","source_title":"'This is a protection, not invitation': Lee Co. commissioners consider extending moratorium on data center ordinance (WALB)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Lee County, GA Board of Commissioners"},{"id":"troup-county-ga-dc-ordinance-2026","title":"Troup County, GA Data Center Zoning Ordinance (Special-Use Permit, Heavy-Industrial Only)","short_title":"Troup County GA Data Center Ordinance","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Troup County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Troup","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-05-08","enacted_date":"2026-05-08","last_verified_date":"2026-07-07","summary_plain":"On May 8, 2026, the Troup County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to adopt a data-center zoning ordinance for unincorporated Troup County and lifted its earlier moratorium. All data centers must obtain a special-use permit; average and hyperscale data centers are limited to heavy-industrial zoning, while small data centers (5,000 sq ft or smaller) may locate in light- or heavy-industrial zones. The 17-page ordinance requires a 1,500-foot setback, Tier 4 diesel backup generators (rather than Tier 2) to cut noise and emissions, connection to public sewer, solar-ready roof structures, and post-operation low- and high-frequency noise studies.","summary_technical":"Troup County (GA) data-center text amendment adopted unanimously May 8, 2026. Special-use permit required for all data centers; average/hyperscale limited to heavy-industrial zoning, small (<=5,000 sq ft) allowed in light or heavy industrial. Requirements: 1,500-ft setback, Tier 4 backup generators, mandatory public sewer, solar-panel-ready roof structures, and low/high-frequency noise testing once operational. Companion 'Good Neighbor Policy' supplemental regulations to return to the board.","who_is_protected":"Troup County, GA residents in unincorporated areas","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers seeking permits or rezonings in unincorporated Troup County, GA","citation":"Troup County, Ga., data-center zoning text amendment (adopted May 8, 2026, unanimous)","source_url":"https://www.lagrangenews.com/news/commissioners-approve-data-center-ordinance-lift-moratorium-2b6e15ed","source_title":"Commissioners approve data center ordinance, lift moratorium (LaGrange Daily News)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Troup County, GA Board of Commissioners / Planning & Zoning"},{"id":"cass-county-in-dc-ban-2026","title":"Cass County, IN Countywide Prohibition on Data Centers","short_title":"Cass County IN Data Center Ban","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Cass County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Cass","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-04-22","enacted_date":"2026-04-22","last_verified_date":"2026-07-24","summary_plain":"On April 22, 2026, the three Cass County Commissioners voted unanimously to prohibit data centers throughout the county, blocking data-processing uses from every zoning district. The county Plan Commission recommended the ban because Cass County had no established standards for data centers and wanted to prevent development until (or unless) rules are written. Cass is one of two Indiana counties — with Marshall County — reported to have banned new data centers outright as of mid-2026.","summary_technical":"Cass County (IN) Board of Commissioners action April 22, 2026 barring data-center construction; the Plan Commission moved to block data processing from all county zoning districts due to absent standards. Codified as Comm-Ord-2026-08 ('Data Processing') per the Cass County Commissioners' official ordinance index. Reported by Pharos-Tribune (Logansport) and Kokomo Tribune; identified by Indiana University's Environmental Resilience Institute as one of two Indiana counties (with Marshall) enacting outright bans.","who_is_protected":"Cass County, IN residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers seeking sites in Cass County, IN","citation":"Cass County, Ind., Comm-Ord-2026-08 (Data Processing), Bd. of Comm'rs (Apr. 22, 2026) — bars data centers countywide","source_url":"https://www.pharostribune.com/news/article_090f3c77-59fe-4cae-b198-963608717dbd.html","source_title":"Commissioners vote against allowing data centers in Cass County (Pharos-Tribune)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Cass County, IN Plan Commission / Board of Commissioners","penalties":"Zoning enforcement; data-center uses not permitted in any district"},{"id":"lagrange-county-in-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"LaGrange County, IN Data Center Moratorium (Adopted July 2026)","short_title":"LaGrange County IN Data Center Moratorium (effective 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"LaGrange County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"LaGrange","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-20","enacted_date":"2026-07-20","last_verified_date":"2026-07-21","summary_plain":"The LaGrange County, Indiana Board of Commissioners adopted a one-year moratorium on data-center development — and on battery energy storage systems — at their July 20, 2026 meeting. The moratorium gives the county time to write proper regulations. County Attorney Kurt Bachman previously framed the effort as managing data centers rather than keeping them out. The Plan Commission had recommended the moratorium in late June 2026.","summary_technical":"LaGrange County (IN) Board of Commissioners adopted an up-to-one-year moratorium on data centers and battery energy storage systems (as authorized under Indiana law) at the July 20, 2026 commissioners' meeting. Plan Commission recommendation per KPC News (June 23, 2026) and WBET; formal adoption confirmed by ABC57 (July 20, 2026).","who_is_protected":"LaGrange County, IN residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers seeking permits or rezonings in LaGrange County, IN","citation":"LaGrange County, Ind., data-center & BESS moratorium (Plan Commission rec.; commissioners approved process ~June 30, 2026; documentation due July 20, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kpcnews.com/news/article_bb3763ce-7082-4921-8ac3-da9d1843cd64.html","source_title":"LaGrange County looking at moratorium on data centers (KPC News)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"LaGrange County, IN Plan Commission / Board of Commissioners"},{"id":"white-county-in-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"White County, IN Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"White County IN Data Center Moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"White County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"White","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-10-20","enacted_date":"2025-10-20","last_verified_date":"2026-07-24","summary_plain":"On October 20, 2025, the White County, Indiana Commissioners voted 2-1 to pass a moratorium on data-center developments — among the earliest Indiana counties, after Marshall County, to pause data centers while it develops local regulations. The moratorium's stated duration was not reported in the coverage located.","summary_technical":"White County (IN) Board of Commissioners data-center moratorium passed 2-1 on Oct. 20, 2025 (Inside Indiana Business, Nov. 21, 2025: 'White County Commissioners on Oct. 20 passed a moratorium on data center developments'). Among the state's early adopters per IU's Environmental Resilience Institute. Duration/ordinance number not stated in coverage; re-verify against county records.","who_is_protected":"White County, IN residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers seeking permits or rezonings in White County, IN","citation":"White County, Ind., Bd. of Comm'rs data-center moratorium (adopted Oct. 20, 2025, 2-1)","source_url":"https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/articles/3-counties-put-moratoriums-on-data-center-projects","source_title":"3 counties put moratoriums on data center projects (Inside INdiana Business, Nov. 21, 2025)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"White County, IN Board of Commissioners / Area Plan Commission"},{"id":"putnam-county-in-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Putnam County, IN Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Putnam County IN Data Center Moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Putnam County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Putnam","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-11-17","enacted_date":"2025-11-17","last_verified_date":"2026-07-24","summary_plain":"On November 17, 2025, the Putnam County, Indiana Commissioners voted 2-1 to adopt a one-year moratorium — running through November 17, 2026 — on data centers, small modular nuclear reactors, and solar and wind energy systems in the unincorporated areas of the county. About 100 residents packed the courthouse urging the pause. Commissioners Andy Beck and Tom Helmer voted for it; Rick Woodall was opposed. The county said it would use the year to review its Unified Development Ordinance.","summary_technical":"Putnam County (IN) Board of Commissioners one-year moratorium adopted 2-1 on Nov. 17, 2025 (effective Nov. 17, 2025 – Nov. 17, 2026) on approvals of data centers, small modular reactors (SMRs), and solar/wind energy conversion systems in unincorporated Putnam County. Beck + Helmer in favor, Woodall against. Confirmed by Banner Graphic (suncommercial.com), Indiana Economic Digest, GIANT fm, and Inside INdiana Business; broader than data centers but squarely covers them.","who_is_protected":"Putnam County, IN residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers seeking permits or rezonings in Putnam County, IN","citation":"Putnam County, Ind., Bd. of Comm'rs 1-yr moratorium on data centers, SMRs, solar & wind (effective Nov. 17, 2025 – Nov. 17, 2026; 2-1)","source_url":"https://www.suncommercial.com/banner_graphic/article_68966ddd-bd26-589a-8ed6-68d209ba0fe5.html","source_title":"Commissioners set moratorium for solar farms and more (Banner Graphic)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Putnam County, IN Board of Commissioners / Area Plan Commission"},{"id":"az-hb-2311-ai-chatbot-safety-vetoed-2026","title":"Arizona HB 2311 — AI Chatbot Safety for Minors (Vetoed)","short_title":"Arizona HB 2311 AI chatbot safety for minors — vetoed 2026","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arizona","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["consumer-protection","children","transparency"],"status":"vetoed","strength":"strong","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Arizona HB 2311 would have required operators of conversational AI services to tell users they are talking to AI at the start of each session, every three hours, and with a persistent on-screen notice. For minor users it would have banned reward systems designed to keep them engaged, AI statements simulating human emotions or romantic involvement, adult-minor role-play and sexual content, and it required protocols for responding to users who express suicidal thoughts or self-harm. It also limited how operators could use and share user data. The House passed the bill 43-13, the Senate passed it 28-0, and the House gave final approval 35-20. Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed HB 2311 on June 19, 2026, saying it limited damages for families, barred families from bringing their own lawsuits, and tied the state's hands in enforcement.","summary_technical":"HB 2311 (57th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess.; sponsor Rep. Rivero) would have imposed AI-disclosure, minor-safety (no engagement rewards, simulated emotion/romance, adult-minor role-play or sexual content), self-harm-protocol, data-minimisation and government-access limits on conversational AI service operators, enforced by Attorney General civil penalties, effective Sept. 30, 2027. Votes: House third read 43-13 (Feb. 24, 2026); Senate third read 28-0 (June 11, 2026); House final read 35-20 (June 12, 2026). Vetoed June 19, 2026; the veto letter objects that the bill limited damages, prohibited family lawsuits and constrained state enforcement.","who_is_protected":"Minor users of AI chatbot platforms, protected from undisclosed AI identity, manipulative gamification features, and sexual content.","who_must_comply":"Operators of AI chatbot platforms accessible to minors in Arizona.","citation":"Ariz. H.B. 2311, 57th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (2026) — vetoed June 19, 2026","source_url":"https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/84047","source_title":"AZ Arizona HB 2311 AI chatbot safety for minors — vetoed 2026 — official record (apps.azleg.gov)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"az-hb-2592-ai-state-agencies-vetoed-2026","title":"Arizona HB 2592 — Artificial Intelligence; State Agencies; Rules (Vetoed)","short_title":"Arizona HB 2592 AI state agencies — vetoed 2026","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arizona","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"vetoed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Arizona HB 2592 would have required every state agency to identify opportunities to implement AI systems that reduce administrative burdens, eliminate regulations that unnecessarily hinder AI adoption, streamline AI procurement, and establish internal AI governance. It passed the Legislature, but Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed it on June 19, 2026, writing that the bill was redundant of actions the state was already taking and would 'only create barriers to the efficient and responsible adoption of AI by having legislators act as procurement officers.' It was vetoed the same day as two other AI bills, HB 2311 and HB 2133.","summary_technical":"HB 2592, 57th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (2026) would have required Arizona 'budget units' (state agencies) to: identify AI opportunities to reduce administrative burdens; eliminate regulations that hinder AI innovation; streamline AI technology procurement; and establish internal governance for responsible AI use. Passed House 35-20, Senate 16-12. Gov. Hobbs vetoed June 19, 2026 alongside HB 2311 (AI chatbot safety for minors) and HB 2133 (synthetic sexual depictions), citing redundancy with existing agency practice. Senate final approval: June 9, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Arizonans interacting with state agencies, through internal AI governance and accountability requirements that would have been imposed on government units — though the bill focused more on AI adoption than citizen protection.","who_must_comply":"Arizona state agencies ('budget units' under the state budget framework)","citation":"Ariz. H.B. 2592, 57th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (2026) — vetoed June 19, 2026","source_url":"https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/57leg/2R/bills/HB2592H.htm","source_title":"Arizona Legislature — HB 2592 (57th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess., 2026) bill text","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"az-hb-2133-synthetic-depictions-vetoed-2026","title":"Arizona HB 2133 — Sexual Material; Consent; Synthetic Depiction (Vetoed)","short_title":"Arizona HB 2133 deepfake sexual content — vetoed 2026","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arizona","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["deepfakes","ncii","privacy","consumer-protection"],"status":"vetoed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Arizona HB 2133 would have amended the state's existing unlawful-image-disclosure statute to include 'synthetic depictions' — AI-generated images of nudity or sexual activity — and would have required websites hosting sexual material to verify that each depicted person consented and was of legal age. The Senate gave final approval 16-12 on June 9, 2026 and the House gave final approval 35-20 on June 11, 2026. Gov. Hobbs vetoed it on June 19, writing that the bill had 'a chilling effect on free speech' and would violate First Amendment rights to engage in satirical discourse about elected officials, and that existing Arizona law and the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act already address AI-generated revenge porn.","summary_technical":"HB 2133, 57th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (2026) amended the unlawful-sexual-image-disclosure statute to cover 'synthetic depictions' (AI-generated imagery) and imposed age/consent verification obligations on hosting platforms. Final passage: Senate 16-12 (June 9, 2026), House 35-20 (June 11, 2026); transmitted to Governor June 12. Hobbs vetoed June 19, citing First Amendment concerns over satirical speech about public officials and noting existing state law plus the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act. One of three AI bills vetoed the same day (HB 2311, HB 2592, HB 2133).","who_is_protected":"Individuals depicted in AI-generated sexual imagery without their consent, including minors, who would have been protected by age-verification and consent-verification requirements on hosting platforms.","who_must_comply":"Websites hosting sexual material, which would have been required to verify depicted persons' age and consent before publication, including for AI-generated synthetic depictions.","citation":"Ariz. H.B. 2133, 57th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (2026) — vetoed June 19, 2026","source_url":"https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/83779","source_title":"AZ Arizona HB 2133 deepfake sexual content — vetoed 2026 — official record (apps.azleg.gov)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ga-albany-city-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Albany, GA — City Commission 12-Month Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Albany GA 12-month data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Albany, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Dougherty","city":"Albany, GA","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-28","enacted_date":"2026-07-28","expires_date":"2027-07-28","last_verified_date":"2026-07-31","summary_plain":"Albany, Georgia's City Commission voted unanimously on July 28, 2026 to impose a 12-month moratorium on all new data center development, with an option to extend for an additional 6 months. Commissioners directed the Albany-Dougherty Planning Commission to draft permanent data-center siting ordinances and approved hiring an outside consultant to research best practices in other jurisdictions. The moratorium was driven by public concern over the impact of large data centers on the local Floridian Aquifer water system.","summary_technical":"Albany (Dougherty County, GA) City Commission unanimous vote July 28, 2026. Moratorium halts acceptance, processing, and approval of new data center development permits and applications within Albany city limits for 12 months (expires approx. July 28, 2027); option for 6-month extension (to approx. Jan. 28, 2028). Albany-Dougherty Planning Commission directed to draft permanent data-center siting ordinance within the moratorium window; outside consultant retained to research regulatory approaches. Distinct from Dougherty County BOC's separate 45-day moratorium (adopted July 20, 2026) governing unincorporated county area; see ga-dougherty-county-dc-moratorium-2026.","who_is_protected":"Albany, GA residents and local water resources","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits or approvals in Albany, GA","citation":"Albany, GA City Commission data center moratorium (adopted unanimously July 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.walb.com/2026/07/29/data-center-developments-paused-12-months-albany-following-commission-vote/","source_title":"Data center developments paused for 12 months in Albany following commission vote — WALB News 10","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Albany City Commission; Albany-Dougherty Planning Commission","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ga-dougherty-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Dougherty County, GA — Board of Commissioners Data Center Moratorium (Extended 180 Days, Aug 31, 2026)","short_title":"Dougherty County GA data center moratorium (extended ~Feb 2027)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Dougherty County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Dougherty","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-20","enacted_date":"2026-07-20","expires_date":"2027-02-28","last_verified_date":"2026-09-03","summary_plain":"The Dougherty County, Georgia Board of Commissioners initially approved a 45-day data center moratorium on July 20, 2026, halting acceptance and approval of zoning applications in unincorporated Dougherty County. On August 31, 2026, commissioners voted unanimously to extend the moratorium 180 additional days through approximately February 28, 2027 — the second extension following the 45-day original. County officials confirmed there is no limit to further extensions. Albany City (county seat) adopted a separate 12-month moratorium July 28, 2026. Both actions are driven by concern over data center impacts on the Floridian Aquifer.","summary_technical":"Dougherty County (GA) Board of Commissioners data center moratorium: original 45-day adoption July 20, 2026 (expires ~September 4, 2026); extended 180 days on August 31, 2026, running through approximately February 28, 2027. Unanimous vote on extension. County officials confirmed no limit to further extensions. Albany city (county seat) adopted separate 12-month moratorium July 28, 2026 (see ga-albany-city-dc-moratorium-2026). Water resource concerns (Floridian Aquifer) cited. Planning commission directed to draft permanent land-use regulations; permanent ordinance not yet adopted as of September 3, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Dougherty County, GA unincorporated area residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking zoning approvals in unincorporated Dougherty County, GA","citation":"Dougherty County, GA Board of Commissioners data center moratorium extension (adopted unanimously, August 31, 2026; expires ~February 28, 2027)","source_url":"https://www.walb.com/2026/08/31/dougherty-county-extends-data-center-moratorium-another-180-days/","source_title":"Moratorium for Dougherty County data centers extended for another 180 days — WALB News (Aug 31, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Dougherty County Board of Commissioners; Dougherty County Planning Commission","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"litig-liu-v-willow-bridge-realpage-philly-2026","title":"Liu v. Willow Bridge Property Co. & RealPage, Inc. — Philadelphia Algorithmic Rent-Fixing Class Action","short_title":"Liu v. Willow Bridge/RealPage (Philadelphia)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Philadelphia, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Philadelphia","city":"Philadelphia, PA","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-28","last_verified_date":"2026-08-20","summary_plain":"Three class-action lawsuits were filed in Philadelphia's Court of Common Pleas on July 28, 2026 — the first known enforcement actions under Philadelphia's algorithmic rent-fixing ban (Bill 240823). Tenant Yiyao Liu and others sued Willow Bridge Property Co. (one of the largest U.S. residential property managers) and RealPage Inc., alleging Willow Bridge used RealPage's software to obtain rent recommendations derived from nonpublic competitor data in violation of the city ordinance. Plaintiffs seek treble damages or $2,000 statutory amount per violation, plus injunctive relief.","summary_technical":"Liu et al. v. Willow Bridge Property Co. & RealPage, Inc., Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas (filed July 28, 2026). Three parallel class-action complaints filed by tenants of Willow Bridge-managed properties alleging that Willow Bridge's use of RealPage's algorithmic revenue-management software (which pools nonpublic competitor occupancy, pricing, and lease-termination data to generate rental pricing recommendations) violates Philadelphia Bill No. 240823 (adopted Oct. 24, 2024; signed Nov. 13, 2024). Remedies: treble damages or $2,000 per violation (statutory), injunctive relief barring continued use of banned software at named properties. These are the first enforcement actions brought under the ordinance. Councilmember Nicolas O'Rourke's office (the ordinance's sponsor) confirmed these are the inaugural enforcement proceedings.","who_is_protected":"Philadelphia renters in Willow Bridge-managed properties","who_must_comply":"Willow Bridge Property Co.; RealPage Inc.","citation":"Liu et al. v. Willow Bridge Property Co. & RealPage, Inc., Phila. County Ct. of Common Pleas (filed July 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.inquirer.com/real-estate/housing/willow-bridge-realpage-lawsuit-philadelphia-rent-prices-20260728.html","source_title":"Philadelphia tenants sue Willow Bridge and RealPage over algorithmic rent pricing — The Philadelphia Inquirer","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (private litigation)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Treble damages or $2,000 statutory amount per violation; injunctive relief"},{"id":"mi-flint-city-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Flint, MI — City Council 12-Month Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Flint MI 12-month data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Flint, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Genesee","city":"Flint, MI","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-08","enacted_date":"2026-06-08","expires_date":"2027-06-08","last_verified_date":"2026-08-02","summary_plain":"The Flint, Michigan City Council voted 7-1 on June 8, 2026 to impose a 12-month moratorium on data center development within city limits, running through approximately June 8, 2027. During the moratorium, no permit applications, site plans, or construction approvals for data centers will be accepted or processed. The council directed the planning and development and legal departments to review zoning codes and recommend permanent regulations, and added a requirement for an independent study with public input on findings. Councilwoman Judy Priestley cast the lone dissenting vote.","summary_technical":"Flint City Council 7-1 vote (dissent: Councilwoman Judy Priestley), June 8, 2026. 12-month moratorium on acceptance, processing, and approval of data center permit applications, site plans, and construction authorizations within Flint city limits; expires approximately June 8, 2027. Planning and development + legal departments directed to review zoning codes and develop permanent regulatory framework; independent study with public input required within the moratorium window. Flint is the seat of Genesee County, MI.","who_is_protected":"Flint, MI residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits or approvals in Flint, MI","citation":"Flint, MI City Council data center moratorium (adopted 7-1, June 8, 2026)","source_url":"https://abc12.com/news/business/flint-city-council-approves-one-year-data-center-moratorium/article_8f64b736-0ba6-41bc-a6ce-032bbf62665c.html","source_title":"Flint City Council approves one-year data center moratorium — ABC12 WJRT","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Flint City Council; Flint Planning and Development Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ga-hall-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Hall County, GA — Board of Commissioners 180-Day Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Hall County GA 180-day data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Hall County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Hall","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-02-26","enacted_date":"2026-02-26","expires_date":"2026-08-25","last_verified_date":"2026-09-03","summary_plain":"The Hall County, Georgia Board of Commissioners voted unanimously 4-0 on February 26, 2026 to impose a 180-day moratorium on data centers, high-density residential developments, and detention centers in unincorporated Hall County. The moratorium expired approximately August 25, 2026. As of September 2026, the county has received approximately 106 public comments and held community meetings on a proposed permanent Data Center Ordinance; the ordinance introduces a full regulatory framework including a new definition for data centers, a Special Use Permit requirement, and mandatory studies (sound, environmental impact, traffic). Hall County's county seat is Gainesville, Georgia.","summary_technical":"Hall County (GA) Board of Commissioners unanimous 4-0 vote, February 26, 2026. 180-day moratorium on data centers, high-density residential development, and detention centers in unincorporated Hall County; expires approximately August 25, 2026 (extendable per Chairman David Gibbs). Planning department directed to draft permanent Data Center Ordinance within the moratorium window. County seat: Gainesville, GA. Hall County is in northeast Georgia, approximately 50 miles northeast of Atlanta.","who_is_protected":"Hall County, GA unincorporated area residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers (and high-density residential/detention center applicants) seeking approvals in unincorporated Hall County, GA","citation":"Hall County, GA Board of Commissioners data center moratorium (adopted unanimously 4-0, February 26, 2026)","source_url":"https://accessnorthga.com/news/hall-co-approves-180-day-moratorium-includes-detention-centers","source_title":"Hall County approves 180-day moratorium — includes detention centers — AccessNorthGA","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Hall County Board of Commissioners; Hall County Planning Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"fl-desoto-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"DeSoto County, FL — Board of County Commissioners 1-Year Data Center Moratorium (DCIP Exemption)","short_title":"DeSoto County FL 1-year data center moratorium (DCIP exemption)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"DeSoto County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"DeSoto","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-29","enacted_date":"2026-07-29","expires_date":"2027-07-29","last_verified_date":"2026-08-02","summary_plain":"The DeSoto County, Florida Board of County Commissioners voted 4-0 on July 29, 2026 (with the fifth commissioner recused) to impose a one-year moratorium on acceptance, processing, review, and approval of all data center applications, running through approximately July 29, 2027. The vote came after months of intense public opposition to a massive proposed data center campus. The moratorium contains a significant exemption: it does NOT apply to rezoning applications tied to DCIP Group's existing project at a decommissioned power plant site, where DCIP had already received rezoning for 34 acres in March 2026 and had applied for over 800 additional acres as part of a planned 1,300-acre, 12-facility campus.","summary_technical":"DeSoto County (FL) Board of County Commissioners 4-0 vote (fifth commissioner recused), July 29, 2026. One-year moratorium on acceptance, processing, review, and approval of data center applications countywide; expires approximately July 29, 2027. Key exemption: moratorium does not apply to rezoning applications related to DCIP Group's existing project at the decommissioned Payne Creek power plant site (34 acres rezoned March 2026; 800+ additional acres applied for; total planned: ~1,300 acres / 12+ facilities). Adopted after months of sustained public opposition. DeSoto County is in southwest-central Florida; county seat is Arcadia.","who_is_protected":"DeSoto County, FL residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking applications in DeSoto County, FL (DCIP Group's existing project is explicitly exempted)","citation":"DeSoto County, FL Board of County Commissioners data center moratorium (adopted 4-0, July 29, 2026; one commissioner recused)","source_url":"https://wgcu.org/top-story/2026-07-29/desoto-approves-data-center-moratorium-but-controversial-project-can-advance","source_title":"DeSoto approves data center moratorium, but controversial project can advance — WGCU Public Media","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"DeSoto County Board of County Commissioners; DeSoto County Planning Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"md-montgomery-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Montgomery County, MD — County Council 18-Month Data Center Moratorium (Expedited Bill 19-26)","short_title":"Montgomery County MD 18-month data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Montgomery County, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Montgomery","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-28","enacted_date":"2026-07-28","expires_date":"2028-01-28","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Montgomery County, Maryland County Council voted unanimously 11-0 on July 28, 2026 to impose an 18-month moratorium on the issuance of any data center permits by the Department of Permitting Services. The moratorium runs through approximately January 28, 2028. The council simultaneously approved a Zoning Text Amendment permanently blocking any data center larger than 25 megawatts from being built in the county. The 18-month duration was a compromise between shorter and longer proposals. County Executive Marc Elrich had previously issued a 6-month executive-order moratorium in June 2026, and the council action codifies and extends that pause. Montgomery County includes Bethesda, Silver Spring, Germantown, and Rockville; it is the most populous county in Maryland and a significant corridor for data center development interest in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, DC.","summary_technical":"Montgomery County Council unanimous 11-0 vote, July 28, 2026. Two companion measures: (1) Expedited Bill 19-26 — prohibits the Department of Permitting Services from issuing any permit for a data center within Montgomery County for 18 months, effective July 28, 2026, expiring approximately January 28, 2028; (2) Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) — blocks any data center larger than 25 megawatts from being built countywide. The 18-month duration was a compromise between a 6-month moratorium (Councilmember Glass proposal) and a 2-year pause (Councilmembers Jawando and Mink proposal). Preceded by County Executive Marc Elrich's June 2026 executive order imposing a 6-month moratorium; the council legislation codifies and extends that action. Montgomery County (county seat: Rockville, MD) is in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, DC.","who_is_protected":"Montgomery County, MD residents from unrestricted data center development during the moratorium period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits in Montgomery County, MD","citation":"Montgomery County, MD, Expedited Bill 19-26 and companion Zoning Text Amendment (adopted 11-0, July 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/07/28/county-council-unanimously-approves-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"County Council unanimously approves 18-month data center moratorium — Bethesda Magazine","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Montgomery County Department of Permitting Services; Montgomery County Council","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"il-hb5511-childrens-social-media-safety-2026","title":"Illinois HB5511 — Children's Social Media Safety Act (algorithmic feed limits + age verification for minors)","short_title":"Illinois Children's Social Media Safety Act — algorithmic recommendations ban for minors","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Illinois","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["consumer-protection","privacy","children"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2028-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-07-31","last_verified_date":"2026-08-03","summary_plain":"Illinois's Children's Social Media Safety Act, signed by Governor Pritzker on July 31, 2026, bans social media platforms from using algorithmic content recommendations for users they know to be minors — restricting feeds to only content the user searched for or from accounts the user chose to follow. It requires operating system providers to verify user age at account setup and share an age-category signal with platforms. It mandates default privacy settings for minors that limit location sharing, nighttime notifications (banned 10 pm – 7 am), and digital currency features. The Illinois Attorney General may enforce violations with civil penalties up to $50,000 per violation. The law takes effect January 1, 2028.","summary_technical":"Creates the Children's Social Media Safety Act (P.A. TBD; signed July 31, 2026; effective January 1, 2028). Core algorithmic restriction: for users known to be minors, operators may only display content the user requested/searched for or posted by creators the user follows — prohibits algorithmic content recommendations driven by viewing history or device data. Age verification: no later than January 1, 2028, operating system providers must provide an age-indication interface at account setup and send platforms a minimum-necessary age-category signal per user. Minor protections: default settings must limit location sharing (precise location shielded), digital currency transactions, nighttime notifications (10 pm–7 am prohibited), and profile visibility. Passed both chambers unanimously. AG enforcement: civil penalty up to $50,000 per violation.","who_is_protected":"Illinois minors who use social media platforms from algorithmic content feeds and data exploitation","who_must_comply":"Social media platform operators with users known to be minors; operating system providers serving Illinois","citation":"Illinois HB5511, Children's Social Media Safety Act (signed July 31, 2026; effective January 1, 2028)","source_url":"https://capitolnewsillinois.com/news/pritzker-signs-law-regulating-how-social-media-platforms-interact-with-children/","source_title":"Pritzker signs law regulating how social media platforms interact with children — Capitol News Illinois","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Illinois Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Up to $50,000 per violation"},{"id":"indianapolis-dc-moratorium-committee-2026","title":"Indianapolis, IN — City-County Council and Metropolitan Development Commission Enact Data Center Moratorium Through Dec. 31, 2027 (Effective August 19, 2026)","short_title":"Indianapolis data center moratorium (Council 23-1 Aug 10; MDC 6-0 Aug 19; effective)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Indianapolis, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Marion","city":"Indianapolis","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-19","enacted_date":"2026-08-19","expires_date":"2027-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Metropolitan Economic Development Committee of the Indianapolis City-County Council voted 10-3 on August 3, 2026 to recommend approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment imposing a moratorium on data centers through at least December 31, 2027. The committee vote fell along party lines: all 10 yes votes were Democrats and all 3 no votes were Republicans. The full 29-member City-County Council is scheduled to vote on August 10, 2026. Council President Maggie Lewis announced support for the moratorium after months of community pressure from residents and environmental groups, and Mayor Joe Hogsett also supports the measure. The moratorium would pause acceptance and processing of land-use applications, site plans, and building permits for data centers within Indianapolis-Marion County.","summary_technical":"Zoning Ordinance Amendment imposing a moratorium on acceptance, processing, and approval of data center land-use applications, site plans, and building permits within Indianapolis-Marion County, IN through at least December 31, 2027; committee-recommended 10-3 by the Metropolitan Economic Development Committee on August 3, 2026. Full City-County Council vote scheduled August 10, 2026, 7:30 PM at the City-County Building. Council President Maggie Lewis (D-5) support announcement followed months of community pressure. Mayor Hogsett (D) publicly supports. Note: This moratorium proposal is a separate action from the previously-tracked SU-47 Special Use District ordinance (indianapolis-su47-dc-district-proposed), which would create permanent data center zoning regulations; both are moving on parallel tracks.","who_is_protected":"Indianapolis-Marion County, IN residents from new data center development through December 31, 2027 (if enacted)","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Indianapolis-Marion County, IN","citation":"Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council, Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2026-AO-001 (committee-approved 10-3, August 3, 2026; full council 23-1 vote August 10, 2026; MDC 6-0 final approval August 19, 2026; effective August 19, 2026 through December 31, 2027)","source_url":"https://www.wishtv.com/news/indianapolis-council-data-center-pause/","source_title":"Indianapolis City-County Council committee recommends moratorium on data centers — WISHTV","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Indianapolis-Marion County Metropolitan Development Department; City-County Council (if enacted)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"tx-gov-abbott-dc-audit-directive-2026","title":"Texas — Governor Abbott Directive: Freeze on New Data Center Grid Connections Pending Comprehensive Audit (August 3, 2026)","short_title":"Texas Gov. Abbott data center grid-connection audit freeze","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-03","enacted_date":"2026-08-03","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"On August 3, 2026, Governor Greg Abbott issued a directive to the Public Utility Commission of Texas and ERCOT (the state's grid operator) freezing all pending approvals for data centers seeking connections to the Texas power grid until a comprehensive audit is complete. Every project in ERCOT's interconnection queue must now disclose: what tax incentives, grants, or abatements it has received or expects to receive; how much power it will use and whether it is generating any of its own electricity; how much water it will consume, where it comes from, and what cooling technology will be used; what steps it is taking to reduce noise, traffic, and other community impacts; and ownership of the facility. Any project that fails to comply or meet PUCT, ERCOT, or state requirements must be denied a grid connection. ERCOT had more than 1,800 projects in its queue representing over 474 gigawatts of requested capacity — roughly five times ERCOT's record peak demand — with approximately 90 percent being data centers.","summary_technical":"Gubernatorial directive (not a statute or executive order) issued August 3, 2026 by Gov. Greg Abbott to PUCT and ERCOT. Core requirements: (a) suspension of processing for all pending data center grid interconnection requests until individual grid-impact assessments are complete; (b) mandatory pre-connection audit requiring each project to disclose (1) tax incentives/grants/abatements received or expected, (2) power demand and any self-generation capacity, (3) water consumption, sourcing, and cooling technology, (4) community impact mitigation measures (noise, traffic, other), and (5) facility ownership; (c) denial of grid connection to any project failing to comply with PUCT, ERCOT, or state requirements. ERCOT implementing by suspending Batch Zero transmission planning study. PUCT Chair Gleeson issued Aug. 3 statement confirming implementation. ERCOT queue context: 1,800+ projects, 474+ GW requested (~5× record peak demand), ~90% data centers. Note: this is a regulatory directive, not a statute; legal authority contested — Texas Policy Research published analysis questioning executive authority to bind ERCOT as an independent grid operator. No statutory sunset; directive can be rescinded or superseded by subsequent gubernatorial action or PUCT rulemaking.","who_is_protected":"Texas electricity ratepayers and communities near proposed data centers from unchecked grid-load additions","who_must_comply":"Data center developers with pending ERCOT interconnection requests; PUCT and ERCOT (implementing agencies)","citation":"Texas Governor Abbott, Directive to PUCT and ERCOT re: Comprehensive Data Center Audit (August 3, 2026)","source_url":"https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-comprehensive-data-center-audit","source_title":"Governor Abbott Directs Comprehensive Data Center Audit — Office of the Texas Governor","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"PUCT; ERCOT (implementation); Governor's Office","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Denial of ERCOT grid interconnection for non-compliant data center projects"},{"id":"fcps-genai-policy-formal-2026","title":"Fairfax County Public Schools — School Board Formal Generative AI Restrictions (July 23, 2026)","short_title":"FCPS formal generative AI restrictions — elementary ban, secondary authorization required","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Fairfax County Public Schools, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Fairfax","topics":["automated-decisions","children","privacy","education"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-01","enacted_date":"2026-07-23","last_verified_date":"2026-10-07","summary_plain":"The Fairfax County School Board voted on July 23, 2026 to adopt formal generative AI restrictions that take effect for the 2026-27 school year. Elementary students are prohibited from using any generative AI tools. Secondary students may only use generative AI if they receive written authorization from a principal, superintendent, or designee for a specific project. Pre-K and kindergarten students are banned from using school-issued tablets and laptops, with exceptions for students whose IEP, 504 plan, or multilingual learner status requires device access. The restrictions supersede the district's prior interim guidance (FCPS Forward: AI & The Future of Learning, September 2025), which had approved certain tools including Adobe Express and a ChatGPT pilot for teachers. Parental opt-out for school-issued devices and a YouTube content firewall were also under consideration.","summary_technical":"School Board formal policy action July 23, 2026 (took effect August 2026 / SY 2026-27). Three core restrictions: (1) Elementary students: prohibited from using generative AI tools regardless of context; (2) Secondary students: restricted from generative AI unless they receive written authorization from building principal, Superintendent, or designee on a project-by-project basis; (3) Pre-K / kindergarten students: prohibited from using school-issued tablets and laptops, with statutory exceptions for students whose IEP, 504 plan, or multilingual learner (MLL) designation requires device access. Supersedes September 2025 interim guidance (see fairfax-fcps-ai-2025). Additional measures pending: parental opt-out mechanism for school-issued devices; YouTube whitelist firewall. Note: Fairfax County Public Schools is one of the largest school districts in the United States (~180,000 students, ~225 schools), and this is among the most restrictive formal generative AI policies adopted by a major urban/suburban school district as of mid-2026.","who_is_protected":"Fairfax County VA public school students (pre-K through grade 12) from age-inappropriate generative AI exposure and algorithmic decision-making","who_must_comply":"FCPS employees, principals, and teachers; third-party technology vendors providing AI tools to FCPS schools","citation":"Fairfax County Public Schools School Board formal policy action on generative AI restrictions (adopted July 23, 2026; effective SY 2026-27)","source_url":"https://www.ffxnow.com/2026/07/23/fairfax-county-school-board-approves-restrictions-on-generative-ai-digital-devices/","source_title":"Fairfax County School Board approves restrictions on generative AI, digital devices — FFXnow (July 23, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Fairfax County Public Schools administration; FCPS Board of Education","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Administrative sanctions under FCPS employee conduct policies; vendor contract termination"},{"id":"oh-columbus-dc-regulations-proposed-2026","title":"Columbus, OH City Council — Proposed Data Center Regulations: Water Use, Sewer Connections, and Decommissioning (July 2026)","short_title":"Columbus OH proposed data center regulations — water, sewer, decommissioning (vote expected Aug 24+)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Columbus, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Franklin","city":"Columbus","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-07","summary_plain":"Columbus City Council is advancing three proposed ordinances to regulate data centers in the city, focusing on water consumption, sewer infrastructure, and decommissioning obligations for closed facilities. The council held public hearings on July 21 and 23, 2026, drawing hundreds of residents — many demanding a moratorium — but Councilmember Christopher Wyche confirmed the city is not proposing a ban, only targeted regulations. The city passed a preliminary oversight measure on July 10. A full council vote on the three ordinances is expected after the council returns from summer recess on August 24, 2026. Columbus is projected to become the second-largest data center hub in the Great Lakes region, making it the first major Central Ohio jurisdiction to pursue citywide regulatory standards (distinct from surrounding municipalities that chose moratoriums).","summary_technical":"Three proposed ordinances under consideration as of July 2026: (1) water usage requirements — mandatory disclosure and limits on cooling water consumption by new and expanding data centers; (2) sewer connection standards — requirements for data center connections to the city sewer system, likely including impact assessments for high-volume cooling systems; (3) decommissioning plan requirement — data centers must submit and bond for a decommissioning plan before receiving city permits, ensuring site remediation obligations. Preceded by: July 10, 2026 oversight measure (passed) giving city increased review authority over data center proposals. Council public hearings July 21-23 with strong resident turnout demanding moratorium; Councilmember Wyche confirmed July 23 that ordinance approach (not moratorium) is Council's intent. Council returns from summer recess August 24, 2026; vote on ordinances expected in late August or September. Context: Columbus is the seat of Franklin County, which (with Grove City 6-1 moratorium — grove-city-oh-dc-moratorium-2026 and Jackson Township unanimous moratorium — jackson-township-oh-dc-moratorium-2026) has seen a wave of municipal data center regulation in 2026.","who_is_protected":"Columbus residents from unchecked data center water consumption, sewer overload, and abandoned decommissioned facilities","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators seeking city permits, sewer connections, or zoning approvals in Columbus, OH","citation":"Columbus OH City Council proposed data center ordinances (water use / sewer / decommissioning); public hearings July 21-23, 2026; full vote expected after August 24, 2026","source_url":"https://www.wosu.org/politics-government/2026-07-23/columbus-city-council-to-pursue-data-center-regulations-instead-of-ban-despite-community-demands","source_title":"Columbus City Council to pursue data center regulations instead of ban, despite community demands — WOSU Public Media (July 23, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Columbus City Council; Columbus Division of Water; Columbus Department of Development (if enacted)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"garden-city-ga-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Garden City, GA — City Council Unanimous 6-Month Data Center Moratorium (June 15, 2026)","short_title":"Garden City GA 6-month data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Garden City, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Chatham","city":"Garden City","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-15","enacted_date":"2026-06-15","expires_date":"2026-12-15","last_verified_date":"2026-08-06","summary_plain":"The Garden City, Georgia City Council voted unanimously on June 15, 2026 to impose a 6-month moratorium on data center development covering all zoning districts within the city. The moratorium runs through approximately December 15, 2026, pausing all new data center applications, permits, and zoning requests. Garden City is a small industrial and logistics municipality in Chatham County adjacent to Savannah, and the action followed similar moratoriums by other coastal Georgia communities reacting to increased data center development interest in the Savannah metro area.","summary_technical":"City Council unanimous vote, June 15, 2026. Moratorium applies to all zoning districts within Garden City (Chatham County, GA). Suspends acceptance, processing, and approval of data center applications, permits, and rezoning requests. Duration: 6 months from enactment (effective June 15, 2026; expires approximately December 15, 2026). Garden City is in the Savannah MSA; its proximity to the Port of Savannah and existing industrial-logistics corridor had attracted data center developer interest.","who_is_protected":"Garden City, GA residents from unchecked data center development during the moratorium period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits or zoning approvals in Garden City, GA","citation":"Garden City, GA City Council, unanimous 6-month data center moratorium (June 15, 2026)","source_url":"https://thecurrentga.org/2026/06/16/garden-city-puts-brakes-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Garden City puts brakes on data centers — The Current GA (June 16, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Garden City, GA City Council; Garden City Planning Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"paulding-county-ga-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Paulding County, GA — Board of Commissioners Unanimous Data Center Moratorium Through January 1, 2027 (July 28, 2026)","short_title":"Paulding County GA data center moratorium through January 1, 2027","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Paulding County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Paulding","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-28","enacted_date":"2026-07-28","expires_date":"2027-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-08-06","summary_plain":"The Paulding County, Georgia Board of Commissioners voted unanimously on July 28, 2026 to impose a moratorium on new data center applications, zoning requests, and civil plan reviews through January 1, 2027. The unanimous decision followed months of resident protests over proposed data centers in residential-adjacent areas. Local officials will use the temporary freeze to overhaul the county's land-use codes and evaluate safety guidelines for large-scale technology facilities. Paulding County is in the northwest Atlanta metropolitan area and had seen multiple data center proposals prompting community concern.","summary_technical":"Paulding County Board of Commissioners unanimous vote, July 28, 2026. Moratorium suspends acceptance and processing of new data center applications, rezoning petitions, and civil/site plan reviews through January 1, 2027 within unincorporated Paulding County, GA. County will use the freeze period to overhaul land-use codes and develop safety and environmental standards for large-scale data center facilities. Paulding County is in the northwest Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell GA MSA; county seat is Dallas, GA.","who_is_protected":"Paulding County, GA residents from unchecked data center development and associated power, noise, and environmental impacts during the moratorium period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits, zoning approvals, or civil plan reviews in unincorporated Paulding County, GA","citation":"Paulding County, GA Board of Commissioners, unanimous data center moratorium through January 1, 2027 (July 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/paulding-county-approves-data-center-moratorium-freezing-projects","source_title":"Paulding County approves data center moratorium — FOX 5 Atlanta","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Paulding County Board of Commissioners; Paulding County Planning Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"cherokee-county-ga-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Cherokee County, GA — Board of Commissioners Unanimous 30-Day Data Center Moratorium (July 21, 2026); 180-Day Extension Adopted Unanimously August 18, 2026; Expires February 14, 2027","short_title":"Cherokee County GA data center moratorium (extended through Feb 14, 2027)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Cherokee County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Cherokee","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-21","enacted_date":"2026-07-21","expires_date":"2027-02-14","last_verified_date":"2026-10-08","summary_plain":"The Cherokee County, Georgia Board of Commissioners voted unanimously on July 21, 2026 to impose an initial 30-day moratorium on new data center applications, zoning requests, and development permits in unincorporated county areas. The Board then voted unanimously on August 18, 2026 to extend the moratorium for 180 days, through approximately February 14, 2027. Cherokee County Community Development Director Brantley Day said the county has no data center applications currently under review and wants staff time to develop appropriate regulations before any arrive. Cherokee County is in the north Atlanta metro area and had seen multiple data center proposals across the region.","summary_technical":"Cherokee County Board of Commissioners — two unanimous votes. (1) July 21, 2026: initial 30-day moratorium on new data center applications, rezoning petitions, and development permits in unincorporated Cherokee County (expired August 20, 2026). (2) August 18, 2026: 180-day extension adopted unanimously at the scheduled public hearing; moratorium now extends through approximately February 14, 2027 (180 days from August 18). Community Development Director Brantley Day cited multiple data centers proposed/built across Georgia metro Atlanta area as impetus. Cherokee County is in the Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell GA MSA (north metro Atlanta corridor; county seat Canton, GA).","who_is_protected":"Cherokee County, GA residents from new data center development during the moratorium period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits or zoning approvals in unincorporated Cherokee County, GA","citation":"Cherokee County, GA Board of Commissioners, unanimous 30-day data center moratorium (July 21, 2026); unanimous 180-day extension adopted August 18, 2026; expires February 14, 2027","source_url":"https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/cherokee-county/30-day-data-center-moratorium-approved-by-cherokee-county-commission/KUBAEKCDIBDRLN6TCEOZYDJEJE/","source_title":"30-day data center moratorium approved by Cherokee County commission — WSB-TV","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Cherokee County Board of Commissioners; Cherokee County Planning and Zoning Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"coweta-county-ga-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Coweta County, GA — Board of Commissioners Unanimous Second 180-Day Data Center Moratorium (June 16, 2026)","short_title":"Coweta County GA second 180-day data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Coweta County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Coweta","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-16","enacted_date":"2026-06-16","expires_date":"2026-12-13","last_verified_date":"2026-08-06","summary_plain":"The Coweta County, Georgia Board of Commissioners voted unanimously on June 16, 2026 to impose a second 180-day moratorium on new data center applications and proposals. The moratorium runs through approximately December 13, 2026 and provides the county additional time to evaluate whether to further revise its data center regulations. Coweta County had adopted a first 180-day moratorium in May 2025, then a permanent UDO amendment restricting data centers to light-industrial and industrial zones in December 2025; the June 2026 moratorium follows continuing community pressure for stronger protections. County seat is Newnan, GA.","summary_technical":"Coweta County Board of Commissioners unanimous vote, June 16, 2026 (Tuesday meeting). Second moratorium: 180-day duration (effective June 16, 2026; expires approximately December 13, 2026). Suspends acceptance of new data center proposals and applications in unincorporated Coweta County. Context: (1) May 2025: first 180-day moratorium adopted (~expired Nov 2025); (2) December 2025: UDO amendment adopted restricting data centers to light-industrial and industrial zones with 300-ft buffers, noise, lighting, traffic, and utility capacity standards (see coweta-county-ga-dc-ord-2025); (3) June 16, 2026: second moratorium for continued regulatory refinement. Coweta County is in the southwest Atlanta MSA; county seat Newnan, GA.","who_is_protected":"Coweta County, GA residents from new data center development during the moratorium period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits or approvals in unincorporated Coweta County, GA","citation":"Coweta County, GA Board of Commissioners, unanimous second 180-day data center moratorium (June 16, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/coweta-county/our-doorstep-coweta-county-passes-180-day-moratorium-data-center-proposals-after-2-approved/NEHIXSMQEVEZPFKA4K4IWSEQ24/","source_title":"'On our doorstep:' Coweta County passes 180-day moratorium on data center proposals — WSB-TV","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Coweta County Board of Commissioners; Coweta County Planning and Zoning Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ia-des-moines-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Des Moines County, IA — Board of Supervisors 1-Year Data Center Moratorium (May 19, 2026)","short_title":"Des Moines County IA 1-year data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Des Moines County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Des Moines","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-05-19","enacted_date":"2026-05-19","expires_date":"2027-05-19","last_verified_date":"2026-08-29","summary_plain":"The Des Moines County (IA) Board of Supervisors voted on May 19, 2026 to impose a one-year moratorium on the acceptance and approval of data center permit applications in unincorporated parts of the county. The moratorium scope expressly includes cryptocurrency mining operations as well as conventional data centers. The moratorium runs through approximately May 19, 2027. Des Moines County is in southeastern Iowa; its county seat is Burlington. The vote was confirmed in multiple Pen City Current (Burlington IA local paper) articles including a post-vote confirmation piece.","summary_technical":"Des Moines County, IA Board of Supervisors action, May 19, 2026. Moratorium on acceptance, processing, and approval of permit applications for data centers and cryptocurrency mining operations in unincorporated Des Moines County. Duration: 12 months (effective 2026-05-19, expiring approximately 2027-05-19). Resolution 2026-034 per Pen City Current reporting. County seat: Burlington, IA (southeastern Iowa). Note: do not confuse Des Moines County (seat: Burlington) with Polk County (seat: Des Moines, the state capital).","who_is_protected":"Des Moines County, IA residents in unincorporated areas from unchecked data center and crypto mining development","who_must_comply":"Data center and cryptocurrency mining developers seeking permits in unincorporated Des Moines County, IA","citation":"Des Moines County, IA Board of Supervisors, Resolution 2026-034 — 1-year data center moratorium (May 19, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.pencitycurrent.com/stories/county-halts-any-new-data-center-plans-for-one-year,172965","source_title":"County halts any new data center plans for one year — Pen City Current (Burlington, IA)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Des Moines County, IA government","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ia-woodbury-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Woodbury County, IA — Board of Supervisors Resolution 14064: 12-Month Data Center Moratorium (June 23, 2026)","short_title":"Woodbury County IA Resolution 14064 — 12-month data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Woodbury County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Woodbury","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-06-23","enacted_date":"2026-06-23","expires_date":"2027-06-23","last_verified_date":"2026-08-17","summary_plain":"The Woodbury County (IA) Board of Supervisors voted unanimously 5-0 on June 23, 2026 to adopt Resolution 14064, a 12-month moratorium on data center applications in unincorporated Woodbury County. The moratorium prohibits the county from accepting, processing, or approving any zoning, subdivision, site plan, conditional use permit, building permit, rezoning, or other development application for any type or class of data center in unincorporated areas of the county, for 12 months from adoption. The resolution does not affect data center projects already approved or those within incorporated city limits. The vote was triggered in part by a proposal involving approximately 900 acres of farmland near Salix that MidAmerican Energy had proposed annexing into city limits — a maneuver the moratorium could not reach once annexation occurred. Woodbury County's county seat is Sioux City.","summary_technical":"Woodbury County, IA Resolution 14064 (adopted 5-0, June 23, 2026). Scope: moratorium on acceptance, processing, consideration, and approval of any zoning classification, subdivision plat, site development plan, conditional use permit, building permit, rezoning, or other development approval for any type or class of data center within unincorporated Woodbury County. Duration: 12 months from June 23, 2026 (through approximately June 23, 2027). Carve-outs: existing approved applications not affected; incorporated city boundaries excluded (relevant to Salix/MidAmerican Energy parcel). Background: MidAmerican Energy had submitted a data center campus proposal involving ~900 acres of Woodbury County farmland; the City of Salix had initiated annexation of the parcel, removing it from county jurisdiction.","who_is_protected":"Woodbury County, IA residents in unincorporated areas from unchecked data center development during the moratorium period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in unincorporated Woodbury County, IA","citation":"Woodbury County, IA Resolution 14064 (adopted 5-0, June 23, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.woodburycountyiowa.gov/supervisors/resolutions/14064/","source_title":"Resolution 14064 — 12-Month Moratorium on Data Centers — Woodbury County, IA Board of Supervisors","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Woodbury County, IA government; Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ia-fairfax-dc-ban-2026","title":"Fairfax, IA — City Council Ordinance Permanently Prohibiting High-Impact Data Centers (First Reading 3-1, July 14, 2026)","short_title":"Fairfax IA permanent ban on high-impact data centers (no end date; second reading pending)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Fairfax, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Linn","city":"Fairfax","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-08-29","summary_plain":"The Fairfax, Iowa City Council voted 3-1 on July 14, 2026 to advance on first reading an ordinance that would permanently prohibit 'High-Impact Data Centers' within the city with no expiration date. Councilman Dan Wozniak introduced the measure. Councilman Michael Daly cast the sole no vote, arguing the action was premature and objecting to the permanent nature of the ban. A second reading was scheduled for July 28, 2026; the outcome of that meeting and whether the mayor has signed the ordinance is not yet confirmed. KCRG (Cedar Rapids ABC affiliate) characterized the vote as approving a 'ban' with 'no end date'; CBS2 Iowa characterized it as approving a 'moratorium on large AI data centers.' Fairfax is a small city in Linn County near Cedar Rapids and has been cited as only the second Iowa municipality to pursue a permanent outright data center ban, after Ida County. The ordinance as reported does not define 'High-Impact Data Center' numerically in available coverage.","summary_technical":"City of Fairfax, IA Council action (3-1 first reading, July 14, 2026). Core provision: ordinance provides the city 'shall not accept, process, or consider any application that seeks approval of a High-Impact Data Center.' No end date / permanent prohibition (per KCRG: 'no end date'). Mechanism: future ordinances could modify or lift the ban if economic and environmental impact requirements are addressed. Sponsor: Councilman Dan Wozniak. Dissent: Councilman Michael Daly (sole no) — cited premature action and lack of expiration date. Procedural status: first reading only as of July 14, 2026; second reading scheduled July 28, 2026. Under Iowa Code ch. 380, ordinances require at least two readings, with unanimous consent required to waive readings; unanimous waiver was unavailable given Daly's dissent. Final adoption (second reading passage + mayoral signature) not confirmed as of 2026-08-07. Coverage context: only second Iowa municipality to pursue outright permanent ban, after Ida County (Ida County entry not yet in dataset — needs research).","who_is_protected":"Fairfax, IA residents from high-impact data center development (if ordinance fully adopted)","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking any approval from the City of Fairfax, IA","citation":"Fairfax, IA City Council, ordinance prohibiting High-Impact Data Centers (first reading 3-1, July 14, 2026; second reading July 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kcrg.com/2026/07/15/fairfax-votes-ban-high-impact-data-centers-with-no-end-date/","source_title":"Fairfax votes to ban high-impact data centers with no end date — KCRG (July 15, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Fairfax, IA government","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ne-gov-pillen-imagine-act-suspension-2026","title":"Nebraska — Governor Pillen Executive Order Rescinding ImagiNE Act Data Center Tax Incentives for New Applications (July 20, 2026)","short_title":"Nebraska Gov. Pillen EO rescinding ImagiNE Act data center incentives for new applications","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Nebraska","state_abbr":"NE","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-20","enacted_date":"2026-07-20","last_verified_date":"2026-08-17","summary_plain":"Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen signed an executive order on July 20, 2026 rescinding data centers' access to tax incentives under the ImagiNE Nebraska Act for all new applications. Existing approved data center projects are not affected. The order also establishes a Data Center Task Force through the Department of Water, Energy and Environment to evaluate incoming major data center proposals and assess their impact on Nebraska's land, water, and public power system. Pillen stated the order is not a moratorium on data centers, and local governments retain authority over construction decisions. Nebraska data centers had received approximately $519 million in property tax exemptions since 2021 under the ImagiNE Act. Nebraska is also the only U.S. state where 100 percent of electricity is provided by publicly owned utilities. In June 2026, Pillen had signed LB 1261, which prevents new data centers from depending on power built and funded by Nebraska ratepayers.","summary_technical":"Nebraska Executive Order (signed July 20, 2026, by Governor Jim Pillen). Core provisions: (1) rescinds data center access to ImagiNE Nebraska Act tax incentives for new applications; (2) requires Departments of Economic Development, Revenue, and Water, Energy and Environment (DWEE) to collaborate on all new data center proposals; (3) establishes a Data Center Task Force through DWEE to evaluate proposals and protect land, water, and electricity resources. Scope: applies to new applications only; existing approved ImagiNE Act data center projects unaffected. Not a construction moratorium — local governments retain zoning and permitting authority. EO number not confirmed in indexed sources; official press release at governor.nebraska.gov. Context: Nebraska received ~$519M in property-tax exemptions for data centers since 2021 (per ImagiNE Act); Nebraska is 100% publicly owned utilities. Companion legislation: LB 1261 (signed June 2026, prevents data centers from depending on ratepayer-funded power). Nebraska Examiner characterized this as Pillen 'rescinds ImagiNE Act tax incentives for new Nebraska data centers.'","who_is_protected":"Nebraska electricity ratepayers and communities from unchecked data center tax-incentive drain on the state's public power and water resources","who_must_comply":"Data center developers applying for ImagiNE Nebraska Act tax incentives (new applications only); Nebraska Department of Economic Development; Nebraska Department of Revenue; DWEE","citation":"Nebraska Executive Order (Gov. Jim Pillen, July 20, 2026) — Rescinding ImagiNE Act data center tax incentives for new applications","source_url":"https://governor.nebraska.gov/gov-pillen-signs-executive-order-data-centers","source_title":"Gov. Pillen Signs Executive Order on Data Centers — Office of the Governor of Nebraska","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Nebraska Department of Economic Development; Nebraska Department of Water, Energy and Environment (DWEE); Governor's Office","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Ineligibility for ImagiNE Act tax incentives for non-compliant or new data center applications"},{"id":"cherokee-nation-dc-ban-2026","title":"Cherokee Nation (OK) — Ban on Hyperscale Data Center Development on Tribally Owned and Trust Lands (August 5, 2026)","short_title":"Cherokee Nation (OK) hyperscale data center ban","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Cherokee Nation (OK)","state_abbr":"OK","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-05","enacted_date":"2026-08-05","last_verified_date":"2026-09-12","summary_plain":"On August 5, 2026, Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. announced that the Cherokee Nation will ban hyperscale data centers on all tribally owned and trust lands. The policy follows a task force report citing significant concerns about energy and water consumption, air quality, noise and light pollution, infrastructure strain, and the protection of cultural resources. Community surveys found a large majority of Cherokee citizens do not support hyperscale data center construction within the reservation. For land within the reservation that is not tribally owned or in trust, the Nation will not support data center development unless developers engage in robust early consultation. The task force — established by Executive Order 2026-02-CTH (Feb. 24, 2026) — recommended creating a permanent advisory committee to evaluate future proposals. The Cherokee Nation is the largest tribe in the United States by citizenship.","summary_technical":"Principal Chief's policy announcement, August 5, 2026. Scope: (1) outright prohibition on hyperscale data center development on all Cherokee Nation tribally owned and trust lands; (2) opposition to hyperscale data center development on non-tribal-owned fee land within the reservation absent 'robust consultation' with the tribal government. Basis: task force findings on energy/water consumption, air quality, infrastructure, noise, light pollution, cultural resource protection, and community survey results. Task force established by EO 2026-02-CTH (Principal Chief Hoskin, Feb. 24, 2026); nine members led by Secretary Christina Justice; reporting deadline June 30, 2026. Task force recommendation: establish permanent advisory committee for future proposal review. Note: this is an executive policy announcement, not a formal ordinance or statute — legal force derives from Principal Chief's authority over tribally owned and trust lands; not directly applicable to fee land owned by non-tribal entities within the reservation. Cherokee Nation is the largest tribe in the U.S. by citizenship (~400,000 citizens); reservation covers portions of 14 counties in northeastern Oklahoma.","who_is_protected":"Cherokee Nation citizens and communities from hyperscale data center energy/water impacts and cultural resource threats on tribal and trust lands","who_must_comply":"Any developer seeking to build hyperscale data centers on Cherokee Nation tribally owned or trust land; developers on adjacent reservation land (consultation requirement)","citation":"Cherokee Nation Principal Chief's Policy Announcement — Hyperscale Data Center Ban on Tribally Owned and Trust Lands (August 5, 2026); backstory: EO 2026-02-CTH (Feb. 24, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kosu.org/cherokee-nation-bans-data-centers","source_title":"Cherokee Nation bans hyperscale data centers on tribally owned, trust lands — KOSU (NPR Oklahoma)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Cherokee Nation Office of the Principal Chief; Cherokee Nation Data Center Task Force / successor advisory committee","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Denial of tribal government support and approval for non-compliant data center projects on tribal/trust land"},{"id":"muscogee-nation-dc-task-force-2026","title":"Muscogee (Creek) Nation National Council — Tribal Digital Infrastructure and Data Sovereignty Task Force (July 25, 2026)","short_title":"Muscogee (Creek) Nation digital infrastructure task force","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Muscogee (Creek) Nation","state_abbr":"OK","topics":["data-centers","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-25","enacted_date":"2026-07-25","last_verified_date":"2026-08-15","summary_plain":"The Muscogee (Creek) Nation National Council voted 12-3 on July 25, 2026 to establish the Tribal Digital Infrastructure and Data Sovereignty Task Force. The task force is charged with studying the potential environmental impact, effects on cultural resources and cybersecurity, and data sovereignty implications of AI systems and data center development on reservation lands. Principal Chief David Hill supported the legislation, citing community feedback about data center and AI infrastructure concerns. The task force — which includes the Principal Chief, National Council representatives, the attorney general's office, and the tribal utility authority — has 60 days to report its findings to the National Council (deadline approximately September 23, 2026). This is a study body, not a moratorium; no ban on data centers has been enacted.","summary_technical":"Muscogee (Creek) Nation National Council legislation, 12-3 vote July 25, 2026. Creates the Tribal Digital Infrastructure and Data Sovereignty Task Force. Composition: Principal Chief David Hill; one representative from the Office of the Attorney General; the speaker of the National Council; a National Council representative; the chair of the Business, Finance and Justice Committee; a representative from the tribal utility authority. Mandate: study environmental impacts, effects on cultural resources, cybersecurity implications, and data sovereignty considerations related to AI/data center development. Reporting deadline: 60 days from passage (~September 23, 2026). Note: this establishes a study body only; no moratorium or ban on data centers is in effect as of 2026-08-08.","who_is_protected":"Muscogee (Creek) Nation citizens and tribal lands from unchecked AI/data center development pending task force review","who_must_comply":"Muscogee (Creek) Nation government and any data center developers approaching the tribe (task force consultation)","citation":"Muscogee (Creek) Nation National Council — Tribal Digital Infrastructure and Data Sovereignty Task Force (enacted 12-3, July 25, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.mvskokemedia.com/tribal-digital-infrastructure-and-data-sovereignty-task-force-established-by-council/","source_title":"Tribal Digital Infrastructure and Data Sovereignty task force established by Council — Mvskoke Media","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Muscogee (Creek) Nation National Council / Principal Chief's Office (task force)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ks-geary-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Geary County, KS — County Commission 12-Month Moratorium on Data Centers and Alternative Energy Facilities (June 22, 2026)","short_title":"Geary County KS 12-month data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Geary County, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Geary","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-22","enacted_date":"2026-06-22","expires_date":"2027-06-22","last_verified_date":"2026-08-28","summary_plain":"The Geary County, Kansas County Commission voted unanimously on June 22, 2026 to impose a 12-month moratorium on data centers and alternative energy facilities — including nuclear and hydrogen plants — in unincorporated areas of the county. The moratorium was presented by GIS/Planning and Zoning Director Troy Livingston, who explained the county needs time to study infrastructure, water, and power impacts of the proposed facilities before deciding whether to write permanent regulations, enact a ban, or take another approach. The planning commission will meet monthly during the moratorium period to develop potential regulations. Geary County's county seat is Junction City; the county is in north-central Kansas adjacent to Fort Riley.","summary_technical":"Geary County, KS County Commission action, unanimous vote June 22, 2026. Moratorium scope: acceptance, processing, and approval of applications for data centers and alternative energy facilities (nuclear and hydrogen plants explicitly covered) in unincorporated Geary County. Duration: 12 months from June 22, 2026 (through approximately June 22, 2027). Presented by GIS/Planning and Zoning Director Troy Livingston. Planning commission to convene monthly during moratorium to develop permanent regulations. County policy goal: evaluate infrastructure, water, and power impacts before finalizing permanent regulatory approach. County seat: Junction City, KS. Note: moratorium covers a broader category than data centers alone — alternative energy facility inclusion is notable.","who_is_protected":"Geary County, KS residents in unincorporated areas from unchecked data center and alternative energy facility development during the study period","who_must_comply":"Data center and alternative energy facility developers seeking permits in unincorporated Geary County, KS","citation":"Geary County, KS County Commission — 12-Month Moratorium on Data Centers and Alternative Energy Facilities (unanimous, June 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.ksnt.com/news/local-news/geary-co-approves-moratorium-on-data-center-development/","source_title":"Geary County approves moratorium on data center development — KSNT 27 News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Geary County, KS government; County Commission; Planning and Zoning Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"spokane-county-wa-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Spokane County, WA — County Commissioners Approve 4-Month Pause on Large-Load Data Center Permits (August 18, 2026)","short_title":"Spokane County WA 4-month data center moratorium (Aug 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Spokane County, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"Spokane","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-18","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","expires_date":"2026-12-15","last_verified_date":"2026-09-02","summary_plain":"Spokane County, Washington's Board of Commissioners voted unanimously on August 18, 2026 to pause processing of building permits for large-load data centers (requiring 1 MW or more of electricity) through December 15, 2026. This 4-month compromise emerged after commissioners split 3-2 in an earlier attempt at a 9-month moratorium. The board intends to enact permanent data-center zoning rules at its December 15 final meeting. A September 15, 2026 public hearing is scheduled on the pause. The county covers the Spokane metro area in eastern Washington State; this is distinct from the City of Spokane's own data center ordinance (Ordinance C36887).","summary_technical":"Spokane County Board of Commissioners unanimous vote, August 18, 2026. Scope: pause on processing building permits for large-load data centers (electricity demand ≥ 1 MW) in unincorporated Spokane County, WA. Duration: through December 15, 2026 (approximately 4 months). Background: initial 9-month moratorium failed on party-line 3-2 vote; compromise pause passed unanimously. Goal: allow time to draft permanent zoning rules for data centers. Public hearing September 15, 2026 on the pause. Expiration: December 15, 2026 (day of final 2026 county board meeting). County seat: Spokane, WA. Distinct from City of Spokane Ordinance C36887 (separately indexed).","who_is_protected":"Unincorporated Spokane County, WA residents from unrestricted data center development during moratorium period (if enacted)","who_must_comply":"Data center developers (≥1 MW load) seeking permits in unincorporated Spokane County, WA","citation":"Spokane County, WA Board of Commissioners, unanimous vote August 18, 2026 — 4-month pause on large-load data center permits through December 15, 2026","source_url":"https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2026/08/19/spokane-county-reverses-course-approving-four-month-data-center-pause/","source_title":"Spokane County reverses course, approving four-month data center pause — Washington State Standard","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Spokane County Planning and Building Department (if enacted)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"az-hb-2678-ai-csam-2025","title":"Arizona HB 2678 — AI-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) Criminalized (57th Leg. 1st R.S., signed 2025)","short_title":"Arizona HB 2678 — AI-generated CSAM criminalized","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arizona","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["deepfakes","children","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-09-27","enacted_date":"2025-09-27","last_verified_date":"2026-08-11","summary_plain":"Arizona House Bill 2678, passed in the 57th Legislature's 1st Regular Session and signed by Governor Katie Hobbs in approximately September 2025, criminalizes artificial intelligence-generated and computer-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM) in Arizona. The law expands the existing definition of 'visual depiction' in Arizona's child exploitation statutes to explicitly include digitally generated, AI-generated, and computer-generated images, meaning such images are treated the same as real photographs of child sexual exploitation. It also updates the definition of 'minor' within child-exploitation statutes to be consistent with this expanded scope. Offenses involving victims under 15 years old are classified as 'dangerous crimes against children,' carrying enhanced mandatory sentencing under Arizona law. The Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline endorsed the bill. The law's first known prosecution came in May 2026 when a Gilbert, Arizona man was charged with more than 20 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor for AI-generated images.","summary_technical":"HB 2678 (57th Leg., 1st R.S.; sponsored by Rep. Julie Willoughby, R-Chandler; signed Gov. Hobbs ~September 2025; effective ~90 days after session end). Key provisions: (1) amends A.R.S. § 13-3553 et seq. to include digitally generated, AI-generated, and computer-generated images within the definition of 'visual depiction' for purposes of child exploitation offenses — eliminates a gap where AI-generated images were arguably not covered by prior statute; (2) updates the definition of 'minor' in the relevant chapter for consistency; (3) maintains 'dangerous crimes against children' classification (A.R.S. § 13-705) for images depicting victims under age 15, which triggers mandatory minimum sentencing enhancements. Prior AZ law covered 'simulated' CSAM but lacked explicit coverage of AI-generated/computer-generated depictions. Companion to federal law enforcement efforts; does not conflict with TRAIGA (tx-hb-149-traiga) which is TX-only. First indictment: Maricopa County, AZ, May 2026 (Gilbert man; 20+ counts sexual exploitation of a minor). Note: AZ session_end_date and enacted_date are approximate; the azleg.gov source URL (press release) was proxy-blocked in this sandbox.","who_is_protected":"Arizona minors from AI-generated child sexual abuse material; victims of digitally generated CSAM","who_must_comply":"Any person who produces, possesses, distributes, or transmits AI-generated or computer-generated CSAM in Arizona","citation":"Arizona HB 2678, 57th Leg., 1st R.S. (2025); amends A.R.S. §§ 13-3553 et seq. to criminalize AI-generated CSAM","source_url":"https://www.azleg.gov/press/house/57LEG/1R/250513WILLOUGHBYHB2678.pdf","source_title":"HB 2678 — House Press Release (azleg.gov, May 13, 2025)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Arizona county attorneys and attorney general; law enforcement agencies","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Felony charges under Arizona sexual exploitation of a minor statutes; 'dangerous crimes against children' classification for images of victims under 15 (mandatory minimum sentences under A.R.S. § 13-705)"},{"id":"ia-ida-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Ida County, IA — Board of Supervisors Enacts Indefinite Moratorium on Data Center Development (June 2026)","short_title":"Ida County IA indefinite data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Ida County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Ida","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-08-11","summary_plain":"The Ida County, Iowa Board of Supervisors voted unanimously in late June 2026 to impose an indefinite moratorium on data center development in the county. Unlike most data center moratoriums, which have a fixed duration, the Ida County moratorium has no sunset date — it will remain in effect until the county develops permanent regulations. Ida County is a small rural county in northwestern Iowa (county seat: Ida Grove). The moratorium was reported by Radio Iowa on July 13, 2026 as part of a broader wave of Iowa county actions on data center development.","summary_technical":"Ida County, IA Board of Supervisors unanimously enacted an indefinite moratorium on data center applications and development in unincorporated Ida County, Iowa. Enacted late June 2026 (exact date not confirmed — last_action_date set to June 30 as an approximation); no sunset clause. Primary sources (radioiowa.com July 13, 2026; Holstein Advance) were both proxy-blocked in this sandbox. Confidence: needs-confirmation pending source verification. Ida County is a rural northwestern Iowa county with a population of approximately 6,600 (county seat: Ida Grove). Note: Ida County's moratorium is indefinite (no fixed end date), distinguishing it from the timed moratoriums adopted by many peer Iowa counties during the 2025-2026 period.","who_is_protected":"Ida County, IA residents from unrestricted data center development pending permanent ordinance adoption","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Ida County, IA","citation":"Ida County, IA, Board of Supervisors, indefinite data center moratorium (unanimous vote, late June 2026; per Radio Iowa July 13, 2026 reporting)","source_url":"https://www.radioiowa.com/2026/07/13/ida-county-joins-list-of-iowa-counties-with-data-center-moratoriums/","source_title":"Ida County joins list of Iowa counties with data center moratoriums — Radio Iowa (July 13, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Ida County Board of Supervisors; Ida County planning and zoning department (if enacted)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"il-sb-3114-transparency-downcoding-2026","title":"Illinois SB 3114 — Transparency in Downcoding Act (PA 104-0568, signed 2026)","short_title":"Illinois SB 3114 — Transparency in Downcoding Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Illinois","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["healthcare","automated-decisions","insurance"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2028-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-07-10","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Illinois Senate Bill 3114, the Transparency in Downcoding Act (Public Act 104-0568), signed by Governor Pritzker on July 10, 2026 and effective January 1, 2028, limits how health insurers and other payors can use algorithms to 'downcode' medical claims (pay a claim at a lower billing code than submitted). A payor may use automated tools to flag claims that might justify downcoding, but may not use any algorithm or automated process that bypasses evaluation of all the information the billing professional submitted, and every downcoding determination must be made or reviewed by a natural person following AMA CPT coding guidelines. Payors cannot downcode based solely on diagnosis codes or target professionals who treat complex or chronic patients, and must give notice and a dispute process. Medicaid managed care organizations must also comply.","summary_technical":"PA 104-0568 (SB 3114, 104th G.A.; Senate Floor Amendment No. 2 replaced the introduced text), approved July 10, 2026, effective Jan. 1, 2028. Creates the Transparency in Downcoding Act: applies (subject to federal requirements) to health insurance policies amended, delivered, issued or renewed on or after the effective date, excluding ERISA self-insured plans and workers' compensation/occupational disease care; preempts home-rule regulation of downcoding in policies issued on or after Jan. 1, 2028; prohibits a health care payor from implementing any policy or using any algorithm or other automated process, system or tool that bypasses evaluation of all information included by the billing health care professional to downcode a claim; permits automated identification of claims that may justify downcoding; requires all downcoding determinations to be made or reviewed by a natural person following AMA CPT guidelines in effect at the time; bars downcoding based solely on reported diagnosis codes and targeted/discriminatory downcoding against professionals who routinely treat complex or chronic patients; sets notification and dispute requirements and administration/enforcement provisions (Department of Insurance). Amends the Illinois Public Aid Code (305 ILCS 5/5-5.12g) so all Medicaid managed care organizations must comply. Senate passed 59-0-0 on May 14, 2026; House passed 111-0-0 on May 27, 2026 (Passed Both Houses).","who_is_protected":"Illinois patients and health care providers whose medical claims are algorithmically downcoded by health insurers without human review","who_must_comply":"Health insurers operating in Illinois; health care providers submitting claims to Illinois insurers","citation":"Illinois PA 104-0568 (SB 3114), approved July 10, 2026; effective January 1, 2028 (Transparency in Downcoding Act)","source_url":"https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus?DocNum=3114&GAID=18&DocTypeID=SB&SessionID=114&GA=104","source_title":"Illinois General Assembly — SB 3114 bill status (Public Act 104-0568)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Illinois Department of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"bristol-va-pd-fr-2026","title":"Bristol, VA Police Department — Facial Recognition Technology Program (General Order 9-09, 2026) under Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2","short_title":"Bristol VA PD facial recognition program (first VA local agency)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Bristol, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Bristol City","city":"Bristol","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-01","enacted_date":"2026-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-08-12","summary_plain":"The Bristol, Virginia Police Department launched a facial recognition technology (FRT) program on June 1, 2026, governed by a 27-page General Order 9-09. Bristol PD is the first known local law-enforcement agency in Virginia to adopt FRT following the state's shift from an effective ban to an authorization-with-safeguards regime under Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2. The program uses Clearview AI, accessed through LexisNexis. Bristol PD publicly posts its facial recognition activity record at bristolva.gov as required by state law. Under Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2, local agencies that use FR must publish a policy, publish an annual report by April 1 each year, maintain confidentiality of FR data, and restrict access to warrant-authorized queries. The DCJS reported that NO Virginia local law-enforcement agencies used FR in 2023 or 2024 (prior to the July 1, 2026 authorization change).","summary_technical":"Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2 (as amended, effective July 1, 2026) authorizes local law-enforcement agencies to purchase and deploy facial recognition technology subject to: (1) a publicly posted written policy; (2) annual public reporting by April 1 on total queries, positive-candidate results, investigative leads offered, cases closed, offense types, repository used, demographic data, and data-sharing; (3) confidentiality requirements prohibiting dissemination or resale of FR data; (4) access only through qualifying search warrant or administrative/inspection warrant. Bristol VA PD General Order 9-09 (27 pp., effective June 1, 2026) implements these requirements via strict oversight: working with the Bristol VA Commonwealth's Attorney's Office; Clearview AI is accessed through LexisNexis. Bristol PD public FRT activity record at bristolva.gov/708. Prior law (§ 15.2-1723.2 effective until July 1, 2026) required local agencies to use the State Police model policy only and DCJS found zero local VA agencies reported FR use in 2023-2024.","who_is_protected":"Bristol, VA residents and visitors; state annual-report requirements create public transparency on FR use patterns","who_must_comply":"Bristol, VA Police Department personnel (General Order 9-09); any Virginia local law-enforcement agency that adopts FR must comply with Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2 requirements","citation":"Bristol VA PD General Order 9-09, Facial Recognition Technology (eff. June 1, 2026); Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2 (eff. July 1, 2026); Clearview AI via LexisNexis","source_url":"https://www.bristolva.gov/708/Facial-Recognition-Technology-Activity-R","source_title":"Bristol, VA — Facial Recognition Technology Activity Record (official city page)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS); Bristol City Commonwealth's Attorney","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"loudoun-county-va-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Loudoun County, VA — Board of Supervisors Directs Staff to Prepare Data Center Moratorium Options (July 30, 2026)","short_title":"Loudoun County VA considering data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Loudoun County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Loudoun","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"On July 30, 2026, the Loudoun County, Virginia Board of Supervisors voted 6-1 to direct county staff to prepare options for a temporary moratorium on new data center applications. If enacted, the pause would halt all new data center applications, site plans, and substation permit approvals while the county completes its Phase 2 Zoning Ordinance Amendment. The board also rejected a proposed 780 MW Active Infrastructure Campus (approximately 3.25 million square feet) at the same meeting. County Attorney Leo Rogers cautioned that a blanket moratorium likely lacks legal standing under Virginia law, which requires each rezoning or special exception to be considered individually. Supervisor Briskman stated 'The community has basically been begging us to do something about the unchecked growth of data centers.' Staff are directed to present options by the September 15, 2026 board meeting.","summary_technical":"Loudoun County BOS 6-1 vote (July 30, 2026) directs staff to develop moratorium options to pause acceptance of new data center applications, site plans, and substation permits. Context: Phase 1 ZOAM (ZOAM-2024-0001, adopted March 18, 2025) ended by-right DC approval; Phase 2 ZOAM addressing substation siting, energy, and noise standards still in draft. No moratorium has been enacted; this is a board directive for staff preparation. The county's attorney flagged Virginia law constraints: localities must consider rezonings/SPEX applications on their individual merits, potentially preventing a blanket application pause. Contemporaneous action: rejection of 780 MW Active Infrastructure Campus application at the July 30 meeting. Developer community argues moratorium would violate statutory rights; community advocates argue unchecked DC growth is harming residents. The September 15 staff report will likely offer layered options from soft pause to formal moratorium to modified Phase 2 acceleration.","who_is_protected":"Loudoun County, VA residents from unmanaged data center development","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking new applications or permits in Loudoun County, VA (if moratorium is enacted)","citation":"Loudoun County, VA Board of Supervisors 6-1 vote (July 30, 2026) directing staff to prepare moratorium options; staff report due September 15, 2026","source_url":"https://virginiamercury.com/2026/07/30/loudoun-county-other-virginia-localities-consider-hitting-the-brakes-on-data-center-development/","source_title":"Loudoun County, other Virginia localities consider hitting the brakes on data center development — Virginia Mercury","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Loudoun County Board of Supervisors; Loudoun County Department of Planning & Zoning","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ga-cobb-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Cobb County, GA — Board of Commissioners 180-Day Data Center Moratorium (Feb 25, 2026; Extended Through ~Feb 2027)","short_title":"Cobb County GA data center moratorium (extended through ~Feb 2027)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Cobb County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Cobb","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-02-25","enacted_date":"2026-02-25","expires_date":"2027-02-07","last_verified_date":"2026-08-14","summary_plain":"The Cobb County, Georgia Board of Commissioners voted unanimously on February 25, 2026 to impose a 180-day moratorium on data center development in unincorporated Cobb County — one of the largest Atlanta-metro suburban counties (Georgia's third-most-populous county, approximately 770,000 residents). The moratorium was subsequently extended approximately 180 additional days, running through approximately February 2027, while the county develops permanent code amendments to govern data center siting. The moratorium covers unincorporated areas only; incorporated cities within Cobb County (Marietta, Smyrna, Kennesaw, Acworth, Powder Springs) have separate zoning authority.","summary_technical":"Cobb County (GA) Board of Commissioners unanimous vote, February 25, 2026. Initial 180-day moratorium on data center development in unincorporated areas; extended 180 additional days at August 11, 2026 BOC meeting (confirmed from WSB-TV, 11Alive, East Cobb News search result snippets), running through approximately February 7, 2027. Permanent code amendments in development per East Cobb News ('Cobb extends data center moratorium with code changes coming'). Scope: unincorporated Cobb County only. Cobb County is Georgia's third-most-populous county (~770,000 residents), northwest of Atlanta.","who_is_protected":"Unincorporated Cobb County, GA residents from unrestricted data center development during moratorium period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits or approvals in unincorporated Cobb County, GA","citation":"Cobb County, GA Board of Commissioners, data center moratorium (enacted February 25, 2026; extended 180 days at August 11, 2026 BOC meeting; running through approximately February 7, 2027)","source_url":"https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/cobb-county/cobb-county-commission-extends-data-center-moratorium-180-days/T7AXV7XHNNGZDI2CSYEI6M7YN4/","source_title":"Cobb County commission extends data center moratorium 180 days — WSB-TV Channel 2 Atlanta","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Cobb County Board of Commissioners; Cobb County Community Development Agency","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ia-jefferson-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Jefferson County, IA — Board of Supervisors Adopts Data Center Ordinance and 12-Month Moratorium on Permit Applications (August 10, 2026)","short_title":"Jefferson County IA data center ordinance + 12-month moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Jefferson County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Jefferson","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-10","enacted_date":"2026-08-10","expires_date":"2027-08-10","last_verified_date":"2026-08-14","summary_plain":"The Jefferson County, Iowa Board of Supervisors voted unanimously 3-0 on August 10, 2026 to adopt both a data center ordinance and a 12-month moratorium halting new permit applications for data center development in unincorporated Jefferson County. The three supervisors — Joe Ledger, Lee Dimmitt, and Susie Drish — waived the second and third readings to give both measures immediate effect. The ordinance applies to data centers using 5 megawatts or more of continuous electricity and expressly covers cryptocurrency mining operations. A crop suitability rating requirement was added to the ordinance to help protect agricultural land. The 12-month moratorium prohibits the county from accepting or approving rezoning petitions, conditional use permits, building permits, and other zoning-related approvals for data center construction or placement. A 45-minute public hearing the night before drew nearly unanimous opposition from residents, who raised concerns about demands on aquifers and the electrical grid, noise, environmental effects, and whether data centers provide enough local benefit. Jefferson County's county seat is Fairfield.","summary_technical":"Jefferson County, IA Board of Supervisors, unanimous 3-0 vote, August 10, 2026. Two parallel instruments: (1) Data Center Ordinance — applies to facilities with 5MW or more continuous electricity demand in unincorporated Jefferson County; covers cryptocurrency mining; includes crop suitability rating requirement for agricultural land protection; (2) 12-Month Moratorium — halts receipt of applications and granting of all zoning-related permits for data center placement or construction, including rezone petitions, conditional use permits, and other approvals. Second and third readings waived for immediate effect. Duration: 12 months from August 10, 2026 (through ~August 10, 2027). Moratorium may be extended. Note: one secondary source excerpt quotes the moratorium as an '18-month halt' — this may refer to a proposed duration from an earlier draft or a different reading of the language; KILJ Radio's headline ('One-Year Moratorium') is treated as primary. Jefferson County IA is in southeastern Iowa; county seat Fairfield. Background: packed joint meeting in May 2026 addressed initial data center concerns; July 30, 2026 public hearing scheduled; August 9 evening public hearing confirmed before the August 10 vote.","who_is_protected":"Jefferson County, IA residents in unincorporated areas from unchecked data center development during the moratorium period; agricultural landowners protected by crop suitability rating requirement","who_must_comply":"Data center and cryptocurrency mining developers seeking permits or approvals in unincorporated Jefferson County, IA","citation":"Jefferson County, IA Board of Supervisors, data center ordinance and 12-month moratorium (unanimous 3-0, August 10, 2026; second and third readings waived)","source_url":"https://kilj.com/jefferson-county-approves-data-center-ordinance-and-one-year-moratorium/","source_title":"Jefferson County Approves Data Center Ordinance and One-Year Moratorium — KILJ Radio","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Jefferson County, IA Board of Supervisors; Jefferson County Planning and Zoning","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ne-cass-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Cass County, NE — Board of Commissioners Unanimously Adopts 12-Month Data Center Moratorium (August 11, 2026)","short_title":"Cass County NE 12-month data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Cass County, NE","state_abbr":"NE","county":"Cass","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-11","enacted_date":"2026-08-11","expires_date":"2027-08-11","last_verified_date":"2026-08-14","summary_plain":"The Cass County, Nebraska Board of Commissioners voted unanimously 5-0 on August 11, 2026 to impose a 12-month moratorium on the permitting of data centers in the county. The moratorium follows a public hearing at which Cass County residents voiced strong opposition to data center development, citing concerns about farmland loss, water use, and noise. Residents burst into applause when the board approved the moratorium. The vote makes Cass County approximately the 12th Nebraska county to adopt a temporary halt on data center construction — joining Otoe, Seward, and others in a statewide wave of county-level resistance. Proposed permanent regulations for data centers were tabled to September 22, 2026 for additional study. Cass County's county seat is Plattsmouth; the county is in eastern Nebraska adjacent to the Missouri River, just south of the Omaha metropolitan area.","summary_technical":"Cass County, NE Board of Commissioners, unanimous 5-0 vote, August 11, 2026. Scope: 12-month moratorium on permitting for data centers in Cass County. Duration: 12 months from August 11, 2026 (through ~August 11, 2027). Context: Planning Commission had voted in favor of the moratorium prior to the Board of Commissioners action. Proposed permanent data center regulations tabled to September 22, 2026 Board meeting. Cass County is in eastern Nebraska, population ~27,000, county seat Plattsmouth; adjacent to the Omaha–Council Bluffs metropolitan area. Nebraska statewide context: at least 11 prior county moratoriums (Otoe, Seward, Butler, Box Butte, Custer, Dundy, Furnas, Hayes, Harlan, Johnson, Kearney); Gov. Jim Pillen issued executive order July 20, 2026 suspending ImagiNE Act data center tax incentives for new applications (ne-gov-pillen-imagine-act-suspension-2026).","who_is_protected":"Cass County, NE residents from unchecked data center permitting during the moratorium period; agricultural landowners from farmland conversion","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits in Cass County, NE","citation":"Cass County, NE Board of Commissioners, 12-month data center moratorium (unanimous 5-0, August 11, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.klkntv.com/cass-county-board-of-commissioners-unanimously-vote-for-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Cass County Board of Commissioners unanimously vote for data center moratorium — KLKNTV","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Cass County, NE Board of Commissioners; Cass County Planning and Zoning","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"fort-peck-tribes-mt-dc-ban-2026","title":"Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes — Tribal Executive Board Bans All Data Center Discussion and Development on Fort Peck Reservation (August 10, 2026)","short_title":"Fort Peck Tribes (MT) — Data Center Discussion Ban","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes","state_abbr":"MT","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-10","enacted_date":"2026-08-10","last_verified_date":"2026-08-15","summary_plain":"The Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes — located in northeast Montana — voted at its August 10, 2026 regular meeting to bar all future discussions and proposals for data center development on the Fort Peck Reservation. The resolution bans 'all future discussions and/or proposals pertaining to individuals or entities that would potentially develop data centers on the Fort Peck Reservation' due to 'the threat to our environment and members of our tribe with irreversible impacts.' Tribal Chairman Floyd Azure explained that the board had been approached by three different data center companies in the prior year, none of whom could explain to tribal leadership how the development would benefit the tribe. The Fort Peck Reservation encompasses about 2 million acres in the extreme northeastern corner of Montana, home to the Assiniboine and Sioux peoples. The ban mirrors actions by the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma (March 2026), Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (April 2026), and Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (May 2026) — all of which banned data center development on tribal lands.","summary_technical":"Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribal Executive Board, regular meeting August 10, 2026. Resolution: ban all future discussions and proposals for data center development on the Fort Peck Reservation. Scope: indefinite — no expiration date stated. Territory: approximately 2 million acres, Roosevelt and Daniels Counties, northeastern Montana. Tribal Chairman: Floyd Azure. Three companies had approached the tribe seeking to build data centers on the reservation in the prior year; the board determined that none could demonstrate adequate tribal benefit. The resolution prohibits even the opening of discussions with developers — a stricter posture than a moratorium (which typically pauses permitting while standards are developed). Context: the tribe is also on a Federal Emergency Management Agency major disaster list (FEMA declaration amended August 5, 2026 — separate from this action). Reporting sources accessed via headlines; direct article bodies were proxy-blocked.","who_is_protected":"Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux tribal members and the Fort Peck Reservation's environment and land from unchecked data center development","who_must_comply":"Anyone seeking to open discussions with the Fort Peck Tribal government regarding data center development on the Fort Peck Reservation","citation":"Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribal Executive Board Resolution (August 10, 2026), barring data center discussions on the Fort Peck Reservation","source_url":"https://montanafreepress.org/2026/08/13/fort-peck-tribes-ban-discussions-data-center-development/","source_title":"Fort Peck Tribes ban discussions with data center developers — Montana Free Press","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Per tribal enforcement powers; no access without board authorization"},{"id":"pr-ps-769-ai-institute-vetoed","title":"Puerto Rico P. del S. 769 — AI Development and Innovation Institute (VETOED June 2, 2026)","short_title":"PR P. del S. 769 / Instituto IA (Express Veto)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Puerto Rico","state_abbr":"PR","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"vetoed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-08-15","summary_plain":"Puerto Rico P. del S. 769 would have created the Instituto de Desarrollo e Innovación en Inteligencia Artificial de Puerto Rico (AI Development and Innovation Institute of Puerto Rico), aiming to position Puerto Rico as a center for AI innovation and drive economic competitiveness, research, specialized talent formation, and government modernization through AI. The House of Representatives approved the bill 42-4 before it reached the governor. Governor Jenniffer González Colón issued an express veto on June 2, 2026, explaining that the bill's fiscal obligations were incompatible with Puerto Rico's Certified Fiscal Plan and the principle of fiscal neutrality governing PR's public finances. The governor acknowledged the bill's worthy objectives but said it would have created new fiscal obligations and expanded tax benefits without adequate independent cost analysis. Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz publicly criticized the veto. The vetoed bill explains why Puerto Rico has not yet established a centralized AI innovation body at the state level.","summary_technical":"P. del S. 769 (19th Leg. Assembly): proposed creating the Instituto de Desarrollo e Innovación en IA de Puerto Rico as a public entity to promote responsible AI development and position PR as a technology innovation hub. Provisions included an AI Strategic Investment Fund and transparency requirements. House vote: 42 in favor, 4 against, 7 absences. Governor González Colón issued an express (veto expreso) on June 2, 2026, citing incompatibility with the PR Certified Fiscal Plan and fiscal neutrality principle. Specifically: new fiscal obligations, reallocation of public resources, and expanded tax benefits without independent quantitative analysis of fiscal impact. Official veto document: sutra.oslpr.org/SutraFiles/anejos/158951/PS0769%20veto%20expreso.pdf (blocked this run, confirmed via search).","who_is_protected":"(Would have applied to) PR residents, businesses, and the innovation ecosystem — not in effect","who_must_comply":"N/A (vetoed)","citation":"P. del S. 769 (19th Leg. Assembly); express veto by Governor Jenniffer González Colón, June 2, 2026","source_url":"https://noticel.com/en/noticias/20260603/gobernadora-firma-varias-leyes-nuevas-y-veta-un-proyecto-del-senado/","source_title":"Gobernadora firma varias leyes nuevas y veta un proyecto del Senado — NotiCel","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"N/A (vetoed)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pa-ag-v-geico-ai-underwriting-settlement-2026","title":"Pennsylvania AG v. GEICO — AI-Enabled Auto Insurance Cancellation Settlement (May 26, 2026)","short_title":"PA AG — GEICO AI Underwriting Settlement","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pennsylvania","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-05-26","enacted_date":"2026-05-26","last_verified_date":"2026-08-16","summary_plain":"Pennsylvania Attorney General David Sunday reached a settlement with GEICO Insurance in May 2026 after the state investigated GEICO's use of an AI-enabled underwriting review tool that canceled a new policyholder's auto insurance without adequate notice. GEICO's standard 60-day policy review for new customers uses an AI tool to select policyholders for additional underwriting scrutiny. When a West Philadelphia woman was selected for review, the process resulted in her policy being canceled — she believed she had submitted the required documents and was not informed otherwise, unknowingly driving uninsured. Under the settlement, GEICO agreed to give policyholders an extra week to respond to document requests during AI-triggered reviews, simplify residency verification requirements, and train customer service staff on the need for clarity in the process. GEICO also agreed to follow the Pennsylvania Insurance Department's published guidance on the use of AI by insurers.","summary_technical":"Pennsylvania AG Investigation (no public docket number disclosed; AG press release May 26, 2026). Subject: GEICO's use of an AI-enabled underwriting review tool as part of its standard 60-day new-policyholder review process. Root complaint: West Philadelphia new policyholder canceled via AI-triggered review; inadequate notice; policyholder drove uninsured without knowledge. Settlement terms: (1) PA DOI AI guidance compliance; (2) +7-day document-submission window for AI-review-selected policyholders; (3) single residency verification form accepted (not two); (4) driver's license matching policy address accepted as proof of residency; (5) CSR training on new requirements and process clarity. No financial penalty to GEICO; no admission of liability; remediation focused. The settlement parallels the enforcement posture of the NAIC AI Model Bulletin (adopted by 25+ states) and NY DFS Insurance Circular Letter No. 7 (2024) requiring adequate disclosure and governance when AI influences adverse underwriting decisions. Pennsylvania is one of the 12 states participating in the NAIC AI Systems Evaluation Tool pilot (Jan–Sept 2026). AG Sunday framed the matter as a consumer-protection enforcement action under state UDAP/insurance law, not a first-of-its-kind ruling — but it is the first Pennsylvania AG enforcement action specifically targeting an AI underwriting tool. Sources: PA AG official press release + InsuranceJournal (5/26/2026) + ABC27 + Fox43 + Coverager + PennWatch + AM Best (seven independent sources).","who_is_protected":"Pennsylvania auto insurance policyholders subject to AI-enabled underwriting review during the 60-day new-policy review period","who_must_comply":"GEICO Insurance (settlement terms); broader signal to all PA-licensed insurers using AI in underwriting review to follow PA Insurance Department AI guidance","citation":"Pennsylvania AG Investigation — GEICO AI Underwriting Settlement (May 26, 2026); AG David Sunday press release (05/26/2026)","source_url":"https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/taking-action/ag-sunday-and-geico-agree-on-improvements-to-remedy-customer-confusion-and-prevent-unfair-auto-insurance-cancellations/","source_title":"AG Sunday and GEICO Agree on Improvements to Remedy Customer Confusion and Prevent Unfair Auto Insurance Cancellations — PA Office of Attorney General","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (AG David Sunday); Pennsylvania Insurance Department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No monetary penalty in this settlement; remediation-only terms. Future violations of settlement terms subject to contempt and state UDAP enforcement."},{"id":"fl-flagler-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Flagler County, FL — Board of County Commissioners 1-Year Data Center Moratorium (August 3, 2026)","short_title":"Flagler County FL 1-year data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Flagler County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Flagler","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-03","enacted_date":"2026-08-03","expires_date":"2027-08-03","last_verified_date":"2026-08-17","summary_plain":"Flagler County, Florida's Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously on August 3, 2026 to impose a one-year moratorium on data center permit applications in unincorporated areas of the county. The moratorium gives the county time to study the impacts of data center development — including concerns about water use, energy demand, and land use — before adopting permanent regulations. Flagler County is in northeastern Florida; its county seat is Bunnell and its largest city is Palm Coast.","summary_technical":"Flagler County, FL Board of County Commissioners action, August 3, 2026. Moratorium on acceptance, processing, and approval of data center permit applications in unincorporated Flagler County. Duration: 1 year (through approximately August 3, 2027). Scope: unincorporated areas of Flagler County only (does not apply to incorporated municipalities such as Palm Coast, Bunnell, Flagler Beach, Beverly Beach, or Marineland). Purpose: allow county time to study data center impacts and develop permanent regulations. Vote tally: unanimous. County seat: Bunnell, FL (northeastern Florida, between Daytona Beach and St. Augustine).","who_is_protected":"Flagler County, FL residents in unincorporated areas from unchecked data center development during the moratorium period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits in unincorporated Flagler County, FL","citation":"Flagler County, FL Board of County Commissioners, 1-year data center moratorium (adopted August 3, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.observerlocalnews.com/news/2026/aug/03/flagler-county-approves-one-year-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Flagler County approves one-year data center moratorium — Observer Local News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Flagler County government; Flagler County Growth Management Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"tx-fort-worth-dc-moratorium-process-2026","title":"Fort Worth, TX — City Council Unanimously Votes to Begin 90-Day Data Center Moratorium Process + Creates Data Center Commission (August 11, 2026)","short_title":"Fort Worth TX 90-day moratorium process + Data Center Commission (Aug 11, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Fort Worth, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Tarrant","city":"Fort Worth","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Fort Worth, Texas City Council voted unanimously on August 11, 2026 to begin a 90-day data center moratorium process — the first formal step toward a binding moratorium on new data center permits. The council also created an 11-member Data Center & Infrastructure Commission to develop long-term policy recommendations, and imposed new documentation requirements on data center developers applying during the 90-day period. The moratorium itself is not yet in effect: the commission must develop recommendations and the council must vote on final rules, a process that could take until February 2027. Fort Worth is Tarrant County's county seat and Texas's fifth-largest city.","summary_technical":"Fort Worth City Council unanimous vote, August 11, 2026. Actions: (1) initiated a 90-day moratorium process on data center permits; (2) created an 11-member Data Center & Infrastructure Commission with a policy recommendation mandate; (3) ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE — in force now, independent of the moratorium — requiring every new data center application to produce EVIDENCE OF GRID INTERCONNECTION APPROVAL from the Public Utility Commission of Texas or ERCOT. That requirement attaches at multiple stages of the city's development process: pre-development conferences, platting and replatting, building permits and infrastructure plan reviews. City officials drafted it following Gov. Abbott's 2026-08-03 directive ordering PUCT and ERCOT to conduct a comprehensive verification and audit of all data centers advancing through ERCOT's interconnection process (tracked as tx-gov-abbott-dc-audit-directive-2026). THIS IS THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE AUGUST 11 PACKAGE: the moratorium is not yet effective, but the interconnection-evidence ordinance is, and it makes a state-level grid determination a precondition to a city-level land use approval — an uncommon coupling. The moratorium is not yet formally effective — it is a process initiation, not a final enacted moratorium. Commission report expected by November 2026; final council vote and moratorium implementation could occur by February 2027. Fort Worth is the fifth-largest city in Texas and county seat of Tarrant County. Note: Texas TRAIGA (HB 149) preempts local AI ordinances but data center land-use and energy moratoriums are distinct from AI-specific ordinances and are generally outside TRAIGA's preemption scope.","who_is_protected":"Fort Worth, TX residents from unrestricted new data center development during the moratorium process (if moratorium takes final effect)","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits in Fort Worth, TX","citation":"Fort Worth, TX City Council, unanimous vote to begin data center moratorium process + create Data Center & Infrastructure Commission (August 11, 2026)","source_url":"https://fortworthreport.org/2026/08/12/data-center-moratorium-takes-first-steps-after-fort-worth-city-councils-unanimous-vote/","source_title":"Data center moratorium takes first steps after Fort Worth City Council's unanimous vote — Fort Worth Report","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Fort Worth; Data Center & Infrastructure Commission (once formed); Fort Worth City Council","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"nv-humboldt-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Humboldt County, NV — Board of County Commissioners 1-Year Data Center Moratorium (July 2026)","short_title":"Humboldt County NV 1-year data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Humboldt County, NV","state_abbr":"NV","county":"Humboldt","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-06","enacted_date":"2026-07-06","expires_date":"2027-07-06","last_verified_date":"2026-08-18","summary_plain":"Humboldt County, Nevada adopted a one-year moratorium on new data center permit applications following a public hearing in July 2026. The moratorium gives the county time to study the impacts of data center development before adopting permanent land-use regulations. Humboldt County is in northern Nevada; its county seat is Winnemucca. The county is one of several Nevada jurisdictions responding to data center development pressure in the state, joining Reno (city moratorium through August 2027).","summary_technical":"Humboldt County, NV Board of County Commissioners action, approximately July 6, 2026 (date of public hearing; adoption date pending primary source confirmation). Moratorium on data center permit applications in unincorporated Humboldt County. Duration: approximately 1 year. County seat: Winnemucca, NV (northern Nevada). The primary source (The Humboldt Sun, thehumboldtsun.com) was proxy-blocked in the agent sandbox; date and details derived from search snippets and aggregate monitoring tools. Confidence set to needs-confirmation pending primary source verification from official county records or The Humboldt Sun. Note: Do not confuse with Humboldt County, CA (distinct county in northern California).","who_is_protected":"Humboldt County, NV residents in unincorporated areas from unchecked data center development during the moratorium period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits in unincorporated Humboldt County, NV","citation":"Humboldt County, NV Board of County Commissioners, 1-year data center moratorium (adopted ~July 2026 following July 6 public hearing)","source_url":"https://www.thehumboldtsun.com/article/477,commissioners-will-consider-temporary-moratorium-on-data-centers-at-monday-s-meeting","source_title":"Commissioners will consider temporary moratorium on data centers at Monday's meeting — The Humboldt Sun","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Humboldt County, NV government","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pleasant-township-oh-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Pleasant Township, OH (Franklin County) — One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers","short_title":"Pleasant Township OH data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Pleasant Township, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Franklin","city":"Pleasant Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-04-01","enacted_date":"2026-04-01","expires_date":"2027-04-01","last_verified_date":"2026-08-19","summary_plain":"Trustees of Pleasant Township, Franklin County, Ohio voted unanimously to impose a one-year moratorium on data center development in unincorporated township territory. The moratorium was adopted sometime in spring 2026 (before May 12), triggered by Stream Data Centers' proposed 300+ acre development straddling Pleasant Township and neighboring Jackson Township near Rensch Road and Beatty Road. The action is part of a broader Central Ohio municipal data center resistance wave: neighboring Jackson Township voted its own 1-year moratorium on May 12, 2026, and Grove City voted a 12-month moratorium on June 2, 2026.","summary_technical":"Pleasant Township (Franklin County, OH) Board of Trustees adopted a one-year data center moratorium on unincorporated township land; exact ordinance/resolution date unconfirmed but pre-dates Jackson Township's May 12, 2026 moratorium. The moratorium halts data-center zoning approvals and permits during the pause. Stream Data Centers' ~300-acre Rensch Road/Beatty project (partially in both Jackson and Pleasant townships, with annexation into Grove City anticipated for portions) is the proximate cause. Part of the ~18+ Ohio municipality moratorium wave as of mid-2026. Columbus City Council (seat of Franklin County) is separately pursuing data-center ordinances rather than a moratorium; Council returns from recess August 24, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Pleasant Township, OH residents from data center development during review period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking zoning approvals, permits, or developments in unincorporated Pleasant Township, Franklin County, OH","citation":"Pleasant Township (Franklin County, OH) Board of Trustees, one-year data center moratorium resolution (spring 2026; exact date unconfirmed)","source_url":"https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/moratorium-another-central-ohio-community-is-saying-no-to-data-centers-policy-tech-energy-water-consumption","source_title":"Another Central Ohio community is saying 'NO' to data centers — ABC6 On Your Side","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Pleasant Township Board of Trustees; Franklin County Planning","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"hogansville-ga-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Hogansville, GA (Troup County) — City Council Data Center Moratorium (Extended Through ~October 8, 2026)","short_title":"Hogansville GA data center moratorium (extended through ~Oct 8, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Hogansville, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Troup","city":"Hogansville","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-02-05","enacted_date":"2026-02-05","expires_date":"2026-10-08","last_verified_date":"2026-09-09","summary_plain":"Hogansville, Georgia (Troup County) City Council approved a 90-day data center moratorium on February 5, 2026, then extended it multiple times after rejecting proposed permanent ordinances. At the September 8, 2026 council meeting, the moratorium was extended 30 more days to approximately October 8, 2026. The council denied the permanent ordinance after public input and debate, then voted a 30-day extension to continue its review. Hogansville is a small city (~2,900 residents) in Troup County, in west-central Georgia near the Alabama border. Part of the broader Georgia data center moratorium wave.","summary_technical":"Hogansville (Troup County, GA) City Council: 90-day data center moratorium adopted February 5, 2026. Proposed permanent ordinance rejected by council. Subsequent 30-day extension adopted, running through September 8, 2026. Council deliberating permanent data center development standards as of Aug 2026. Jurisdiction: City of Hogansville only (incorporated area); neighboring Troup County has separate zoning authority. No resolution number confirmed from available sources.","who_is_protected":"Hogansville, GA residents from unrestricted data center development during the review period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals or permits in the City of Hogansville, GA","citation":"Hogansville, GA City Council, data center moratorium (adopted February 5, 2026; extended through ~October 8, 2026 per September 8, 2026 council vote)","source_url":"https://www.lagrangenews.com/2026/02/05/hogansville-approves-90-day-moratorium-for-data-centers/","source_title":"Hogansville approves 90-day moratorium for data centers — La Grange News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Hogansville City Council; City of Hogansville planning/zoning","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ne-logan-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Logan County, NE — County Board 12-Month Moratorium on Data Centers, Wind/Solar Energy Facilities, and Cryptocurrency Mining (July 15, 2026)","short_title":"Logan County NE 12-month data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Logan County, NE","state_abbr":"NE","county":"Logan","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-15","enacted_date":"2026-07-15","expires_date":"2027-07-15","last_verified_date":"2026-08-21","summary_plain":"Logan County, Nebraska's Board of Commissioners voted on July 15, 2026 to impose a 12-month moratorium on data centers, wind and solar energy facilities, and cryptocurrency mining operations in unincorporated areas of the county. A prior moratorium attempted in May 2026 was declared invalid because it was adopted without the public hearing required under Nebraska law; the July 15 vote corrected that procedural error. Logan County makes approximately the twelfth Nebraska county to impose a data center moratorium in 2026. The county seat is Stapleton, in Nebraska's Sandhills region of central Nebraska.","summary_technical":"Logan County, NE Board of Commissioners action, July 15, 2026. Moratorium scope: data centers, wind and solar energy facilities, and cryptocurrency mining operations in unincorporated Logan County. Duration: 12 months from July 15, 2026 (through approximately July 15, 2027). Procedural note: a prior moratorium adopted in May 2026 was declared invalid by the county state's attorney for failure to hold a public hearing as required by Nebraska statute; the July 15 moratorium corrected the procedural deficiency. County seat: Stapleton, NE. Logan County is a small, rural county in the Nebraska Sandhills (population ~700). Note: moratorium scope extends beyond data centers to include wind/solar energy facilities and cryptocurrency mining — consistent with the pattern seen in several other Nebraska counties (e.g., Geary County, KS analog; NE pattern counties include Cass, Jefferson, and others). Logan County is approximately the 12th Nebraska county to enact a data center moratorium in 2026.","who_is_protected":"Logan County, NE residents in unincorporated areas from large-scale data center, energy, and cryptocurrency mining development pending permanent regulation","who_must_comply":"Data center developers, wind/solar energy facility developers, and cryptocurrency mining operators seeking permits in unincorporated Logan County, NE","citation":"Logan County, NE Board of Commissioners — 12-Month Moratorium on Data Centers, Wind/Solar Energy Facilities, and Cryptocurrency Mining (enacted July 15, 2026)","source_url":"https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/twelfth-nebraska-county-temporarily-bans-data-centers/","source_title":"Twelfth Nebraska county temporarily bans data centers — Nebraska Public Media","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Logan County, NE Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"kickapoo-tribe-ok-dc-opposition-2026","title":"Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma — Business Committee Formal Opposition to Data Center Development","short_title":"Kickapoo Tribe (OK) Data Center Opposition (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma","state_abbr":"OK","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-17","enacted_date":"2026-07-17","last_verified_date":"2026-09-12","summary_plain":"The Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma's Business Committee — the tribe's five-member governing body — voted in July 2026 to formally oppose any data center development on tribal lands. The committee issued a formal statement in response to multiple developer approaches, citing concerns over water resources, land use, and electricity. Committee treasurer Chenille Suke stated the tribe had already been approached for data center development several times and that while it supports economic development, the facilities 'are not compatible with its long-term vision for sustainable development and responsible stewardship of Tribal resources.'","summary_technical":"Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma Business Committee formal opposition statement, July 2026 (Special Business Committee Meeting, approximately July 17, 2026). Governing body voted to oppose data center development on Kickapoo tribal lands. Decision was made after multiple developer approaches for data center development. Key concerns: water resources relied upon by tribal citizens for residential use, agriculture, future community development, and cultural practices; land and electricity impacts. The Business Committee noted that while technological advancement plays an important role in today's economy, data center facilities are not compatible with the tribe's long-term vision for sustainable development. Joins Seminole Nation of Oklahoma (moratorium Mar 2026) and Cherokee Nation (ban Aug 2026) in a wave of Oklahoma tribal opposition to data center development.","who_is_protected":"Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma members and tribal lands, water resources, and cultural resources","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking access to or development on Kickapoo tribal lands","citation":"Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma Business Committee — Formal Opposition to Data Center Development (July 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kosu.org/oklahoma-tribes-data-centers","source_title":"More tribal nations in Oklahoma are opposing, weighing data centers on their lands — KOSU","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma Business Committee","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Per Kickapoo tribal authority; development opposed and will not receive tribal consent"},{"id":"shoshone-bannock-tribes-pocatello-dc-opposition-2026","title":"Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Fort Hall) — FHBC Formal Opposition to Pocatello AI Data Center","short_title":"Shoshone-Bannock FHBC Opposition to Pocatello Data Center (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Fort Hall Reservation)","state_abbr":"ID","topics":["data-centers","public-sector","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-07-01","last_verified_date":"2026-08-22","summary_plain":"The Fort Hall Business Council (FHBC), the governing body of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Fort Hall Reservation, Idaho), issued formal opposition to the proposed Lex Developments 100-megawatt AI data center in Pocatello, Idaho ahead of a July 16, 2026 City Council appeal hearing. The proposed site lies within Shoshone-Bannock ceded lands and historical homelands where members retain Treaty Rights. The FHBC cited the developer's failure to address concerns about electricity-rate increases, liquid-cooling water demand, on-site generation and potential chemical additives, and environmental impacts on Treaty resources. The Hearing Examiner had denied the conditional use permit on May 14; the developer appealed June 1.","summary_technical":"Fort Hall Business Council (FHBC) formal opposition to Lex Developments' proposed 100 MW AI data center — Pocatello, ID City Council appeal hearing, July 16, 2026. Procedural context: Hearing Examiner Kathleen Lewis denied conditional use permit May 14, 2026 following permit hearing. Developer Lex Developments appealed June 1, 2026. FHBC filed formal opposition letter in advance of City Council appeal hearing. Treaty Rights basis: proposed site is within Shoshone-Bannock ceded lands and historical homelands; Shoshone-Bannock members retain Treaty Rights and cultural connections to the proposed location. Concerns raised: (1) likely electricity-rate increases; (2) liquid-cooling water demand; (3) on-site generation water consumption and potential chemical additives; (4) environmental impacts on Treaty resources. Relevant state law: Idaho HB 895 (2026) prohibits new data centers from using water for cooling as a consumptive use unless available from a municipality. Note: Opposition to a permitting proceeding, not a moratorium or ordinance on tribal land.","who_is_protected":"Shoshone-Bannock tribal members with Treaty Rights and cultural connections to Pocatello ceded lands; general Pocatello community","who_must_comply":"Lex Developments (applicant); Pocatello City Council (decision-maker in appeal proceeding)","citation":"Fort Hall Business Council (FHBC) — Formal Opposition to Lex Developments Pocatello AI Data Center (July 2026)","source_url":"https://www.sbtribes.com/shoshone-bannock-tribes-reaffirm-opposition-to-proposed-ai-data-center-in-pocatello/","source_title":"Shoshone-Bannock Tribes reaffirm opposition to proposed AI data center in Pocatello — Shoshone-Bannock Tribes official website","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Fort Hall Business Council (tribal advocacy); Pocatello City Council (permit authority)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ne-lb-77-prior-auth-ai-2025","title":"Nebraska Legislative Bill 77 (2025) — Ensuring Transparency in Prior Authorization Act (no AI-only health-care denials)","short_title":"Nebraska LB 77 (no AI-only prior-auth denials)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Nebraska","state_abbr":"NE","topics":["healthcare","insurance","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2025-06-04","last_verified_date":"2026-08-26","summary_plain":"Nebraska's Ensuring Transparency in Prior Authorization Act bars utilization review agents from using an AI-based algorithm or automated system as the sole basis for denying, delaying, or modifying a health care service based, in whole or in part, on medical necessity. Any prior authorization denial based on medical necessity must involve human clinical review, not AI alone. The law also requires a single standardized prior authorization form of no more than two pages, streamlining the administrative process. Signed June 4, 2025 by Governor Pillen; effective January 1, 2026.","summary_technical":"LB 77 (109th Neb. Legislature, 2025), enacted June 4, 2025, operative January 1, 2026 for fully insured plans. Amends Nebraska insurance law to: (1) prohibit utilization review agents from using an AI algorithm as the sole basis to deny, delay, or modify health care services on medical necessity grounds; (2) require a standardized prior authorization form of ≤2 pages; (3) establish clear timelines for utilization review decisions. Nebraska joins Arizona, California, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, Washington, and Colorado in restricting AI-only prior authorization and coverage denial decisions.","who_is_protected":"Nebraska health insurance enrollees whose prior authorization requests are subject to utilization review.","who_must_comply":"Health plans, insurers, and utilization review agents operating in Nebraska for fully insured plans.","citation":"Neb. LB 77 (109th Leg., 2025), operative Jan. 1, 2026","source_url":"https://nebmed.org/governor-pillen-signs-significant-prior-authorization-reform-into-law/","source_title":"Governor Pillen Signs Significant Prior Authorization Reform into Law — Nebraska Medical Association","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Nebraska Department of Insurance","penalties":"Subject to existing Nebraska insurance code enforcement and penalty provisions."},{"id":"acc-athens-clarke-county-ga-dc-ordinance-2026","title":"Athens-Clarke County, GA — Permanent Data Center Zoning Ordinance (April 2026): Special-Use Review, Heavy Industrial, Closed-Loop Cooling, On-Site Clean Energy","short_title":"Athens-Clarke County GA data center ordinance (April 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Athens-Clarke County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Clarke","city":"Athens","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-04-15","enacted_date":"2026-04-15","last_verified_date":"2026-08-27","summary_plain":"Athens-Clarke County, Georgia — the state's unified city-county government home to the University of Georgia — replaced its temporary data center ban with a permanent zoning ordinance in April 2026. Under the ordinance, any data center requires individual special-use approval from the full Mayor and Commission (no administrative permit), must be in a heavy industrial zone, must use a closed-loop cooling system to reduce water consumption, and must supply on-site clean energy if it draws more than 5 megawatts of power. The ordinance lifts the prior moratorium but imposes substantive, permanent standards rather than allowing unrestricted development.","summary_technical":"Athens-Clarke County (GA) Mayor and Commission adopted permanent data center zoning regulations in April 2026 (enacted approximately April 7-15, 2026), replacing a prior temporary moratorium. Key requirements: (1) data centers are a conditional/special use requiring ACC Mayor and Commission case-by-case approval, not an administrative permit; (2) restricted to heavy industrial (HI) zones; (3) mandatory closed-loop air conditioning system (reduces water use vs. open cooling towers); (4) facilities consuming >5 MW of electricity must provide on-site clean energy. Athens-Clarke is a consolidated city-county (unified government) incorporating all of Clarke County, GA. University of Georgia campus is within the jurisdiction. The ordinance applies to the full unified government territory.","who_is_protected":"Athens-Clarke County, GA residents from unrestricted data center development; county taxpayers from unmanaged infrastructure cost-shifting","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators seeking approval to construct or operate a data center in unincorporated and incorporated Athens-Clarke County, GA","citation":"Athens-Clarke County (GA) Mayor and Commission, Data Center Zoning Ordinance (adopted April 2026; replaces temporary moratorium)","source_url":"https://www.wuga.org/local-news/2026-04-09/athens-clarke-county-data-center-ban-lifted-replaced-with-ordinance","source_title":"Athens-Clarke County data center ban lifted, replaced with ordinance — WUGA Georgia Public Radio","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Athens-Clarke County Mayor and Commission (special-use approval body); Athens-Clarke County Planning Department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Permit denial / non-approval for non-compliant applications"},{"id":"ia-emmet-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Emmet County, IA — Board of Supervisors Enacts Unanimous 1-Year Precautionary Moratorium on Data Center Development (August 25, 2026)","short_title":"Emmet County IA 1-year precautionary data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Emmet County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Emmet","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-25","enacted_date":"2026-08-25","expires_date":"2027-08-25","last_verified_date":"2026-08-28","summary_plain":"The Emmet County, Iowa Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on August 25, 2026 to impose a one-year moratorium on new data center development in the county. The moratorium is purely precautionary — no data center company had contacted the county prior to the vote. Board chair Lisa Hansen of Armstrong said the moratorium gives the board and Planning and Zoning officials time to study the health, water, and energy impacts of data centers and to develop a permanent zoning ordinance before any project is proposed. Emmet County's county seat is Estherville, in northwest Iowa near the Minnesota border.","summary_technical":"Emmet County, IA Board of Supervisors action, unanimous vote August 25, 2026. Moratorium on new data center development in Emmet County. Duration: 1 year (effective August 25, 2026; expires approximately August 25, 2027). Purpose: precautionary study period to develop a permanent data center ordinance and evaluate health, water-use, and energy-demand impacts prior to any active application. Board chair Lisa Hansen of Armstrong stated no company had yet inquired about building in Emmet County. Emmet County is a rural northwest Iowa county on the Iowa-Minnesota border; county seat is Estherville. Note: Emmet County's moratorium follows a broader pattern of Iowa county moratoriums in 2026, which include Johnson, Linn, Woodbury, Dubuque, Story, Ida, Des Moines, and other counties.","who_is_protected":"Emmet County, IA residents from unchecked data center development pending permanent zoning regulation","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits or approvals in Emmet County, IA","citation":"Emmet County, IA Board of Supervisors, 1-Year Precautionary Moratorium on Data Centers (unanimous, August 25, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.radioiowa.com/2026/08/26/northwest-iowas-emmet-county-passes-one-year-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Northwest Iowa's Emmet County passes one-year data center moratorium — Radio Iowa","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Emmet County, IA Board of Supervisors; Planning and Zoning Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ia-marshalltown-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Marshalltown, IA — City Council Enacts 4-Month Moratorium on Data Center Construction (Effective August 28, 2026; Expires November 23, 2026)","short_title":"Marshalltown IA 4-month data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Marshalltown, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Marshall","city":"Marshalltown","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-28","enacted_date":"2026-08-25","expires_date":"2026-11-23","last_verified_date":"2026-08-28","summary_plain":"The Marshalltown, Iowa City Council enacted a four-month moratorium on data center construction within city limits after a months-long deliberation. The council initially voted the moratorium down in June 2026, then reversed course on July 13, 2026. After all three required ordinance readings were completed by late August, the moratorium legally took effect August 28, 2026 and expires November 23, 2026. A 60-day extension provision is available if the council needs more time. Marshalltown has no data-center-specific zoning regulations; data centers currently fall under the 'major utilities' land-use category. Marshalltown is the county seat of Marshall County in central Iowa.","summary_technical":"City of Marshalltown, IA ordinance — 4-month moratorium on data center construction within city limits. Iowa Code requires three readings of an ordinance (with waiver of readings requiring 3/4 supermajority; the 4th-vote threshold was not met). Procedural timeline: June 2026 — council votes down moratorium; July 13, 2026 — council reverses course, approves first reading of 4-month moratorium; August 12, 2026 — council votes 6-1 for reading(s); subsequent August meeting — second and third readings passed; legal effective date August 28, 2026 (after required newspaper publication); expires November 23, 2026 (4 months from July 13 adoption date). 60-day extension available by council action. Current zoning gap: data centers treated as 'major utilities' under Marshalltown code — no dedicated zoning district. Moratorium gives city time to develop data-center-specific regulations. Note: Marshall County (county containing Marshalltown) Zoning Commission separately recommended a 6-month county moratorium — going to Board of Supervisors; not yet adopted.","who_is_protected":"Marshalltown, IA residents from unchecked data center construction pending zoning regulation","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking construction permits or other land-use approvals within Marshalltown city limits","citation":"City of Marshalltown, IA, 4-Month Data Center Construction Moratorium (all readings passed; legally effective August 28, 2026; expires November 23, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.timesrepublican.com/news/todays-news/2026/08/city-council-passes-second-and-third-readings-of-data-center-moratorium-hears-from-prospective-developer/","source_title":"City council passes second and third readings of data center moratorium, hears from prospective developer — Times Republican (Marshalltown)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Marshalltown, IA; City Council","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ia-peosta-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Peosta, IA — City Council Unanimously Approves 6-Month Moratorium on Data Center Development, Resolution 2026-49 (~June 17, 2026)","short_title":"Peosta IA 6-month data center moratorium (Resolution 2026-49)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Peosta, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Dubuque","city":"Peosta","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-17","enacted_date":"2026-06-17","expires_date":"2027-06-18","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"The Peosta, Iowa City Council voted unanimously to impose a six-month moratorium on data center development in the city, adopting Resolution 2026-49. Council member John Kraft introduced the measure, which he said would hold city officials 'to the fire' to develop permanent data center regulations before the moratorium expires. Peosta is a small city in Dubuque County in northeast Iowa, near Dubuque city; it sits within the broader Dubuque County data center regulatory context. The moratorium was enacted approximately June 17, 2026 and expires approximately December 17, 2026. Note: this is a city-level entry separate from the Dubuque County 12-month moratorium (ia-dubuque-county-12-month-moratorium-on-data-centers-2026), which governs unincorporated Dubuque County.","summary_technical":"City of Peosta, IA Council action (unanimous), approximately June 17, 2026. Resolution 2026-49: 6-month moratorium on data center development within Peosta city limits. Motion: John Kraft; second: Ben Hanten. Duration: 6 months (approximate effective date June 17, 2026; expires approximately December 17, 2026). Purpose: study period to develop permanent data center ordinance. Coverage: Peosta city limits only (Dubuque County); note Dubuque County also has a 12-month moratorium (ia-dubuque-county-12-month-moratorium-on-data-centers-2026) covering unincorporated county areas. Peosta is a small city (population ~1,600) approximately 8 miles west of Dubuque. Note: entry was not indexed in earlier sweeps despite meeting occurring before Aug 7, 2026; added in Aug 28 catch-up.","who_is_protected":"Peosta, IA residents from data center development pending permanent city zoning regulations","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits or approvals within Peosta, IA city limits","citation":"City of Peosta, IA, Resolution 2026-49 — 6-Month Moratorium on Data Center Development (unanimous, ~June 17, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kwwl.com/news/peosta-pauses-new-data-center-builds-for-6-months/article_ca348bd7-0723-4904-8032-334e8cf42822.html","source_title":"Peosta pauses new data center builds for 6 months — KWWL","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Peosta, IA; City Council","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ia-lee-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Lee County, IA — Board of Supervisors 1-Year Data Center Moratorium (~June 2026)","short_title":"Lee County IA 1-year data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Lee County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Lee","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-01","enacted_date":"2026-06-01","expires_date":"2027-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-08-30","summary_plain":"Lee County (IA) Board of Supervisors enacted a one-year moratorium on data center development in unincorporated Lee County. The action was prompted by a data center proposal near Fort Madison, in southeastern Iowa. Supervisor Denise Fraise was identified as the initiating supervisor. As of August 2026, county officials were moving to develop permanent data center regulations. Lee County's county seat is Fort Madison; it sits in the far southeast corner of Iowa along the Mississippi River.","summary_technical":"Lee County, IA Board of Supervisors action (~June 2026). 1-year moratorium on data center development in unincorporated Lee County. Initiated by Supervisor Denise Fraise in response to a data center proposal near Fort Madison. Exact resolution number and adoption date not confirmed from official sources. KBUR Aug 20, 2026 report confirms moratorium in place and county developing permanent regulations. Effective_date set to 2026-06-01 as conservative estimate; expires_date set to 2027-06-01 accordingly. County seat: Fort Madison, IA (SE Iowa, Mississippi River).","who_is_protected":"Lee County, IA residents in unincorporated areas from unchecked data center development during the moratorium period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits or approvals in unincorporated Lee County, IA","citation":"Lee County, IA Board of Supervisors — 1-year data center moratorium (~June 2026, per Pen City Current + KBUR reporting)","source_url":"https://www.pencitycurrent.com/stories/county-halts-any-new-data-center-plans-for-one-year,172965","source_title":"County halts any new data center plans for one year — Pen City Current","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Lee County, IA government; Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ct-pa-26-73-employee-electronic-monitoring","title":"Connecticut Public Act 26-73 — An Act Concerning Employee Electronic Monitoring (eff. Oct 1, 2026)","short_title":"Connecticut PA 26-73 (employee electronic monitoring disclosure)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Connecticut","state_abbr":"CT","topics":["employment","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-01","enacted_date":"2026-06-04","last_verified_date":"2026-08-30","summary_plain":"Connecticut employers must provide written notice to employees before electronically monitoring their activities on employer-owned devices or networks. The law bars employers from engaging in deceptive or covert electronic monitoring of employees. It requires employers to clearly disclose the types of monitoring that may occur and to obtain acknowledgment from employees. The law covers monitoring of email, internet usage, telephone calls, and computer activity on employer systems. It takes effect October 1, 2026 and is enforced by the Connecticut Department of Labor.","summary_technical":"Conn. PA 26-73 (signed June 4, 2026; eff. Oct. 1, 2026). Requires employers that engage in electronic monitoring of employees on employer-owned equipment or networks to: (1) provide prior written notice disclosing the types of monitoring; (2) obtain employee acknowledgment; (3) refrain from deceptive or covert monitoring practices. Scope: email, internet, telephone, and computer-activity monitoring on employer systems. Enforcement: Connecticut Department of Labor; civil penalties apply. Relevant to AI-powered employee monitoring tools, keystroke loggers, productivity tracking software, and surveillance systems used on employer networks.","who_is_protected":"Connecticut employees whose activities are electronically monitored on employer-owned devices or networks","who_must_comply":"Connecticut employers that electronically monitor employees","citation":"Conn. Pub. Act 26-73 (Substitute SB 472, 2026), eff. Oct. 1, 2026","source_url":"https://www.cga.ct.gov/2026/ACT/PA/PDF/2026PA-00073-R00SB-00472-PA.PDF","source_title":"Connecticut Public Act 26-73 (SB 472) — An Act Concerning Employee Electronic Monitoring (Official CGA PDF)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Connecticut Department of Labor","penalties":"Civil penalties per the Connecticut Department of Labor enforcement framework; specific per-violation amount to be confirmed from official text."},{"id":"ca-palm-springs-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Palm Springs, CA — Data Center Moratorium: 45-Day Urgency Ordinance (August 26, 2026) Extended Unanimously on September 30, 2026 Through August 25, 2028","short_title":"Palm Springs Data Center Moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Palm Springs, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Riverside","city":"Palm Springs","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-26","enacted_date":"2026-08-26","expires_date":"2028-08-25","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"The Palm Springs City Council unanimously passed an urgency ordinance on August 26, 2026 temporarily prohibiting acceptance, processing, or approval of applications, permits, entitlements, or other approvals related to data centers. The 45-day moratorium expires October 10, 2026. The city scheduled a Sept. 9 progress report and a Sept. 30 hearing on a potential extension ordinance. Concerns include potential demand for electricity and water and impacts on infrastructure. Desert Hot Springs and Indio had already approved temporary moratoriums; Coachella approved a permanent ban the same day.","summary_technical":"Palm Springs urgency ordinance adopted unanimously by City Council, August 26, 2026, prohibiting 'the acceptance, processing or approval of applications and permits related to data centers' for 45 days (to Oct 10, 2026). EXTENSION: on Sept 30, 2026 the council voted unanimously to extend it by 22 months and 15 days, through Aug 25, 2028 (two years in total; the four-fifths vote required by state law was met). The ordinance defines a data center as a structure or site used primarily to store, manage, process and transmit digital data, including server farms, cloud computing and AI processing; equipment secondary to another permitted use (e.g., servers for a hospital, office or hotel) is excluded. Rules will be folded into the citywide zoning code update, and the moratorium is to be rescinded when that code is adopted.","who_is_protected":"Palm Springs residents, through a pause on new data center development while the city evaluates potential electricity, water, infrastructure, and community impacts.","who_must_comply":"The City of Palm Springs, which will not process new data center applications; any prospective data center developer in Palm Springs.","citation":"City of Palm Springs, Cal., urgency ordinance — 45-day data center moratorium (adopted Aug. 26, 2026; expires Oct. 10, 2026)","source_url":"https://kesq.com/news/2026/08/26/palm-springs-city-council-approves-temporary-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Palm Springs City Council approves temporary data center moratorium — KESQ","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Palm Springs (planning/zoning)"},{"id":"wa-federal-way-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Federal Way, WA — City Council Passes Emergency 12-Month Moratorium on Data Centers (July 7, 2026)","short_title":"Federal Way WA Data Center Moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Federal Way, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"King","city":"Federal Way","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-07","enacted_date":"2026-07-07","expires_date":"2027-07-07","last_verified_date":"2026-08-31","summary_plain":"The Federal Way City Council unanimously passed an emergency 12-month moratorium on data centers on July 7, 2026. The moratorium applies to data centers with planned capacity exceeding 1 megawatt or 4,000 square feet of gross floor area and prevents the city from accepting, processing, or approving any related applications. The motion was introduced by Council President Susan Honda referencing possible development at the former Weyerhaeuser/IRG campus. A public hearing on the moratorium was scheduled for September 1, 2026.","summary_technical":"Federal Way City Council emergency moratorium (unanimously adopted July 7, 2026) prohibiting acceptance, processing, and approval of applications related to data centers with planned capacity >1 MW or >4,000 sq ft gross floor area. Term: 12 months (~expires July 7, 2027). Public hearing scheduled Sept. 1, 2026. Motion introduced by Council President Susan Honda; context: potential data center development at former Weyerhaeuser campus owned by Industrial Realty Group.","who_is_protected":"Federal Way residents, through a 12-month pause on new data center development while the city updates its municipal code.","who_must_comply":"Federal Way and any applicant seeking approval for a new data center meeting the size/capacity threshold.","citation":"City of Federal Way, Wash., emergency 12-month data center moratorium (adopted July 7, 2026; expires approx. July 7, 2027)","source_url":"https://www.kentreporter.com/2026/07/08/federal-way-passes-1-year-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Federal Way passes 1-year moratorium on data centers — Kent Reporter","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Federal Way (planning/zoning)"},{"id":"wa-cle-elum-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Cle Elum, WA — City Council Passes Emergency 6-Month Data Center Moratorium (July 31, 2026)","short_title":"Cle Elum WA Data Center Moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cle Elum, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"Kittitas","city":"Cle Elum","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-31","enacted_date":"2026-07-31","expires_date":"2027-01-31","last_verified_date":"2026-08-31","summary_plain":"The Cle Elum City Council unanimously passed an emergency 6-month data center moratorium on July 31, 2026 — three days after Blue Fern Development unveiled plans for a 100,000-square-foot, 20-megawatt data center near Interstate 90. The city council gave the city time to study how large computing facilities could affect electricity demand, water supplies, fire protection, noise, and the local economy. A complication: the Blue Fern site has a preexisting development agreement with the city, raising questions about whether the moratorium can block that project.","summary_technical":"Cle Elum City Council emergency moratorium (unanimously adopted July 31, 2026) under Washington State's interim-ordinance authority; 6-month term (expires approx. Jan. 31, 2027). Prompted by Blue Fern Development proposal presented July 28, 2026 for 100K sq ft, 20 MW computing facility near I-90; ~$200M investment, 20-40 full-time jobs. Pre-existing development agreement for the Blue Fern site may exempt that project from moratorium review under prior rules.","who_is_protected":"Cle Elum residents and the surrounding Kittitas County community, through a pause on new data center development while regulations are studied.","who_must_comply":"Cle Elum and data center developers seeking new approvals (pre-existing development agreements may proceed under prior rules).","citation":"City of Cle Elum, Wash., emergency 6-month data center moratorium (adopted July 31, 2026; expires approx. Jan. 31, 2027)","source_url":"https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/aug/05/cle-elum-passed-a-data-center-ban-one-might-be-bui/","source_title":"Cle Elum passed a data center ban. One might be built there anyway — The Spokesman-Review","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Cle Elum (planning/zoning)"},{"id":"al-sb-63-ai-prior-authorization-2026","title":"Alabama Senate Bill 63 — AI in Prior Authorization: Transparency and Individual-Circumstance Requirements (2026)","short_title":"Alabama SB 63 (AI in prior authorization, eff. Oct 2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Alabama","state_abbr":"AL","topics":["healthcare","insurance","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-01","enacted_date":"2026-04-16","last_verified_date":"2026-10-07","summary_plain":"Alabama's SB 63 (Act 2026-589), approved April 16, 2026 and effective October 1, 2026, limits how health insurers use AI in prior authorization. When an insurer uses AI to decide whether a requested service is medically necessary, the decision must be based on the patient's own medical history and the clinical circumstances presented by the requesting provider. Any decision to deny, delay or modify a prior-authorization request on medical-necessity grounds must always be made by a licensed physician or other qualified health care professional, not by AI. Insurers must certify every year to the Alabama Department of Insurance that their AI does not rely on a group dataset, is applied fairly and equitably, and does not discriminate against any subscriber group or enrollee. They must also disclose their use of AI in utilization review prominently in their written policies and procedures and review the AI's outcomes periodically for accuracy and reliability.","summary_technical":"SB 63 (Alabama 2026 Regular Session; Sen. Orr), Act 2026-589, approved April 16, 2026, effective October 1, 2026. Applies to health benefit plan providers (insurers, HMOs, nonprofit plans, and internal or contracted utilization-review entities). Key provisions: (1) AI used for medical-necessity determinations on prior-authorization requests must base determinations on the enrollee's medical history, clinical circumstances unique to the enrollee presented by the requesting provider, and other clinical information in the medical record; (2) annual certification to the Department of Insurance that the AI does not rely on a group dataset, is fairly and equitably applied (including per HHS regulations and guidance), and does not discriminate against any subscriber group or enrollee; (3) any determination to deny, delay or modify a prior-authorization request based on medical necessity must be made by a licensed physician or other competent health care professional; (4) prominent written disclosure of AI use in utilization review in the provider's policies and procedures; periodic review of AI use and outcomes for accuracy and reliability; patient data not used beyond its stated purpose consistent with HIPAA; compliance may be shown by attestation. Enforcement by DOI: notice/30-day response, hearing, corrective plan; for repeat pattern violations, administrative fine up to $5,000 and/or suspension or revocation of certificate of authority. DOI to adopt rules.","who_is_protected":"Alabama health insurance enrollees whose prior authorization requests are subject to AI-assisted utilization review.","who_must_comply":"Health insurers operating in Alabama that use AI in prior authorization or utilization review.","citation":"Ala. Act 2026-589 (SB 63, 2026 Regular Session), approved April 16, 2026, effective October 1, 2026","source_url":"https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/files/pdf/SearchableInstruments/2026RS/SB63-enr.pdf","source_title":"AL Alabama SB 63 (AI in prior authorization, eff. Oct 2026) — official record (alison.legislature.state.al.us)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Alabama Department of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Enforced by the Alabama Department of Insurance: notice and 30-day response, hearing, and a corrective plan; for repeat violations frequent enough to show a general business pattern, an administrative fine of up to $5,000 and/or suspension or revocation of the insurer's certificate of authority; insurer must reimburse the Department's investigation and enforcement expenses."},{"id":"ga-lowndes-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Lowndes County, GA (Valdosta Area) — Board of Commissioners 60-Day AI Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Lowndes County GA 60-day AI data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Lowndes County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Lowndes","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-26","enacted_date":"2026-08-26","expires_date":"2026-10-25","last_verified_date":"2026-09-03","summary_plain":"The Lowndes County, Georgia Board of Commissioners voted on August 26, 2026 to impose a 60-day moratorium on data center permit applications in unincorporated Lowndes County (county seat: Valdosta), citing community opposition to a proposed AI data center. The moratorium bars new data center permit applications for 60 days to give the county time to review and create a more comprehensive ordinance. Community members had called for a six-month pause; commissioners agreed to 60 days. The moratorium applies only to unincorporated Lowndes County, not to incorporated Valdosta or other cities within the county. Lowndes Citizens Against Data Centers (LCAD) organized community opposition.","summary_technical":"Lowndes County (GA) Board of Commissioners 60-day moratorium on data center permit applications in unincorporated Lowndes County, adopted August 26, 2026. Scope: applies to any kind of data center; bars submission, processing, and approval of permit applications. Duration: 60 days from adoption (expires approximately October 25, 2026). Jurisdiction: unincorporated Lowndes County only; Valdosta and other incorporated cities retain separate zoning authority. County seat: Valdosta. Lowndes County is in South Georgia, bordering Florida. Context: proposed AI data center opposed by community group LCAD; nearly all public commenters at the August 26 meeting opposed data center development permanently, not just temporarily. County voted 60-day pause (shorter than community-requested 6 months) to draft a comprehensive ordinance.","who_is_protected":"Lowndes County, GA unincorporated area residents from unrestricted AI/data center development during the review period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits in unincorporated Lowndes County, GA","citation":"Lowndes County, GA Board of Commissioners 60-day data center moratorium (adopted August 26, 2026)","source_url":"https://valdostadailytimes.com/2026/08/26/lowndes-county-approves-60-day-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Lowndes County approves 60-day data center moratorium — Valdosta Daily Times (Aug 26, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Lowndes County Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ga-camden-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Camden County, GA — Board of Commissioners 6-Month Data Center Moratorium (First Coastal GA County)","short_title":"Camden County GA 6-month data center moratorium (first coastal GA county)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Camden County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Camden","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-05-06","enacted_date":"2026-05-06","expires_date":"2026-11-06","last_verified_date":"2026-09-03","summary_plain":"Camden County, Georgia became the first coastal Georgia county to enact a data center moratorium when its Board of Commissioners adopted a 6-month pause on May 6, 2026. The moratorium was triggered by a rezoning request to allow a data center near Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base (home to US submarine fleet). The rezoning request was later withdrawn after the Kings Bay submarine base commander made an unusual public appeal opposing the project. The 6-month moratorium gives the county time to develop permanent data center regulations. Camden County is in southeastern Georgia, bordering Florida near the Atlantic coast.","summary_technical":"Camden County (GA) Board of Commissioners 6-month moratorium on data center development, adopted May 6, 2026. Enacted with exclusion of sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the proposed resolution. Scope: unincorporated Camden County only; city of Kingsland and other incorporated municipalities retain separate authority (Kingsland city manager separately recommended a Kingsland moratorium at the May 11, 2026 meeting). Context: rezoning request from entities linked to businessman Kirk Tovey for an industrial park permitting data centers; naval base commander at Kings Bay made an unusual public appeal opposing proximity to the naval installation; rezoning request rescinded. Camden County is southeastern Georgia's coastal county (county seat: Woodbine); first coastal Georgia county to adopt a data center moratorium.","who_is_protected":"Camden County, GA unincorporated area residents and security interests at Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking development approvals in unincorporated Camden County, GA","citation":"Camden County, GA Board of Commissioners 6-month data center moratorium (adopted approximately May 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.gpb.org/news/2026/05/06/camden-becomes-first-county-on-the-coast-adopt-data-center-moratorium","source_title":"Camden becomes first county on the coast to adopt data center moratorium — Georgia Public Broadcasting (May 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Camden County Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"al-anniston-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Anniston, AL (Calhoun County) — City Council 12-Month Data Center Moratorium (Resolution 26-R-97)","short_title":"Anniston AL 12-month data center moratorium (Resolution 26-R-97)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Anniston, AL","state_abbr":"AL","county":"Calhoun","city":"Anniston","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-18","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","expires_date":"2027-08-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-03","summary_plain":"Anniston, Alabama (Calhoun County) City Council adopted Resolution No. 26-R-97 on August 18, 2026, imposing a 12-month moratorium on data center permitting, development, and licensing within Anniston's regulatory jurisdiction. The moratorium is effective immediately and bars new data center approvals through approximately August 18, 2027. City officials intend for the pause to allow the planning commission to study utility demand, cooling systems, stormwater impacts, transportation needs, and required separation from residential areas before adopting permanent regulations. The council may shorten or extend the 12-month period based on legislative judgment.","summary_technical":"Anniston (AL) City Council Resolution No. 26-R-97, adopted August 18, 2026, effective immediately. 12-month moratorium on permitting, development, and licensing of data centers within city regulatory jurisdiction (expires approximately August 18, 2027). City council retains authority to shorten or extend based on planning commission progress. Planning commission directed to study: utility demand impacts, cooling system requirements, stormwater effects, transportation needs, and separation standards from residential areas. Resolution frames the moratorium as a 'temporary planning measure' to ensure future proposals are governed by 'clear, predictable and enforceable standards' protecting residents, property owners, businesses, developers, taxpayers, public infrastructure, and the long-term interests of Anniston. Anniston is the county seat of Calhoun County in northeastern Alabama, approximately 60 miles east of Birmingham.","who_is_protected":"Anniston, AL residents from unregulated data center development during the planning period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits or approvals within Anniston city limits","citation":"Anniston, AL City Council Resolution No. 26-R-97 (adopted August 18, 2026; effective immediately)","source_url":"https://www.wbrc.com/2026/08/27/city-anniston-adopts-resolution-that-establishes-temporary-moratorium-data-centers-within-regulatory-jurisdiction/","source_title":"City of Anniston adopts resolution establishing temporary moratorium on data centers — WBRC-TV (Aug 27, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Anniston City Council; Anniston Planning Commission","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"sc-spartanburg-county-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Spartanburg County, SC — County Council 1-Year Data Center Moratorium (65 MW+ facilities; Sept 21, 2026)","short_title":"Spartanburg County SC 1-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Spartanburg County, SC","state_abbr":"SC","county":"Spartanburg","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-09-21","enacted_date":"2026-09-21","expires_date":"2027-09-21","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Spartanburg County, South Carolina County Council is considering a 12-month moratorium on new data center applications. The council gave first approval of the moratorium and was scheduled to take a final vote on August 17, 2026, but unanimously agreed to delay the third reading to September 21, 2026 to allow more public input. Spartanburg County is in the South Carolina Upstate region (county seat: Spartanburg). Part of a broader wave of South Carolina county-level data center moratoriums that includes Greenwood, Newberry, and other counties.","summary_technical":"Spartanburg County (SC) Council proposed 12-month moratorium on new data center applications in unincorporated Spartanburg County. First reading approved; second reading under consideration. Third reading (final vote) delayed from August 17, 2026 to September 21, 2026 at unanimous council vote, pending public safety committee meeting and additional expert testimony. Councilmember Monier Abusaft proposed the delay. Spartanburg County is in the SC Upstate; county seat is City of Spartanburg. Status: proposed — flip to effective with enacted_date when September 21 vote passes, or update to failed if vote fails.","who_is_protected":"Spartanburg County, SC unincorporated area residents from unrestricted data center development if moratorium passes","who_must_comply":"Data center developers (if moratorium adopted) seeking permits in unincorporated Spartanburg County, SC","citation":"Spartanburg County, SC County Council — 1-year data center moratorium adopted Sept 21, 2026 (5-1 vote)","source_url":"https://www.wspa.com/news/top-stories/spartanburg-county-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Spartanburg County Council passes data center moratorium — WSPA (Greenville-Spartanburg CBS affiliate)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Spartanburg County Council (pending adoption)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ga-savannah-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Savannah, GA — City Council Unanimous 155-Day Large Data Center Moratorium (Aug 28, 2026)","short_title":"Savannah GA 155-day large data center moratorium (10 MW / 200K sq ft threshold)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Savannah, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Chatham","city":"Savannah","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-28","enacted_date":"2026-08-28","expires_date":"2027-01-30","last_verified_date":"2026-09-04","summary_plain":"The Savannah, Georgia City Council voted unanimously on August 28, 2026 to impose a 155-day moratorium on large-scale data center developments in the city. The moratorium applies to data centers with electrical capacity of 10 megawatts or greater, or industrial buildings of 200,000 square feet or more being built or converted into data center use. The pause gives the city approximately five months to study the issue and draft a formal regulatory policy, which city officials hope to present at the second council meeting in January 2027. Savannah is the county seat of Chatham County on Georgia's Atlantic coast, and has attracted interest from technology companies including those following the OpenAI Effingham County project controversy. The moratorium was championed by Mayor Van Johnson and comes as Savannah joined roughly 40 other Georgia municipalities (and approximately 28 Georgia counties) that have imposed data center moratoriums.","summary_technical":"Savannah (GA) City Council unanimous moratorium adopted August 28, 2026. Scope: data centers with electrical capacity ≥10 MW or industrial buildings ≥200,000 sq ft being built or converted for data center use. Duration: 155 days from adoption (expires approximately January 30, 2027). Target: city council to receive proposed regulatory policy by second January 2027 meeting. Savannah is the largest city in southeastern Georgia; it is the county seat of Chatham County, adjacent to Garden City (which has its own 6-month moratorium through ~December 15, 2026). Part of the Georgia coastal/Southeast moratorium wave; Bulloch, Augusta, Camden, and DeKalb counties nearby have separate moratoriums or ordinances.","who_is_protected":"Savannah, GA residents and local infrastructure from unrestricted large-scale data center development during the planning period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits or approvals for projects of 10 MW+ electrical capacity or 200,000+ sq ft in Savannah city limits","citation":"Savannah, GA City Council unanimous 155-day data center moratorium (adopted August 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wtoc.com/2026/08/28/savannah-city-council-approves-155-day-moratorium-large-scale-data-centers/","source_title":"Savannah City Council approves 155-day moratorium on large-scale data centers — WTOC (Aug 28, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Savannah City Council and city planning/permitting departments","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ga-bulloch-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Bulloch County, GA — Board of Commissioners Data Center Moratorium through December 31, 2026 (Outright Ban Rejected 4-3)","short_title":"Bulloch County GA data center moratorium through Dec 31, 2026 (ban rejected Sept 1)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Bulloch County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Bulloch","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-02-26","enacted_date":"2026-02-26","expires_date":"2026-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-04","summary_plain":"Bulloch County, Georgia's Board of Commissioners unanimously voted on February 26, 2026 to impose a 90-day moratorium on data center development. The moratorium was later extended to run through December 31, 2026. On September 1, 2026, commissioners voted 4-3 (with Chairman David Bennett casting the tiebreaking vote against) to reject a zoning text amendment that would have permanently banned data centers in unincorporated parts of the county. The moratorium continues while a new 21-member citizen working group considers potential regulations. Statesboro is the county seat. Bulloch County sits in east-central Georgia between Savannah and Augusta. The county is part of a large-scale southeast Georgia moratorium wave that also includes Savannah (city), Garden City, Camden County, Lowndes County, and Dougherty County.","summary_technical":"Bulloch County (GA) Board of Commissioners moratorium: original unanimous vote February 26, 2026 (90-day); extended to December 31, 2026. September 1, 2026: zoning text amendment that would have permanently prohibited data centers in unincorporated Bulloch County failed 4-3 (Chair Bennett tiebreaker against ban). Moratorium prevents data center applications through December 31, 2026 regardless of ban vote outcome. Commissioners unanimously approved 21-member citizen working group (7 commissioners × 3 nominees each). County seat: Statesboro. Unincorporated Bulloch County only; Statesboro city has separate zoning authority. 76% of Republican survey respondents and 78% of Democratic survey respondents indicated opposition to data center development in the county. Part of Georgia's ~28 documented county-level moratoriums.","who_is_protected":"Unincorporated Bulloch County, GA residents from unrestricted data center development through December 31, 2026","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits or approvals in unincorporated Bulloch County, GA","citation":"Bulloch County, GA Board of Commissioners data center moratorium (adopted Feb 26, 2026; extended through December 31, 2026; ban rejected Sept 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wsav.com/news/local-news/bulloch-county-commissioners-deny-data-center-ban-in-narrow-vote/","source_title":"Bulloch County Commissioners deny data center ban in narrow vote — WSAV-TV (Sept 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Bulloch County Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-santa-ana-algo-rent-ban-2026","title":"Santa Ana, CA — City Council Ban on Algorithmic Rent-Setting Software (Ord. March 3, 2026)","short_title":"Santa Ana CA ban on algorithmic rent-setting software (anticompetitive devices)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Santa Ana, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Orange","city":"Santa Ana","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-04-02","enacted_date":"2026-03-03","last_verified_date":"2026-09-04","summary_plain":"Santa Ana, California (Orange County) enacted an ordinance on March 3, 2026 banning algorithmic rent-setting software that uses nonpublic competitor data to set or recommend residential rents. The ordinance targets software that feeds landlords' nonpublic pricing data (real-time rents, renewal rates, occupancy levels) into AI models to recommend rent increases in a way that facilitates coordination among competing landlords, driving rents higher without explicit agreement. Landlords caught using banned software face fines of $1,000 per violation. Tenants can sue for injunctive relief, damages, or civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation, plus attorney's fees. The law does not restrict software that relies solely on publicly available data, historical trends, or tools used for affordable housing compliance. Santa Ana is Orange County's most populous city (pop. ~315,000) and one of California's densest cities; it has robust rent stabilization protections already in place. The ordinance makes Santa Ana one of roughly five cities nationwide (with SF, Berkeley, Portland, and Seattle) to have enacted such bans.","summary_technical":"Santa Ana (CA) City Council ordinance (first reading Feb 17, 2026; final passage March 3, 2026; effective ~April 2, 2026). Prohibits: (1) sale, licensing, or provision of qualifying algorithmic devices for residential rental properties in Santa Ana; (2) landlords from using such devices to set or recommend residential rents. Algorithmic device defined as software that uses nonpublic competitor information (real-time rents, lease renewals, occupancy levels of competing landlords) as an input to generate rent recommendations. Exemptions: software using only publicly available information; tools not requiring a contract or agreement; basic recordkeeping systems not used for coordination; affordable housing compliance tools. Enforcement: civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation; private right of action for tenants (injunctive relief, damages, civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation, plus attorney's fees). Enforcing authority: Santa Ana city government.","who_is_protected":"Residential renters in Santa Ana, CA from artificially inflated rents caused by nonpublic-data algorithmic rent coordination","who_must_comply":"Landlords renting residential property in Santa Ana; software companies selling or licensing qualifying algorithmic rent-setting tools in Santa Ana","citation":"Santa Ana, CA City Council ordinance banning algorithmic rent-setting software (final passage March 3, 2026; effective ~April 2, 2026)","source_url":"https://santa-ana.gov/anticompetitive-rent-setting-software/","source_title":"Santa Ana City Council bans anticompetitive rent-setting software — City of Santa Ana official press release","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Santa Ana; private right of action for tenants","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation; private right of action: injunctive relief, damages, civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation, plus attorney's fees"},{"id":"nyc-doe-ai-moratorium-2026","title":"New York City Public Schools — Generative AI Moratorium for Grades Pre-K through 8 (Mayor Mamdani, SY 2026-27)","short_title":"NYC DOE Generative AI Moratorium (K-8, 2026-27)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York City, NY","state_abbr":"NY","city":"New York","topics":["education","children","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-02","enacted_date":"2026-09-02","expires_date":"2027-06-30","last_verified_date":"2026-09-05","summary_plain":"Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels imposed a one-year moratorium on student-facing generative AI for grades pre-K (2-K) through 8th grade across New York City public schools, effective for the 2026-2027 school year. Affects approximately 600,000 students — nearly two-thirds of the city's 900,000-student enrollment. Companion chatbots prohibited across all grades. Over 38 previously-allowed programs discontinued or disabled. Five limited AI pilots allowed for up to 50,000 high school students in general education; all high schoolers gain twice-yearly AI literacy classes. A new Technology in Schools Coalition will study outcomes and publish recommendations. The nation's largest school district becomes the most restrictive on student AI use in the country.","summary_technical":"NYC Department of Education Chancellor Regulation (2026-09-02): one-year moratorium on student-facing generative AI for grades 2-K through 8 (effective 2026-2027 school year). Companion chatbots banned across all grades K-12. 38+ previously-approved programs discontinued where AI components do not meet new safety/oversight standards. High school exception: five limited AI pilots for max 50,000 general-education students; twice-yearly AI literacy classes for all high schoolers. Teacher use permitted for lesson planning, administrative tasks; prohibited for grading and crisis management. Oversight: Technology in Schools Coalition (students, educators, parent leaders, elected officials, advocates, union partners, experts) to publish recommendations for future school years. Described by the Mayor's Office as 'the most expansive student-facing AI moratorium in the nation.' Supersedes the March 2026 preliminary 'traffic light' framework guidance.","who_is_protected":"NYC public school students in grades pre-K (2-K) through 8th grade (~600,000 students); all K-12 students protected against companion chatbots","who_must_comply":"NYC Department of Education, schools, teachers, and educational technology vendors serving NYC public schools","citation":"NYC DOE Chancellor Regulation — Generative AI Moratorium (Sept. 2, 2026); announced by Mayor Mamdani and Chancellor Samuels","source_url":"https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/policies/guidance-on-artificial-intelligence","source_title":"Guidance on Artificial Intelligence — NYC Public Schools (updated September 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"NYC Department of Education / Chancellor","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Administrative enforcement; technology vendors non-compliant with new standards lose NYC approval"},{"id":"ca-mendocino-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Mendocino County, CA — Board of Supervisors Urgency Ordinance: 45-Day Moratorium on New Data Centers (September 2026)","short_title":"Mendocino County CA data center moratorium (Sept 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Mendocino County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Mendocino","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-02","enacted_date":"2026-09-02","expires_date":"2028-08-21","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to adopt an urgency ordinance placing a 45-day moratorium on all new data center proposals in unincorporated Mendocino County, effective immediately (~September 2, 2026) and running through approximately October 16, 2026. The county code did not previously define or regulate data centers, meaning a facility could be approved through a routine building permit with no public process. The moratorium buys time for the county to develop a proper permanent ordinance. A renewal hearing is expected at the October 6 board meeting, with supervisors expected to extend the pause for one to two years. Community concerns include air pollution, noise from diesel generators and cooling systems, and the potential to undo local progress on carbon-emission reductions.","summary_technical":"Mendocino County Board of Supervisors urgency ordinance (September 2026): 45-day moratorium on acceptance, processing, and approval of applications for new data center development in unincorporated county. Urgency ordinance takes effect immediately without waiting for normal posting period. Prior county code had no data center definition, creating a regulatory gap allowing bypass via routine building permit. Board directed staff to develop a permanent data center ordinance. Deputy County Counsel anticipated return to board October 6, 2026 for a renewal ordinance hearing to extend the moratorium 1-2 years during permanent-ordinance development. Vote: 5-0 (unanimous).","who_is_protected":"Mendocino County residents and ratepayers; rural communities threatened by noise, air quality, and carbon-emission impacts of data center development","who_must_comply":"Mendocino County planning staff (cannot accept/process/approve new data center applications); data center applicants seeking new development in unincorporated county","citation":"Mendocino County Board of Supervisors urgency ordinance adopting temporary data center moratorium, September 2026; Mendocino Voice; Press Democrat","source_url":"https://mendovoice.com/2026/09/mendocino-county-supes-ban-data-centers-for-the-moment-at-least/","source_title":"Mendocino County supes ban data centers — for the moment, at least (Mendocino Voice)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Mendocino County Community Development Services; Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted during moratorium period"},{"id":"ca-fresno-dc-ban-proposed-2026","title":"Fresno, CA — City Council 7-0 Directs Staff to Draft 10-Year Citywide Data Center Prohibition (September 4, 2026)","short_title":"Fresno CA 10-year data center prohibition (proposed)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Fresno, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Fresno","city":"Fresno","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-07","summary_plain":"On September 4, 2026, the Fresno City Council voted 7-0 to direct staff to draft a citywide 10-year prohibition on data centers. Councilmember Nick Richardson introduced the measure; Mayor Jerry Dyer co-sponsored. The prohibition would be codified into the city's Development Code and would become permanent unless the council takes action to amend it at the end of the 10-year period. The council added provisions: (1) the ban would cover land later annexed into the city; (2) staff must immediately notify councilmembers of any data center application. California's largest inland city, Fresno cites electricity and water use concerns — the city depends on the San Joaquin River and Sierra snowpack.","summary_technical":"Fresno City Council vote (September 4, 2026): 7-0 direction to staff to draft a text amendment to the Development Code prohibiting data centers citywide for 10 years. Ban converts to permanent unless council takes affirmative action to amend at expiration. Scope: covers all land within current city limits and land subsequently annexed. Application-notification requirement added. Mayor Dyer co-sponsoring. No ordinance yet enacted — staff drafting phase. GV Wire and SJV Sun report proposal context: Councilmember Richardson cited fear as driving an 'arbitrary' ban; Mayor Dyer stated 'We don't want data centers to consume the electricity and the water that we can utilize for other things in our city and in our county.'","who_is_protected":"Fresno residents and ratepayers against electricity and water-supply impacts of large-scale data center development","who_must_comply":"Fresno city staff (must draft ordinance); data center developers (once ordinance is enacted)","citation":"Fresno City Council action (September 4, 2026) — 7-0 direction to draft 10-year data center prohibition; Mayor Dyer co-sponsoring","source_url":"https://gvwire.com/2026/09/02/dyer-comes-out-against-data-centers-in-fresno-proposes-full-ban/","source_title":"Dyer Comes Out Against Data Centers in Fresno, Proposes Full Ban — GV Wire","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Fresno Development Department; City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"TBD — ordinance not yet drafted or enacted"},{"id":"ca-sb-1168-data-center-grid-costs-2026","title":"California SB 1168 (McNerney) — Data Center Ratepayer Protection: CPUC to Ensure Data Centers Pay Fair Share of Grid Costs (2026)","short_title":"CA SB 1168 — data center grid cost allocation","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-21","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"California SB 1168 (Sen. Jerry McNerney) directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), in a new or existing proceeding, to look at rate structures that would make data centers pay their reasonable share of transmission and distribution costs and their proportionate share of the extra power purchases needed to serve them, and that would ease cost pressure on residential customers, including low-income customers in the CARE and FERA programs. Governor Newsom signed it on September 21, 2026 (Chapter 440, Statutes of 2026), and it takes effect January 1, 2027. The measure aims to keep ordinary California ratepayers from subsidizing the electricity costs of AI data centers. It does not set a specific rate or deadline.","summary_technical":"SB 1168 (McNerney), Ch. 440, Stats. 2026, approved September 21, 2026; effective January 1, 2027. Adds Pub. Util. Code Art. 10.5 (sec. 901): as part of a new or existing proceeding, the CPUC shall assess opportunities for rate structures to (a) ensure data centers pay their reasonable share of costs associated with transmission and distribution needs, whether they interconnect at transmission or distribution level; (b) ensure data centers pay their proportionate share of load increases and procurements needed to reliably serve their loads, consistent with integrated resource planning requirements; and (c) alleviate cost pressures on residential ratepayers, including CARE and FERA customers. No specific rate, deadline or penalty. Legislative findings cite CAISO's expected 2.3 GW of growth by 2030 and about 2,300 MW of data-center capacity applications to PG&E in 2024. Votes: Senate 30-9 (May 27, 2026); Assembly 78-0 (Aug 28, 2026); Senate concurrence 38-0 (Aug 30, 2026); presented to the Governor Sept 8, 2026.","who_is_protected":"California electricity ratepayers (residential and small commercial) who would otherwise subsidize transmission and distribution upgrades needed to serve data centers","who_must_comply":"CPUC (must examine and adopt rate structures); California electric utilities; large data center operators","citation":"Cal. S.B. 1168 (McNerney), Ch. 440, Stats. 2026 (approved Sept. 21, 2026); Pub. Util. Code sec. 901","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB1168","source_title":"California SB 1168 — Data centers: rate structures — California Legislative Information","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"CPUC","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None in the statute; it directs a CPUC rate-structure assessment"},{"id":"az-hb-4168-dc-tax-pause-2026","title":"Arizona HB 4168 — 3-Year Pause on New Data Center Sales/Use Tax Exemptions (Laws 2026, Ch. 140)","short_title":"Arizona 3-year data center tax exemption pause","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arizona","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-06-13","expires_date":"2029-06-30","last_verified_date":"2026-09-08","summary_plain":"Arizona's 2026 budget law (HB 4168, Laws 2026 Ch. 140) pauses the state's data center sales and use tax exemption for three years. From July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2029, the Arizona Commerce Authority cannot accept any new applications for the exemption, and no new data center qualifies for this tax relief. Existing certifications that were already awarded remain valid — the law only blocks new ones. The pause is expected to save the state roughly $38 million per year. Governor Hobbs had initially asked to eliminate the tax exemption entirely; the three-year pause was the bipartisan compromise reached during budget negotiations.","summary_technical":"AZ Laws 2026, Ch. 140 (HB 4168 / SB 1861, budget omnibus bill, signed June 13, 2026): amends the Arizona data center sales and use tax exemption statute (A.R.S. § 42-5159 and associated ACA certification provisions) to prohibit the Arizona Commerce Authority from accepting new applications or granting new certifications for the data center tax relief program from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2029. Existing certified facilities retain their exemption throughout this period; the pause is prospective only. No construction moratorium — only the tax incentive is paused. Estimated fiscal impact: ~$38M/year in increased state revenues. The measure was negotiated as part of the overall state budget and received bipartisan support. Note: this is a fiscal/economic incentive pause; it does not prohibit data center construction or operation. Governor Hobbs signed as part of the overall budget signing ceremony (azgovernor.gov, June 2026 pool footage).","who_is_protected":"Arizona taxpayers and ratepayers from unfettered data-center tax subsidies during a period of rapid data-center development and grid/water stress","who_must_comply":"Arizona Commerce Authority (cannot accept applications or issue new certifications during pause period); data center developers seeking new ACA tax certifications","citation":"Ariz. Laws 2026, Ch. 140 (HB 4168 / SB 1861, signed June 13, 2026, eff. July 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.azfamily.com/2026/06/10/arizona-budget-deal-includes-3-year-pause-data-center-tax-exemptions/","source_title":"Arizona budget deal includes 3-year pause on data center tax exemptions — AZ Family / CBS5 AZ","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Arizona Department of Revenue; Arizona Commerce Authority","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"New certifications issued during pause period would be invalid; fiscal enforcement through state revenue administration"},{"id":"az-pima-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Pima County, AZ — Board of Supervisors 120-Day Moratorium on New Data Center Approvals (2026)","short_title":"Pima County AZ 120-day data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Pima County, AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Pima","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-09-22","enacted_date":"2026-09-22","expires_date":"2027-01-20","last_verified_date":"2026-09-23","summary_plain":"The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 on September 22, 2026 to formally impose a 120-day moratorium on approving new data center projects in unincorporated Pima County, Arizona. The moratorium is in effect while the county finalizes zoning code text amendments specifically addressing data centers; a permanent policy is expected to be adopted by December 10, 2026. The moratorium applies only to unincorporated county areas — not to the City of Tucson, which has its own separate zoning authority and enacted its own data center zoning ordinance in August 2026. Supervisors Andres Cano, Matt Heinz, and Board Chair Jen Allen voted yes; Rex Scott and Steve Christy voted no. The moratorium expires approximately January 20, 2027 (120 days from adoption).","summary_technical":"Pima County Board of Supervisors Resolution (September 22, 2026; vote 3-2): formal adoption of 120-day moratorium on new data center approvals in unincorporated Pima County. Supervisors voting yes: Andres Cano, Matt Heinz, Jen Allen (Chair); voting no: Steve Christy, Rex Scott. Moratorium scope: data center development permit applications and approvals in unincorporated Pima County only — does not apply within incorporated municipalities (e.g., Tucson, which enacted its own zoning ordinance August 5, 2026). Duration: 120 days from September 22, 2026; expires approximately January 20, 2027. Full zoning code text amendment expected for board adoption by December 10, 2026. Background: August 11, 2026 (3-2 vote) directed staff to draft the moratorium; September 8, 2026 was the deadline for staff to return the draft to the board. Arizona AG Kris Mayes separately called for a statewide construction pause (August 31, 2026) citing Colorado River water constraints. Pima County encompasses Tucson and large portions of southern Arizona including portions of the Sonoran Desert.","who_is_protected":"Pima County residents in unincorporated areas from unchecked data center development during zoning code update period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in unincorporated Pima County, AZ","citation":"Pima County Board of Supervisors, Resolution adopting 120-day moratorium on new data center approvals in unincorporated county areas (September 22, 2026; vote 3-2)","source_url":"https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/092226_data_moratorium/pima-county-supervisors-impose-120-day-moratorium-data-center-projects","source_title":"Pima County supervisors impose 120-day moratorium on data center projects — Tucson Sentinel","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Pima County government; planning department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted/processed during moratorium period (once formally adopted)"},{"id":"tucson-az-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026","title":"Tucson, AZ — City Council Large-Scale Data Center Zoning Regulations (Unified Development Code Amendment, 2026)","short_title":"Tucson AZ large-scale data center zoning ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Tucson, AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Pima","city":"Tucson","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-04","enacted_date":"2026-08-05","last_verified_date":"2026-09-09","summary_plain":"Tucson, Arizona's City Council voted 6-1 on August 5, 2026 to adopt strict zoning regulations for large-scale data centers, effective September 4, 2026. A 'large-scale data center' is defined as a facility exceeding 25,000 square feet or using more than 20 megawatts of power. Any such facility must go through a Planned Area Development (PAD) or Planned Community Development (PCD) rezoning process — the same high-level public review required for power plants — including a neighborhood meeting, a zoning examiner hearing, and a final vote by the Mayor and City Council. Additional restrictions include: a half-mile setback from residential areas, homes, schools, natural areas, washes, and open space; a 50-foot building height cap; and a prohibition on using city drinking water (potable water) for cooling. Data centers using more than 7.48 million gallons per month of water must submit water use plans to the Mayor and Council. City staff must report back within one year on implementation. Tucson had previously rejected the Project Blue data center annexation in 2025 over water and secrecy concerns.","summary_technical":"Tucson Unified Development Code Amendment (adopted August 5, 2026, effective September 4, 2026): defines 'large-scale data center' as any facility >25,000 sq ft or >20 MW electrical capacity; requires PAD or PCD rezoning (Tucson Land Use Code, same process as major utility facilities) — involving neighborhood meeting, zoning examiner hearing, and final Mayor-and-Council vote — for all qualifying facilities; imposes half-mile setback from R-zone designations, single-family homes, schools, natural areas/washes/open space; 50-foot height cap; prohibits potable water for cooling (unless facility is subject to the Large Quantity Water Users Ordinance, i.e., water use ≥7,480,000 gallons/month, which triggers its own water management and approval process); facilities subject to LQWUO must also present water use plans for Mayor-and-Council approval. Planning Commission reviewed May/June 2026; first reading June 2026; adopted August 5, 2026. One-year staff review of implementation required. Pre-existing approved projects are not grandfathered out of the ordinance unless their vested rights pre-date the amendment. This is a permanent UDC amendment, not a temporary moratorium.","who_is_protected":"Tucson, AZ residents from large-scale data centers locating near homes, schools, or natural areas; city water supply protected from potable-water data center cooling; residential neighborhoods protected by half-mile setback and community review process","who_must_comply":"Developers proposing large-scale data centers (>25,000 sq ft or >20 MW) within the City of Tucson; applicable to incorporated city area only (not unincorporated Pima County or other Pima County municipalities)","citation":"Tucson Unified Development Code Amendment — Large-Scale Data Centers (adopted August 5, 2026, effective September 4, 2026; Mayor and Council vote 6-1)","source_url":"https://www.tucsonaz.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/PDSD-News/Mayor-and-Council-Approve-Regulations-for-Large-Scale-Data-Centers","source_title":"Mayor and Council Approve Regulations for Large-Scale Data Centers — City of Tucson PDSD","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Tucson Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD); Mayor and City Council (final approval authority for PAD/PCD rezoning)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not meeting standards rejected; developments built without required PAD/PCD approval subject to code enforcement and potential demolition"},{"id":"ga-colquitt-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Colquitt County, GA — Board of Commissioners Data Center Moratorium Extension (~180 Days, September 2026)","short_title":"Colquitt County GA data center moratorium extension (Gulf Trough geological concern)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Colquitt County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Colquitt","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-02","enacted_date":"2026-06-02","expires_date":"2027-03-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-13","summary_plain":"Colquitt County, Georgia's Board of Commissioners voted in early September 2026 to extend their data center moratorium by approximately 180 days. Commissioners noted the county's location along the Gulf Trough — a unique geological formation running through south-central Georgia — as a factor complicating data center development assessments. The extended moratorium runs through approximately March 1, 2027. Colquitt County's county seat is Moultrie, Georgia. This is an extension of a prior moratorium; original adoption date not confirmed in this sweep. Part of the broader Georgia data center moratorium wave.","summary_technical":"Colquitt County (GA) Board of Commissioners: 180-day data center moratorium extension voted at or following September 1, 2026 commission meeting. Stated basis: complicated legal, factual, and technical issues; specifically, Colquitt County's location along the Gulf Trough geological formation (a northwest–southeast trending corridor of thinned crust and basement faulting through south-central GA). Estimated expiration ~March 1, 2027 (original adoption date and vote tally not confirmed). Jurisdiction: unincorporated Colquitt County, GA (county seat: Moultrie). Source: Moultrie Observer article published September 8, 2026 — article text proxy-blocked in automated sweep; details from web search AI summary. NOT CONFIRMED: original adoption date, vote tally, moratorium resolution number.","who_is_protected":"Colquitt County, GA residents from unregulated data center development during the moratorium period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits or approvals in unincorporated Colquitt County, GA","citation":"Colquitt County, GA Board of Commissioners data center moratorium extension (approximately September 1, 2026; ~180 days; estimated expiration ~March 1, 2027)","source_url":"https://moultrieobserver.com/2026/09/08/county-extends-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"County extends data center moratorium — Moultrie Observer (September 8, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Colquitt County Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ia-waterloo-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Waterloo, IA — City Council 3-Month Moratorium on New Data Center Development (September 9, 2026)","short_title":"Waterloo IA 3-month data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Waterloo, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Black Hawk","city":"Waterloo","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-09","enacted_date":"2026-09-09","expires_date":"2026-12-09","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"The Waterloo, Iowa City Council voted on September 9, 2026 to impose a 3-month moratorium on new data center development within city limits. The moratorium was prompted by public opposition to a proposal from Wahawk Power LLC for a large data center — approximately 80,000 square feet on a 12-acre site — on a parcel that had been acquired for just $1 as part of an economic development agreement. Residents and council members raised concerns about water use, electrical demand, and land use. The moratorium expires approximately December 9, 2026, giving the city time to develop data center regulations. Waterloo is the largest city in Black Hawk County in northeastern-central Iowa.","summary_technical":"Waterloo, IA City Council action (September 9, 2026): 3-month moratorium on new data center development within city limits. Background: Wahawk Power LLC had proposed a 12-acre / ~80,000 sq ft data center on a city-owned or city-conveyed parcel acquired for $1 (economic development parcel). Community opposition raised issues regarding water consumption, electrical grid load, and land use appropriateness. Moratorium pauses data center permit applications/approvals for ~90 days (estimated expiration December 9, 2026), providing time for the city to adopt data center-specific development standards. Waterloo is the county seat of Black Hawk County, northeastern-central Iowa (population ~67,000). Vote tally not confirmed from accessible sources; multiple outlets confirm vote occurred and moratorium passed.","who_is_protected":"Waterloo, IA residents from unregulated data center development during the moratorium period while city develops permanent data center standards","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals within the City of Waterloo, IA","citation":"Waterloo, IA City Council data center moratorium (adopted September 9, 2026; 3-month duration; estimated expiration ~December 9, 2026)","source_url":"https://radioiowa.com/2026/09/09/waterloo-leaders-vote-to-block-data-centers-for-three-months/","source_title":"Waterloo leaders vote to block data centers for three months — Radio Iowa","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Waterloo planning and development department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted/processed during moratorium period"},{"id":"ks-shawnee-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Shawnee County, KS — Board of County Commissioners 6-Month Moratorium on New Data Center Applications (August 13, 2026)","short_title":"Shawnee County KS 6-month data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Shawnee County, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Shawnee","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-13","enacted_date":"2026-08-13","expires_date":"2027-02-17","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"The Shawnee County, Kansas Board of County Commissioners voted 2-1 on August 13, 2026 to impose a 6-month moratorium on new data center applications in the county. No new data center applications will be accepted or processed through February 17, 2027. The decision was triggered in part by a Compass Datacenters application submitted July 24, 2026 (the county labeled it 'incomplete' on August 4, 2026). The moratorium does not prevent Compass or others from resubmitting a complete application later. Shawnee County's county seat is Topeka (which has its own separate city-level data center regulations already indexed). One commissioner voted against the moratorium.","summary_technical":"Shawnee County, KS Board of County Commissioners: 2-1 vote August 13, 2026 adopting 6-month moratorium on acceptance and processing of new data center permit applications in unincorporated Shawnee County. Moratorium term: August 13, 2026 through February 17, 2027 (~6 months). Trigger: Compass Datacenters submitted application July 24, 2026; county staff labeled it 'incomplete' August 4, 2026. Moratorium applies prospectively to new applications; Compass retains ability to resubmit a complete application. Vote: 2-1 (identity of dissenting commissioner not confirmed from accessible sources). Note: City of Topeka (county seat of Shawnee County) has its own separate city-level data center governance; this county moratorium applies to unincorporated Shawnee County areas outside Topeka and other incorporated cities. Shawnee County is in northeast Kansas; county seat Topeka is also the state capital.","who_is_protected":"Shawnee County, KS residents in unincorporated areas from unregulated data center development during the moratorium period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in unincorporated Shawnee County, KS","citation":"Shawnee County, KS Board of County Commissioners, 6-month data center moratorium (adopted August 13, 2026, 2-1 vote; effective August 13, 2026 through February 17, 2027)","source_url":"https://www.wibw.com/2026/08/13/shawnee-co-commissioners-approve-moratorium-new-data-centers/","source_title":"Shawnee Co. commissioners approve moratorium on new data centers — WIBW News 13","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Shawnee County planning and zoning department; Board of County Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted/processed during moratorium period"},{"id":"hualapai-tc-dc-resolution-2026","title":"Hualapai Tribal Council — Resolution 46-2026 Opposing Hyperscale Data Centers on Reservation and Colorado River Basin","short_title":"Hualapai Tribal Council data center opposition resolution","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Hualapai Tribe (AZ)","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-20","enacted_date":"2026-08-20","last_verified_date":"2026-09-12","summary_plain":"The Hualapai Tribal Council adopted Resolution 46-2026 on August 20, 2026, opposing construction of data centers within the Hualapai Reservation, the tribe's ancestral territory, and the broader Colorado River Basin. The Hualapai Tribe — headquartered at Peach Springs, Arizona, on the south rim of the Grand Canyon — cites critical water shortages on the Colorado River as the primary concern. The resolution also flags light pollution, wastewater discharge, and other environmental and community impacts. It calls on federal, state, and local governments to fulfill their government-to-government consultation obligations before approving any hyperscale data center project that could affect tribal resources. Two Navajo communities (Shiprock and Nageezi, NM) have adopted the same resolution; three Arizona Navajo communities (Lechee, Teec Nos Pos, Low Mountain) are committing to introduce it.","summary_technical":"Hualapai Tribal Council Resolution No. 46-2026 (adopted August 20, 2026): formal opposition to construction of data centers within the Hualapai Indian Reservation (Mohave and Coconino Counties, northwestern AZ), tribal ancestral territory, and the broader Colorado River Basin. Primary rationale: critical water shortage on the Colorado River — the tribe's primary water source. Secondary concerns: light pollution, wastewater discharge, and broader environmental and community impacts. The resolution calls on all federal, state, and local government partners to fulfill government-to-government tribal consultation requirements whenever a proposed hyperscale data center has the potential to affect tribal resources, lands, or water. Not a formal moratorium with permit prohibitions but a formal governance resolution carrying tribal authority. Reported August 24, 2026 (adoption date August 20). Resolution is being spread to other Colorado River Basin tribes: Navajo chapters in NM (Shiprock, Nageezi) adopted it; AZ Navajo chapters (Lechee, Teec Nos Pos, Low Mountain) committing to introduce.","who_is_protected":"Hualapai Tribe members, Hualapai Reservation lands, and Colorado River water resources","who_must_comply":"Developers, federal, state and local governments proposing data centers within or affecting the Hualapai Reservation, ancestral territory, or Colorado River Basin","citation":"Hualapai Tribal Council Resolution No. 46-2026 (adopted August 20, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.knau.org/knau-and-arizona-news/2026-08-24/hualapai-tribe-passes-resolution-opposing-data-center-construction-on-the-reservation","source_title":"Hualapai tribe passes resolution opposing data center construction on the reservation — KNAU (Arizona NPR)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Hualapai Tribal Council; calls on federal/state/local agencies to fulfill consultation duties","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Resolution carries tribal government authority; any consultation-required project approval could be challenged through tribal and federal consultation processes"},{"id":"ca-escondido-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Escondido, CA — City Council Unanimous 45-Day Urgency Moratorium on New Data Centers (August 28, 2026)","short_title":"Escondido CA 45-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Escondido, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"San Diego","city":"Escondido","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-28","enacted_date":"2026-08-28","expires_date":"2026-10-12","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Escondido City Council unanimously approved a 45-day urgency ordinance on August 28, 2026 imposing a moratorium on acceptance, processing, or approval of any applications, permits, entitlements, or other approvals related to data centers. Escondido had no pending data center applications at the time — the moratorium is proactive, giving the city time to develop land-use, zoning, and environmental regulations. City staff cited concerns including increased water and electricity demand, strain on the power grid, large development footprints, persistent noise from cooling systems and backup generators, and greater demand for public services. The City Council can extend the moratorium by up to 10 months and 15 days, and then again by one additional year, if needed to complete the regulatory framework. Escondido is a city of about 155,000 in inland San Diego County, joining a wave of Southern California cities taking proactive action as data center proposals multiply across the region.","summary_technical":"City of Escondido urgency ordinance, adopted by unanimous City Council vote August 28, 2026. Prohibits acceptance, processing, and approval of applications, permits, entitlements, and other approvals for data center development citywide. No pending application prompted the action. Staff directed to conduct legal and regulatory research, develop appropriate regulations, study impact (power, water, noise, public services), and conduct stakeholder outreach. Staff to return to council by October 10, 2026 with findings. Moratorium extendable: first extension up to 10 months 15 days, second extension up to one further year. Part of a wave of Coachella Valley–adjacent and broader Southern California municipal moratoriums in mid-2026: neighboring Desert Hot Springs, Palm Springs, Lake Elsinore, and Imperial County have similar pauses; Coachella enacted a permanent ban August 26.","who_is_protected":"Escondido residents and surrounding San Diego County communities, through a proactive pause on data center development while the city develops appropriate protective regulations.","who_must_comply":"The City of Escondido planning and permitting departments; any applicant seeking data center-related approvals in Escondido during the moratorium.","citation":"City of Escondido, Cal. — Urgency Ordinance (Aug. 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://thecoastnews.com/escondido-temporarily-bans-new-ai-data-centers/","source_title":"Escondido temporarily bans new AI data centers — The Coast News Group","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Escondido Planning Division","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications submitted during moratorium period not accepted or processed"},{"id":"ca-lake-elsinore-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Lake Elsinore, CA — City Council Emergency 45-Day Moratorium on New Data Center Applications (August 25, 2026)","short_title":"Lake Elsinore CA 45-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lake Elsinore, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Riverside","city":"Lake Elsinore","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"expired","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-25","enacted_date":"2026-08-25","expires_date":"2026-10-09","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Lake Elsinore City Council unanimously approved an emergency ordinance on August 25, 2026 establishing a 45-day moratorium on new data center applications and entitlements within city limits. Councilmember Steve Manos had raised the issue at the August 11 council meeting following resident concerns about a potential data center development option. City Attorney James Markman noted that Lake Elsinore's zoning code does not specifically address data centers, leaving the city without a regulatory framework. The moratorium gives the city time to study potential impacts — including scale, power demand, water use, and the possibility of irreversible land-use impacts — and develop an appropriate ordinance. Lake Elsinore is a city of about 75,000 in southwest Riverside County at the shore of the Elsinore Valley's lake.","summary_technical":"City of Lake Elsinore emergency ordinance, adopted by unanimous City Council vote August 25, 2026. Pauses acceptance and processing of new data center applications and entitlements. City Attorney Markman cited absence of data center definition or rules in the municipal zoning code as the primary regulatory gap. Moratorium scope: applications for new data center development or related entitlements in the city. Extension is available if additional study time required. Context: Lake Elsinore is located in southwest Riverside County, within the broader Inland Empire data center growth zone and adjacent to the Southern California regional wave of municipal moratoriums (Indio, Desert Hot Springs, Palm Springs, Coachella, Escondido).","who_is_protected":"Lake Elsinore residents, through a pause on data center development while the city fills regulatory gaps and studies environmental and infrastructure impacts.","who_must_comply":"The City of Lake Elsinore planning and permitting functions; applicants seeking data center development approvals.","citation":"City of Lake Elsinore, Cal. — Emergency Ordinance (Aug. 25, 2026)","source_url":"https://elsinore247.com/2026/08/council-unanimously-approves-45-day-data-center-moratorium.html","source_title":"Council unanimously approves 45-day data center moratorium — Elsinore 24/7","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications during moratorium not accepted or processed"},{"id":"ca-oakland-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Oakland, CA — City Council Adopts 45-Day Urgency Moratorium on Data Center Land Use Approvals (File 27-0050, Oct. 6, 2026)","short_title":"Oakland CA 45-day data center moratorium (Oct. 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Oakland, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Alameda","city":"Oakland","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-06","enacted_date":"2026-10-06","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Oakland's City Council unanimously adopted a 45-day urgency moratorium on Oct. 6, 2026 that stops the city from approving land use entitlements or agreements for building or operating data centers. It took effect immediately and the council can extend it. Councilmember Carroll Fife introduced it in September after a proposal for an AI data center downtown.","summary_technical":"Urgency ordinance introduced by Councilmember Carroll Fife (West Oakland and downtown, Oakland District 3) on September 11, 2026. Would immediately pause city acceptance, processing, and approval of land-use agreements and entitlements for construction or operation of data centers in Oakland, for 45 days (extendable by council vote). Trigger: Behring Companies downtown AI data center proposal. Committee hearing: Oakland Life Enrichment Committee, scheduled September 22, 2026. Parallel ask: permanent Title 17 Planning Code amendment governing data center regulation. Status as of September 14, 2026: not yet enacted; pending committee hearing and full council vote.","who_is_protected":"Oakland residents, particularly West Oakland and downtown communities, through a proposed pause on data center development while the city develops regulations.","who_must_comply":"City of Oakland permitting and planning functions (if enacted); applicants seeking data center-related approvals.","citation":"City of Oakland — urgency moratorium legislation introduced by CM Fife (Sept. 11, 2026); pending committee vote","source_url":"https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=37552&GUID=6E438AB4-01BE-4CF5-A97F-5124E5053490","source_title":"Oakland City Council Legistar — File 27-0050, Moratorium On Data Centers (Passed Oct. 6, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Oakland Planning and Building Department (if enacted)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not yet in effect; would pause acceptance and processing of applications during moratorium"},{"id":"id-bannock-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Bannock County, ID — 180-Day Emergency Moratorium on Data Center Permits (July 30, 2026)","short_title":"Bannock County ID 180-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Bannock County, ID","state_abbr":"ID","county":"Bannock","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-30","enacted_date":"2026-07-30","expires_date":"2027-01-26","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Bannock County, Idaho Board of Commissioners enacted a 180-day emergency moratorium on data center permits on July 30, 2026, stopping acceptance or processing of data center applications in unincorporated Bannock County through approximately January 26, 2027. The county has no existing ordinance specifically governing data centers. A study group will examine water use, noise, light output, heat, and potential economic effects while the county drafts its first data center ordinance. Bannock County is home to Pocatello, Idaho's fifth-largest city, and sits in a region where tech companies have explored data center siting due to available power and land. The moratorium is part of a wave of Idaho county actions in 2026, with Elmore County, Kootenai County (since lifted), and others also taking steps to regulate data center development.","summary_technical":"Bannock County Board of Commissioners emergency moratorium, July 30, 2026. Stops acceptance and processing of all data center permits and applications in unincorporated Bannock County for 180 days (expires approximately January 26, 2027). Study group tasked with examining: water use; noise impacts; light; heat; economic effects. County to draft its first dedicated data center ordinance during the moratorium window. County seat: Pocatello (pop. ~54,000). Context: Shoshone-Bannock Tribes at Fort Hall Reservation in Bannock County separately passed formal opposition to the proposed Pocatello AI data center (see shoshone-bannock-tribes-pocatello-dc-opposition-2026 in seed-2026-08.js). This is the county-government-level regulatory action, distinct from the Tribal Council's resolution.","who_is_protected":"Bannock County residents in unincorporated areas, through a pause on data center development while the county drafts its first governing ordinance.","who_must_comply":"Bannock County planning and permitting functions; applicants seeking data center permits in unincorporated areas.","citation":"Bannock County, Idaho — Board of Commissioners emergency moratorium resolution (July 30, 2026)","source_url":"https://localnews8.com/news/pocatello/2026/07/31/bannock-county-approves-180-day-emergency-moratorium-on-data-center-permits/","source_title":"Bannock County approves 180-day emergency moratorium on data center permits — LocalNews8/KIFI","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Bannock County Board of Commissioners; Bannock County Planning and Zoning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications during moratorium not accepted or processed"},{"id":"columbus-in-dc-bza-oversight-2026","title":"Columbus, IN — City Council Ordinance Requiring Board of Zoning Appeals Approval for All New Data Centers (2026)","short_title":"Columbus IN city data center BZA oversight ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Columbus, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Bartholomew","city":"Columbus","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-10","enacted_date":"2026-07-10","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"The Columbus, Indiana City Council passed an ordinance in July 2026 establishing that data centers are a permitted land use in the city — but they are not automatically approved. Every new data center proposal must receive approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals, which requires a public hearing and gives residents and city officials a formal opportunity to weigh in. Mayor Mary Ferdon said the city had received interest from developers looking to build data centers, which prompted the oversight policy. The ordinance is a proactive measure: no data center projects were pending at the time of passage. Columbus (population ~50,000, seat of Bartholomew County) is distinct from Columbus, Ohio; separately, Bartholomew County itself was also exploring zoning changes for data centers in its unincorporated industrial areas as of August-September 2026.","summary_technical":"Columbus, IN City Council ordinance (enacted approximately July 10, 2026). Key provision: data centers reclassified from permitted use (no public process) to 'permitted use requiring BZA approval' — meaning each data center application must go before the Columbus Board of Zoning Appeals, which mandates a public hearing with notice to neighboring property owners and the general public. This provides a site-specific review mechanism for impacts including noise, water use, power demand, and traffic. The city had no pending data center applications at enactment. RELATIONSHIP TO BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY: the Bartholomew County Plan Commission separately was considering (as of August-September 2026) making data centers a 'conditional use' in industrially-zoned areas of unincorporated county land — a parallel but distinct regulatory track from the city's BZA-approval mechanism.","who_is_protected":"Columbus, Indiana residents near proposed data center sites","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking to build in the City of Columbus, Indiana","citation":"City of Columbus, IN ordinance (enacted ~July 2026) — data centers permitted use requiring BZA approval","source_url":"https://www.ipm.org/news/2026-09-10/columbus-adds-oversight-to-data-center-proposals","source_title":"Columbus adds oversight to data center proposals — Indiana Public Media (September 10, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Columbus Board of Zoning Appeals; Columbus City Planning Department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center applications not processed without BZA approval"},{"id":"oh-warren-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Warren, Ohio — City Council Passes One-Year Moratorium on Large-Scale Data Centers Over 1,000 Square Feet and Establishes a Data Center Review Committee (September 9, 2026)","short_title":"Warren OH one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Warren, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Trumbull County","city":"Warren","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-09","enacted_date":"2026-09-09","expires_date":"2027-09-09","last_verified_date":"2026-09-16","summary_plain":"Warren City Council passed a one-year moratorium on large-scale data centers on September 9, 2026. The ordinance covers data centers larger than 1,000 square feet, meaning it is not limited only to hyperscale facilities. The council simultaneously established a Data Center Review Committee, which is directed to study the issue and report back to the council within nine months — leaving three months before the moratorium expires for the council to act on the committee's recommendations. The moratorium was sponsored by council members Greg Greathouse and Greg Thumm. Warren is the county seat of Trumbull County in northeast Ohio. The measure is part of a broader cluster of Ohio localities acting on data centers in 2026, including Franklin County Commission and multiple communities pursuing ballot initiatives in November 2026.","summary_technical":"City of Warren, Ohio (Trumbull County) — one-year moratorium on large-scale data centers enacted by City Council on September 9, 2026, expiring September 9, 2027. SIZE THRESHOLD: the moratorium covers data centers larger than 1,000 SQUARE FEET. This threshold is deliberately written to capture facilities smaller than hyperscale campuses; a 1,000 sq ft floor catches mid-size colocation and edge computing facilities. REVIEW COMMITTEE: the ordinance establishes a DATA CENTER REVIEW COMMITTEE charged with studying impacts and reporting to the council within NINE MONTHS — timed to give the council three months before expiration to enact or extend. SPONSORS: council members Greg Greathouse and Greg Thumm. OHIO CONTEXT: Warren is the county seat of Trumbull County. In the same period Franklin County, Kansas enacted a similar county moratorium; in Ohio, eighteen communities pursued November 2026 ballot measures on data centers and the state legislature has several data center bills pending. WARREN IS DISTINCT FROM: franklin-county-oh-jackson-twp-dc-mora-2026 and franklin-county-oh-pleasant-twp-dc-mora-2026 (both Ohio but different county); oh-warren-county-dc-moratorium if one were indexed (Warren City is in Trumbull County, not Warren County).","who_is_protected":"Warren, Ohio residents and ratepayers in Trumbull County","who_must_comply":"Developers proposing data centers larger than 1,000 square feet in Warren, Ohio","citation":"City of Warren, Ohio — one-year data center moratorium (enacted September 9, 2026; expires September 9, 2027)","source_url":"https://www.wkbn.com/news/local-news/warren-news/warren-city-council-passes-moratorium-on-large-scale-data-centers","source_title":"Warren City Council passes moratorium on large-scale data centers — WKBN","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Warren City Council; Data Center Review Committee","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No approval may issue for covered data center facilities during the one-year moratorium"},{"id":"ks-franklin-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Franklin County, Kansas — County Commission Unanimously Approves Moratorium on Data Center Activities in Unincorporated Areas Through December 31, 2028 (September 2, 2026)","short_title":"Franklin County KS data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Franklin County, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Franklin County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-02","enacted_date":"2026-09-02","expires_date":"2028-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-16","summary_plain":"The Franklin County Commission in Kansas voted unanimously on September 2, 2026 to impose a moratorium on data center activities in the unincorporated areas of the county, running through December 31, 2028 — a period of just over two years. The county seat is Ottawa, Kansas. The moratorium covers unincorporated county land, meaning areas outside incorporated city limits; a developer proposing a project inside the city of Ottawa would go to Ottawa city government, not the county, and would not be covered. The measure is related to but distinct from a separate November 2026 ballot initiative in the city of Ottawa, where voters are to decide whether to ban data centers drawing more than 25 megawatts. Franklin County's moratorium is the county-level pause; Ottawa's ballot measure would be the city-level permanent rule if approved.","summary_technical":"Franklin County, Kan. (county seat: Ottawa) — moratorium on DATA CENTER ACTIVITIES in UNINCORPORATED AREAS of the county, adopted unanimously by the Franklin County Commission on September 2, 2026, running through December 31, 2028. SCOPE CLARIFICATION: the moratorium covers only UNINCORPORATED areas, i.e., county-jurisdiction land outside the city limits of Ottawa or other incorporated municipalities. A data center project proposed within the City of Ottawa falls under Ottawa city permitting jurisdiction, not this moratorium. DURATION: 27 months (September 2, 2026 through December 31, 2028). This is toward the longer end of the county moratorium distribution in this dataset but shorter than some three-year Arkansas county moratoriums. COMPANION MEASURE: a ballot initiative in the CITY OF OTTAWA placed by court order for the NOVEMBER 2026 election would, if approved, impose a PERMANENT BAN on data centers drawing more than 25 MW within city limits — indexed separately as ks-ottawa-dc-ban-ballot-2026. RADIO ATTRIBUTION: KOFO Radio (Ottawa, KS) is the primary local source, confirmed as serving Franklin County, Kansas. DISAMBIGUATION: not to be confused with Franklin County, Ohio (Columbus metro area) or Franklin County, Indiana; those have separate indexed entries.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Franklin County, Kansas","who_must_comply":"Developers proposing data center activities in unincorporated Franklin County, Kansas","citation":"Franklin County, Kan. — county moratorium on data center activities in unincorporated areas (adopted September 2, 2026; expires December 31, 2028)","source_url":"https://ransonfinancial.com/2026/09/10/data-center-moratorium-declared-by-county/","source_title":"Data center moratorium declared by county — Ranson Financial","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Franklin County Commission; Franklin County planning and zoning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No approval may issue for covered data center activities in unincorporated areas during the moratorium"},{"id":"ks-ottawa-dc-ban-ballot-2026","title":"Ottawa, Kansas — Court-Ordered Ballot Initiative for November 2026: Proposed Permanent Ban on Data Centers Drawing More Than 25 Megawatts Within City Limits","short_title":"Ottawa KS proposed data center ban ballot initiative (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Ottawa, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Franklin County","city":"Ottawa","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"strong","last_verified_date":"2026-09-16","summary_plain":"A court has ordered the city of Ottawa, Kansas to place a measure on the November 2026 ballot that would permanently ban data centers drawing more than 25 megawatts within Ottawa city limits. As of mid-September 2026, the measure has not been adopted — it awaits a voter referendum. Ottawa is the county seat of Franklin County, Kansas. A separate county-level moratorium covering unincorporated Franklin County was already enacted by the county commission on September 2, 2026. If approved by voters in November, the Ottawa city measure would be a permanent prohibition (not a temporary moratorium) on high-load data centers within the city, while the county moratorium would continue to cover unincorporated areas through December 31, 2028.","summary_technical":"City of Ottawa, Kan. (Franklin County) — citizen ballot initiative placed on the NOVEMBER 2026 BALLOT by court order; proposes a PERMANENT BAN on DATA CENTERS drawing MORE THAN 25 MW within Ottawa city limits. INSTRUMENT STATUS: PROPOSED only — the measure has not been adopted; voter approval is required. THRESHOLD: 25 MEGAWATTS draw. This threshold is explicitly set to capture hyperscale and large-scale AI compute facilities, which typically draw 50–300 MW, while potentially excluding smaller colocation and edge facilities. AS A PERMANENT BAN (if approved): this would be one of the stronger local data center prohibitions in the dataset — a permanent city-level ban by voter initiative rather than a time-limited moratorium enacted by a council. THE COURT-ORDERED BALLOT CONTEXT: the reported mechanism is a court ordering the city to place the measure on the ballot, suggesting a prior city council refusal to place the initiative and a subsequent court order compelling placement. RELATIONSHIP TO FRANKLIN COUNTY MORATORIUM: the companion county measure (ks-franklin-county-dc-moratorium-2026) covers unincorporated Franklin County through December 31, 2028. If the Ottawa ballot measure passes, the city and county together would cover substantially all of Franklin County for data center restrictions — city limits by permanent ban, unincorporated areas by moratorium. STATUS MUST BE CHECKED after November 2026 election results.","who_is_protected":"Ottawa, Kansas residents and utility ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers proposing facilities drawing more than 25 MW within Ottawa, Kansas city limits (if measure is approved)","citation":"Ottawa, Kan. — proposed ballot initiative for November 2026 election: permanent ban on data centers >25 MW within city limits (court-ordered to ballot; not yet adopted)","source_url":"https://ransonfinancial.com/2026/09/10/data-center-moratorium-declared-by-county/","source_title":"Data center moratorium declared by county — Ranson Financial","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Ottawa government (if measure is approved by voters)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Proposed permanent ban: data centers >25 MW would be prohibited within city limits (contingent on voter approval)"},{"id":"nc-ag-livcor-realpage-settlement-2026","title":"North Carolina — Attorney General Jeff Jackson Joins $7 Million Multistate Settlement With LivCor (Blackstone) Banning Algorithmic Rent Pricing Coordination for 3,500 North Carolina Apartments (June 26, 2026)","short_title":"North Carolina AG LivCor algorithmic rent settlement (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"North Carolina","state_abbr":"NC","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-06-26","enacted_date":"2026-06-26","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson joined eight other state attorneys general in reaching a $7 million settlement with LivCor LLC, a Blackstone-owned company that managed approximately 3,500 apartments in North Carolina. The consent decree, entered June 26, 2026 in the Middle District of North Carolina, permanently bans LivCor from using algorithmic pricing software to coordinate rents with competing landlords. The settlement arose from the same litigation targeting RealPage Inc.'s revenue management platform — algorithmic software that critics and now courts have found enables competing property managers to share nonpublic pricing data and move rents in lockstep, keeping apartment rents artificially elevated. The $7 million was distributed among the nine participating state AGs. For North Carolina, the practical scope is the 3,500 apartments LivCor managed within the state. This is an enforcement action rather than legislation — it results from DOJ and multistate AG litigation — but the prohibition is legally binding on LivCor and its successors, and North Carolina's AG participation made it effective for NC residents. The underlying federal case, US v. RealPage Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00710, continues separately. AG Jackson also issued guidance warning other property management companies in North Carolina that algorithmic rent coordination practices face the same legal exposure.","summary_technical":"North Carolina AG Jeff Jackson, joining a NINE-STATE AG COALITION (NC, MN, CA, CO, CT, IL, MA, OR, TN), entered a CONSENT DECREE with LIVCOR LLC (Blackstone-owned property management firm) on JUNE 26, 2026 in the MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA as part of US v. RealPage Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00710. SETTLEMENT AMOUNT: $7 MILLION, distributed among the nine co-plaintiff state AGs. OPERATIVE PROHIBITION: LivCor is permanently barred from using ALGORITHMIC PRICING SOFTWARE to COORDINATE RENTS WITH COMPETING LANDLORDS — the core anticompetitive mechanism the DOJ complaint identified in the RealPage revenue management system. NC-SPECIFIC SCOPE: LivCor managed approximately 3,500 APARTMENTS IN NORTH CAROLINA. INSTRUMENT CLASS: an enforcement consent decree rather than legislation or an executive order. The prohibition runs as a court order binding on LivCor and its successors, and differs in that respect from a statute (which would be generally applicable to all landlords). THE NORTH CAROLINA GEOGRAPHIC FACT IS SIGNIFICANT: the consent decree was entered IN THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA, reflecting that a substantial portion of the LivCor units that are the subject of the litigation are in North Carolina. AG Jackson followed up with a WARNING to other property management companies in the state that the same conduct faces the same exposure. RELATIONSHIP TO FEDERAL ENTRY: us-doj-realpage-consent-decree-2025 indexes the DOJ's own case and notes the June 26, 2026 LivCor consent decree in its notes field; this entry captures the NORTH CAROLINA STATE-LEVEL enforcement angle, including the NC AG's specific participation, the 3,500 NC-unit scope, and the post-settlement warning to other NC landlords. SOUTHEAST/ALGORITHMIC RENT CONTEXT: this is the most significant SE-state algorithmic rent action in the dataset. Tennessee was a co-plaintiff but has not separately enacted algorithmic rent legislation; GA, SC, AL and MS have no indexed algorithmic rent instruments. The federal RealPage litigation itself is one of the most consequential AI/algorithmic enforcement actions in the dataset given its market impact — RealPage's YieldStar is used by landlords managing millions of US apartments.","who_is_protected":"Tenants in approximately 3,500 North Carolina apartments managed by LivCor LLC","who_must_comply":"LivCor LLC and its successors; NC AG warning extends to other property managers using algorithmic pricing software in North Carolina","citation":"NC v. LivCor LLC, consent decree entered June 26, 2026, US v. RealPage Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00710 (M.D.N.C.); $7M multistate settlement (NC, MN, CA, CO, CT, IL, MA, OR, TN)","source_url":"https://ncdoj.gov/nc-ag-jackson-joins-7m-settlement-livcor-algorithmic-rent/","source_title":"AG Jackson joins $7 million settlement against LivCor over algorithmic rent pricing — NC Department of Justice","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"NC Attorney General's Office; US Department of Justice; US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Consent decree: $7M settlement distributed among 9 state AGs; permanent injunction against algorithmic rent coordination; LivCor subject to court enforcement for violations"},{"id":"ga-bloomingdale-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Bloomingdale, Georgia — Six-Month Data Center Moratorium (August 2026)","short_title":"Bloomingdale GA 6-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Bloomingdale, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Chatham","city":"Bloomingdale","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-16","enacted_date":"2026-08-16","expires_date":"2027-02-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"The City of Bloomingdale, Georgia enacted a six-month moratorium on data center development in approximately August 2026, giving the small Chatham County city time to develop zoning regulations. Bloomingdale is one of several Chatham County jurisdictions responding to data center interest in the Savannah metro region. The moratorium expires approximately February 16, 2027.","summary_technical":"Six-month data center moratorium enacted approximately 2026-08-16 by Bloomingdale City Council. Expires approximately 2027-02-16. Chatham County city; Savannah metro area. enacted_date is approximate — reported as August 2026.","who_is_protected":"Bloomingdale, GA residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Bloomingdale, GA","citation":"Bloomingdale, GA City Council — six-month data center moratorium, approximately August 2026","source_url":"https://www.savannahnow.com/story/news/local/2026/09/11/chatham-county-bloomingdale-moratorium-data-centers/","source_title":"Chatham County, Bloomingdale enact data center moratoriums (Savannah Morning News)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Bloomingdale, GA"},{"id":"ga-chatham-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Chatham County, Georgia — 155-Day Data Center Moratorium (September 11, 2026)","short_title":"Chatham County GA 155-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Chatham County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Chatham","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-11","enacted_date":"2026-09-11","expires_date":"2027-02-13","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"On September 11, 2026, the Chatham County (Georgia) Commission enacted a 155-day moratorium on data center permits in unincorporated Chatham County, joining neighboring Bloomingdale (which enacted a separate six-month moratorium weeks earlier). The Savannah metro region has attracted increasing data center interest, prompting several Chatham County jurisdictions to pause approvals while developing permanent regulations. The moratorium expires approximately February 13, 2027.","summary_technical":"155-day moratorium enacted 2026-09-11 by Chatham County Commission. Covers unincorporated Chatham County. Expires approximately 2027-02-13 (155 days from enacted_date). Bloomingdale enacted a separate 6-month moratorium approximately August 2026 (see ga-bloomingdale-dc-moratorium-2026). Savannah metro area regional data center interest context.","who_is_protected":"Chatham County, GA residents in unincorporated areas","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in unincorporated Chatham County, GA","citation":"Chatham County Commission — 155-day data center moratorium, September 11, 2026","source_url":"https://www.savannahnow.com/story/news/local/2026/09/11/chatham-county-bloomingdale-moratorium-data-centers/","source_title":"Chatham County, Bloomingdale enact data center moratoriums (Savannah Morning News)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Chatham County, GA Commission / Planning Department"},{"id":"ga-augusta-dc-ordinance-2026","title":"Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia — Permanent Data Center Ordinance (Adopted September 15, 2026, 6-5 Vote)","short_title":"Augusta GA permanent data center ordinance (Sept 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Augusta, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Richmond","city":"Augusta","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"strong","enacted_date":"2026-10-06","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"After a June–September 2026 moratorium process that included three extensions and multiple community meetings, the Augusta-Richmond County Commission voted 6-5 on September 15, 2026 to adopt a permanent data center ordinance. The ordinance restricts data centers to heavy industrial zoning, requires special exception permits with public hearings before the commission, and mandates 500-foot buffers from residential and agricultural land. The QTS Gordon Highway campus was exempted throughout the moratorium process. The narrow 6-5 vote reflects significant community opposition to what critics viewed as an ordinance that was too permissive.","summary_technical":"Augusta-Richmond County consolidated government permanent data center ordinance adopted 2026-09-15 (6-5 vote). Substantive provisions: (1) heavy industrial zoning requirement; (2) special exception permit required with public hearing before commission; (3) 500-ft buffer from residential and agricultural land. QTS Gordon Highway campus exempt. Preceded by June 2, 2026 moratorium (49 days), July 21 extension (+60 days), August 18 extension (+60 days through ~Nov 17). Permanent ordinance adopted before moratorium's stated expiration.","who_is_protected":"Augusta-Richmond County residents near proposed data center sites","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking new permits or approvals in Augusta-Richmond County, GA","citation":"Augusta-Richmond County Commission 6-5 vote, September 15, 2026 — permanent data center ordinance","source_url":"https://www.wrdw.com/2026/10/06/augusta-finalizes-data-center-rules-resident-urges-tougher-oversight-enforcement/","source_title":"Augusta Commission approves data center ordinance in 6-5 vote (Augusta Press)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Augusta-Richmond County Commission"},{"id":"nyc-ai-rental-listing-disclosure-mamdani-2026","title":"New York City — Mayor Mamdani Proposed AI Rental Listing Disclosure Requirement (Introduced July 2026)","short_title":"NYC AI rental listing disclosure proposal (Mamdani, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York City, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"New York","city":"New York","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposed a rule in July 2026 requiring landlords and rental listing platforms to disclose when artificial intelligence tools are used to generate, rank, or filter rental listings. The proposal is part of a broader Mamdani housing-affordability agenda and reflects growing concern about AI tools that use algorithmic pricing and screening to affect housing access. The proposal was pending City Council introduction as of the date of this entry.","summary_technical":"NYC Mayor Mamdani July 2026 proposal: mandatory disclosure when AI is used in rental listing generation, ranking, or filtering. Would apply to landlords and rental platforms operating in NYC. Pending City Council introduction and hearing as of 2026-09-18. Part of broader Mamdani housing affordability package.","who_is_protected":"New York City renters and housing applicants","who_must_comply":"Landlords and rental listing platforms operating in New York City","citation":"NYC Mayor Mamdani AI rental listing disclosure proposal, introduced July 2026","source_url":"https://www.curbed.com/2026/07/mamdani-ai-rental-listing-disclosure-nyc.html","source_title":"Mamdani wants landlords to disclose AI-generated rental listings (Curbed NY)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"NYC (agency TBD)"},{"id":"lechee-chapter-navajo-dc-opposition-resolution-2026","title":"LeChee Chapter (Navajo Nation) — Resolution Opposing Hyperscale Data Center on City of Page Lands (February 2026)","short_title":"LeChee Chapter (Navajo Nation, AZ) data center opposition resolution (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"LeChee Chapter (Navajo Nation, AZ)","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-02-01","enacted_date":"2026-02-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"The LeChee Chapter of the Navajo Nation — whose lands surround the City of Page and the Antelope Canyon region in northern Arizona — unanimously passed a resolution in February 2026 formally opposing the City of Page's planned sale of approximately 500 acres of municipal land for a proposed hyperscale data center complex valued at approximately $10 billion. Reported objections include water use, environmental impacts and a lack of transparency and consultation. The resolution calls on the City of Page and Arizona state officials to conduct meaningful government-to-government consultation with the Navajo Nation before proceeding with any data center development. This is a resolution of opposition directed at a proposed municipal land sale, not a ban on development within Navajo trust lands — it reflects the Chapter's political and advocacy position.","summary_technical":"LeChee Chapter Council resolution (February 2026): formal opposition to City of Page AZ's proposed ~500-acre municipal land sale for hyperscale data center development (~$10B project). Reported objections: water use, environmental impacts (including native plants), and lack of transparency/consultation. Calls for: full consultation with Navajo Nation prior to approval; environmental impact analysis; halt to land sale proceedings pending consultation. SCOPE CLARIFICATION: This is a Chapter resolution of opposition directed at a proposed municipal land sale — it is not a ban on development of Navajo trust lands. The City of Page's land is not tribally owned or held in trust. The Chapter's legal leverage is through the consultation requirement and political pressure, not direct land-use authority over the proposed site.","who_is_protected":"LeChee Chapter community members and Navajo Nation citizens whose water sources, cultural resources, and lands border the proposed development site.","who_must_comply":"City of Page, AZ; Arizona state officials; prospective data center developer; federal agencies with NHPA Section 106 consultation obligations.","citation":"LeChee Chapter Council resolution (February 2026); reported Salt Lake Tribune (May 10, 2026), Corner Post (May 6, 2026), InsiderUtah","source_url":"https://www.sltrib.com/news/2026/05/10/navajo-nation-passes-resolution/","source_title":"Salt Lake Tribune — Navajo Nation chapter passes resolution opposing Page data center (May 10, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"LeChee Chapter Council; Navajo Nation government (consultation demands); federal agencies with NHPA Section 106 jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No direct enforcement powers over City of Page land sale; political and legal pressure through tribal consultation requirements under NHPA Section 106."},{"id":"dallas-pd-clearview-fr-2024","title":"Dallas Police Department Clearview AI Facial Recognition Technology Program (2024)","short_title":"Dallas PD Clearview AI facial recognition policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Dallas, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Dallas","city":"Dallas","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-10-17","enacted_date":"2024-05-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-23","summary_plain":"The Dallas Police Department received unanimous approval from the City Council's Public Safety Committee in May 2024 to use Clearview AI's facial recognition technology for investigating serious crimes. The department secured a three-year, $89,000 contract with Clearview AI using grant funds — which meant full City Council approval was not required. The program went live on October 17, 2024. The policy restricts use to violent crimes (felonies) and emergencies posing an immediate threat to public safety; detectives must obtain supervisor approval and each query must be reviewed by an FBI-trained specialist plus a second independent analyst before any lead is acted upon. The technology cannot be used on live video streams or images from First Amendment activities such as protests. As of December 2025, DPD had used the tool 156 times and attributed 25 arrests to the program. The department subsequently proposed expanding use to lesser crimes (trespassing, package theft) — a proposal that drew criticism from privacy advocates and had not been formally approved as of September 2026.","summary_technical":"Dallas Police Department Clearview AI facial recognition program (approved May 2024; live October 17, 2024). Contract: 3-year, $89,000 with Clearview AI, paid via grant funds (no full City Council appropriation vote required). Approved by City Council Public Safety Committee (unanimous, May 2024). Policy parameters per DPD General Order and city manager memorandum (October 11, 2024): (1) SCOPE: violent crimes (felonies) and immediate public-safety emergencies only; cannot be used for lesser offenses absent new policy approval; (2) PRIOR-CRIME REQUIREMENT: investigative use only — not for pre-emptive identification; (3) CHAIN OF REVIEW: detective → supervisor approval → FBI-trained specialist runs query → second independent analyst reviews matches before any lead moves forward; (4) PROHIBITIONS: no live-stream facial recognition; no queries on images of people attending protests or First Amendment activity; cannot serve as sole basis for arrest (corroborating evidence required); (5) USAGE: 156 searches, 25 arrests attributed (as of Dec 2025). Expansion proposal (Dec 2025): DPD sought to extend use to trespassing and package theft — not adopted as of September 2026. Companion entry: dallas-realtime-crime-center-policy-2024 (Fusus/RTCC general surveillance policy, separate instrument).","who_is_protected":"Dallas residents affected by criminal investigations where facial recognition is used; civil-liberties safeguards limit use to serious crimes with human review requirements.","who_must_comply":"Dallas Police Department detectives and analysts; requires supervisor approval and dual-analyst review for each query.","citation":"Dallas Police Department Clearview AI Facial Recognition Technology Program; City Council Public Safety Committee approval May 2024; City Manager Memo October 11, 2024","source_url":"https://www.biometricupdate.com/202405/clearview-ai-facial-recognition-gets-green-light-for-use-by-dallas-police","source_title":"Clearview AI facial recognition gets green light for use by Dallas police — Biometric Update (May 2024)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Dallas Police Department; Office of Community Police Oversight; City Auditor","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Policy violations subject to departmental discipline; no external enforcement mechanism specified in public documents."},{"id":"fl-clay-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Clay County, FL — Board of County Commissioners 1-Year Data Center Moratorium (4-1 Vote)","short_title":"Clay County FL 1-year data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Clay County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Clay","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-23","enacted_date":"2026-06-23","expires_date":"2027-06-23","last_verified_date":"2026-09-24","summary_plain":"The Clay County, Florida Board of County Commissioners voted 4-to-1 on June 23, 2026 to adopt a one-year moratorium on data center development, temporarily halting any rezoning, permits, or site plan approvals related to data center facilities. Commissioner Alexandra Compere was the lone vote against. Dozens of community members attended the public hearing voicing concerns about water usage, environmental impacts, and the potential effects of large-scale AI data centers. The moratorium runs through approximately June 23, 2027, or until county staff complete their review of impacts and any amendments to the land development regulations or Comprehensive Plan take effect, whichever comes first.","summary_technical":"Clay County (FL) Board of County Commissioners 4-1 vote (Commissioner Compere dissenting), June 23, 2026. One-year moratorium on rezoning, permitting, and site plan approvals for data center facilities countywide; runs through approximately June 23, 2027, or upon adoption of updated LDR/Comprehensive Plan provisions, whichever first. Community opposition centered on water-supply and environmental-impact concerns. Clay County is located southwest of Jacksonville in northeast Florida; county seat is Green Cove Springs. Part of the statewide FL data-center moratorium wave following SB 484 (Ch. 2026-65) which preserved local zoning authority.","who_is_protected":"Clay County, FL residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking rezoning, permits, or site plan approvals in Clay County, FL","citation":"Clay County, FL Board of County Commissioners data center moratorium (adopted 4-1, June 23, 2026; Commissioner Compere dissenting)","source_url":"https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/clay-county-commissioners-approve-one-year-moratorium-data-centers/GM7HRVAP3ND2TJ4SNUG3HAPABI/","source_title":"Clay County commissioners approve one-year moratorium on data centers — Action News Jax","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Clay County Board of County Commissioners; Clay County Planning Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"fl-hernando-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Hernando County, FL — Board of County Commissioners 1-Year Data Center Moratorium (Ordinance 2026-23)","short_title":"Hernando County FL 1-year data center moratorium (Ord. 2026-23)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Hernando County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Hernando","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-14","enacted_date":"2026-07-14","expires_date":"2027-06-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-24","summary_plain":"Hernando County, Florida became the second county in the Tampa Bay area to pause data center development when commissioners unanimously adopted Ordinance 2026-23 on July 14, 2026 (first advanced June 23, 2026). The 1-year moratorium prevents any new data center applications from moving forward, halting building permits, rezoning requests, and site plan approvals. Unlike many counties that acted after a specific project was proposed, Hernando County's moratorium was largely preemptive — no data center applications had been submitted at the time of adoption. The moratorium runs through June 16, 2027.","summary_technical":"Hernando County (FL) Board of County Commissioners unanimous vote; first advanced June 23, 2026; final adoption July 14, 2026 (Ordinance 2026-23). One-year preemptive moratorium on acceptance and processing of data center applications — building permits, rezonings, site plan approvals — countywide; expires June 16, 2027. No data center applications were pending at time of adoption (distinguishes Hernando from counties that acted after a specific project was proposed). WTSP noted it was the second Tampa Bay-area county to do so after Clay County. Hernando County is north of Tampa Bay; county seat is Brooksville.","who_is_protected":"Hernando County, FL residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking applications, permits, or approvals in Hernando County, FL","citation":"Hernando County, FL Ordinance 2026-23 (adopted unanimously July 14, 2026; effective through June 16, 2027)","source_url":"https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/local/hernandocounty/ai-data-center-hernando-county/67-1a9d031f-e2fc-49a9-9129-401536752dd8","source_title":"Hernando County becomes second Tampa Bay-area county to pause data center projects — WTSP","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Hernando County Board of County Commissioners; Hernando County Planning Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"fl-lake-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Lake County, FL — Board of County Commissioners 8-Month Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Lake County FL 8-month data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Lake County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Lake","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-09","enacted_date":"2026-09-09","expires_date":"2027-05-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-24","summary_plain":"Lake County, Florida approved an 8-month moratorium on new data center applications on September 9, 2026, covering unincorporated areas. The moratorium halts applications to develop and operate data centers — including large-scale, power-intensive facilities — through May 11, 2027, giving county planners time to research and draft regulations governing data center development. The county had not yet received any applications for data centers at the time of adoption. The moratorium can be extended an additional 4 months if more time is needed to adopt new rules, and terminates early if the county board adopts regulations before the deadline.","summary_technical":"Lake County (FL) Board of County Commissioners, September 9, 2026. Eight-month moratorium on applications to develop and operate data centers in unincorporated Lake County; expires May 11, 2027 (or earlier upon adoption of new regulations); 4-month extension available if needed. Covers 'large-load customers or facilities with substantial electrical, water, or infrastructure demands.' Planning board had recommended a 12-month moratorium; full commission passed 8 months. No data center applications were pending at time of adoption. Commissioner Anthony Sabatini spearheaded the measure. Water-use and electric-grid impacts were primary stated concerns. Lake County is in central Florida, NW of Orlando; county seat is Tavares.","who_is_protected":"Lake County, FL residents (unincorporated areas)","who_must_comply":"Data center and large-load facility developers seeking applications in unincorporated Lake County, FL","citation":"Lake County, FL Board of County Commissioners 8-month data center moratorium (adopted September 9, 2026; expires May 11, 2027)","source_url":"https://www.dailyherald.com/20260909/news/lake-county-approves-8-month-moratorium-on-data-center-applications-development/","source_title":"Lake County approves 8-month moratorium on data center applications, development — Daily Herald","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Lake County Board of County Commissioners; Lake County Planning Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"fl-manatee-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Manatee County, FL — 12-Month Data Center / Large-Load Moratorium (Ordinance 26-42, Adopted Oct. 8, 2026)","short_title":"Manatee County FL 12-month data center moratorium (Ord. 26-42)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Manatee County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Manatee","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-08","enacted_date":"2026-10-08","expires_date":"2027-10-08","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Manatee County, Florida adopted a 12-month moratorium on new applications for building permits, site plans, development orders, rezonings and other approvals for data centers and similar large-load facilities in unincorporated areas. Commissioners approved it on Oct. 8, 2026 after a second public hearing, giving staff time to write rules on electricity and water demand, noise, location and setbacks.","summary_technical":"Manatee County (FL) BOCC — proposed 12-month moratorium ordinance on 'large-load customers or facilities with substantial electrical, water, wastewater or other utility demands' (building permits, site plans, rezones, comprehensive plan amendments; county staff also cite development orders and development agreements). Staff directed to draft July 28, 2026 following SB 484 (effective July 1, 2026). Planning Commission reviewed draft Sept. 17, 2026; BOCC first public hearing/first reading Tuesday Sept. 22, 2026 (no commissioner discussion; one resident spoke in favor); second hearing for final approval on the Oct. 6, 2026 agenda. The earlier 'unanimous' WMNF-reported vote (posted Sept. 15, 2026) was a consent-agenda motion (McCann/Kruse), not adoption of the ordinance. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; exact start/end dates if adopted.","who_is_protected":"Manatee County, FL residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and large-load facility operators seeking applications in Manatee County, FL","citation":"Manatee County, FL, proposed 12-month large-load/data center moratorium ordinance (first hearing Sept. 22, 2026; final hearing scheduled Oct. 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://patch.com/florida/bradenton/12-month-data-center-moratorium-approved-manatee-commissioners","source_title":"12-Month Data Center Moratorium Approved By Manatee Commissioners — Patch (Oct. 9, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Manatee County Board of County Commissioners; Manatee County Planning Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ia-plymouth-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Plymouth County, IA — Board of Supervisors 1-Year Revocable Moratorium on Data Centers and Industrial Battery Storage (June 17, 2026)","short_title":"Plymouth County IA 1-year data center & battery storage moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Plymouth County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Plymouth","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-17","enacted_date":"2026-06-17","expires_date":"2027-06-17","last_verified_date":"2026-09-25","summary_plain":"Plymouth County, Iowa's Board of Supervisors voted 4-0 on June 17, 2026 to impose a one-year revocable moratorium on new data centers and industrial battery storage facilities in unincorporated areas of the county. The measure was introduced by Board Chair Don Kass to give the county time to develop regulations addressing water use, power consumption, and noise issues before any such facilities could be approved. The moratorium is revocable, meaning the board can lift it early. Plymouth County is in northwest Iowa (county seat Le Mars). One board member was absent during the vote.","summary_technical":"Plymouth County, IA Board of Supervisors: 4-0 vote June 17, 2026 (1 member absent) adopting one-year revocable moratorium on data centers and industrial battery energy storage systems (BESS) in unincorporated Plymouth County. Moratorium term: June 17, 2026 through approximately June 17, 2027. Introduced by Board of Supervisors Chair Don Kass. Purpose: give county time to prepare zoning regulations addressing data center impacts on water, electrical infrastructure, and noise. 'Revocable' means the board may lift the moratorium before expiration if permanent rules are adopted. Plymouth County is in NW Iowa (county seat Le Mars; population ~25,000); part of the Siouxland region. Moratorium applies only to unincorporated county areas; incorporated municipalities retain their own zoning authority.","who_is_protected":"Plymouth County, IA residents in unincorporated areas from unregulated data center and battery storage development during the moratorium period","who_must_comply":"Data center and industrial battery storage developers seeking approvals in unincorporated Plymouth County, IA","citation":"Plymouth County, IA Board of Supervisors, one-year revocable moratorium on data centers and industrial battery storage (adopted June 17, 2026, 4-0 vote; estimated expiration June 17, 2027)","source_url":"https://klem1410.com/2026/06/17/plymouth-county-supervisors-approve-one-year-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Plymouth County supervisors approve one-year data center moratorium — KLEM 1410","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Plymouth County Board of Supervisors; Plymouth County planning and zoning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted/processed during moratorium period"},{"id":"ia-sioux-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Sioux County, IA — Board of Supervisors 1-Year Moratorium on Data Centers and Industrial Battery Storage (June 16, 2026)","short_title":"Sioux County IA 1-year data center & battery storage moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Sioux County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Sioux","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-16","enacted_date":"2026-06-16","expires_date":"2027-06-16","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Sioux County, Iowa's Board of Supervisors voted on June 16, 2026 to impose a one-year moratorium on new data centers and industrial battery storage facilities in the county's unincorporated areas. County zoning director Shane Walter and Supervisor Craig Hoftyzer said the moratorium gives county officials time to draft regulations before any data center proposals can advance — similar to how the county handles wind energy and solar developments. Incorporated communities within Sioux County retain their own zoning authority. As of August and September 2026, the county is actively developing permanent ordinances, with public hearings scheduled for October 13 and October 27. A data center developer had confirmed a buyer was in place before the moratorium was imposed.","summary_technical":"Sioux County, IA Board of Supervisors: vote June 16, 2026 adopting one-year moratorium on data centers and industrial battery energy storage systems (BESS) in unincorporated Sioux County. Vote tally not confirmed from accessible sources. Moratorium term: June 16, 2026 through approximately June 16, 2027. Applies only to unincorporated areas; incorporated cities retain independent zoning authority. Background: a data center developer had confirmed a buyer before the moratorium passed; KTIV (June 30) reported developer noted moratorium was 'not ideal' for their project. County zoning director Shane Walter framing: give county time to draft ordinance. Supervisor Craig Hoftyzer: study the issue and develop ordinances similar to wind/solar rules already in place. County is actively working toward permanent rules: as of September 2026, public hearings on permanent regulations scheduled October 13 and October 27, 2026. Sioux County is in NW Iowa (county seat Orange City; population ~35,000); part of the Siouxland region. [2026-10-01] N'West Iowa REVIEW (Sept 23, 2026): P&Z reviewed draft Sept 10 and recommended approval; supervisors to begin voting Sept 29 with three readings (county attorney Tom Kunstle concurred against waiving readings); ~10-page ordinance to be posted on county website; per Walter, 'The moratorium is in place until you formally adopt the amendment' — adoption lifts the moratorium. Sioux County Radio (Sept. 30, 2026): first reading of the amendment to County Ordinance No. 1 passed 4-1 on Sept. 29 (Altena opposed); proposed rules cap data centers at 25 MW per site, require independent third-party power, water and noise studies, paved access, developer-funded first-responder training/equipment and a community betterment agreement with upfront and annual payments; enforcement via certificate-of-occupancy revocation and injunction. Second reading Oct. 13, final reading Oct. 27; effective on publication; moratorium remains until the new regulations take effect. The Oct. 13 / Oct. 27 dates previously described as 'public hearings' are the second and third readings.","who_is_protected":"Sioux County, IA residents in unincorporated areas from unregulated data center and battery storage development during the moratorium period","who_must_comply":"Data center and industrial battery storage developers seeking approvals in unincorporated Sioux County, IA","citation":"Sioux County, IA Board of Supervisors, one-year moratorium on data centers and industrial battery storage (adopted June 16, 2026; estimated expiration June 16, 2027)","source_url":"https://siouxcountyradio.com/local-news/sioux-county-places-one-year-moratorium-on-data-centers-battery-storage-projects/","source_title":"Sioux County Places One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers, Battery Storage Projects — Sioux County Radio","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Sioux County Board of Supervisors; Sioux County planning and zoning department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted/processed during moratorium period"},{"id":"ia-johnson-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Johnson County, IA — Board of Supervisors 1-Year Moratorium on Data Center Permits in Unincorporated Areas (November 6, 2025)","short_title":"Johnson County IA 1-year data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Johnson County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Johnson","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-11-06","enacted_date":"2025-11-06","expires_date":"2026-11-08","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Johnson County, Iowa's Board of Supervisors adopted a one-year moratorium on November 6, 2025 on data center rezoning, site plan approvals, and building permits in unincorporated areas. The moratorium expires November 8, 2026. It excludes Iowa City, North Liberty, and Coralville, which have their own zoning authority. The moratorium was adopted to give the county time to study data centers' impacts on natural resources and develop a permanent ordinance. County staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have been developing proposed regulations that would allow data centers in commercial and industrial zones and as a conditional use in agricultural zones. As of September 2026, the board is expected to consider extending the moratorium in early October given the volume of outstanding policy decisions.","summary_technical":"Johnson County, IA Board of Supervisors: moratorium adopted November 6, 2025 on approval of rezoning applications, site plans, and building permits for data centers in unincorporated Johnson County. Expiration: November 8, 2026 (exactly one year). Scope: unincorporated Johnson County only; excludes incorporated cities (Iowa City, North Liberty, Coralville, others) which retain independent zoning authority. Purpose: allow time to meet with Planning and Zoning Commission and county staff to study data centers' impacts on water, energy, and land resources and develop permanent ordinance. Proposed ordinance under development as of July 2026 would permit data centers by right in commercial and industrial zones and as a conditional use in agricultural zones. Board is considering extension vote in early October 2026. Johnson County is in eastern Iowa (county seat Iowa City; home to University of Iowa; population ~155,000). This is one of the first Iowa county moratoriums adopted; adopted November 2025 predates the Siouxland cluster of June 2026.","who_is_protected":"Johnson County, IA residents in unincorporated areas from unregulated data center development during the moratorium period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking rezoning, site plan approvals, or building permits in unincorporated Johnson County, IA","citation":"Johnson County, IA Board of Supervisors, one-year moratorium on data center permits in unincorporated areas (adopted November 6, 2025; expires November 8, 2026)","source_url":"https://cbs2iowa.com/news/local/johnson-county-imposes-moratorium-on-data-centers-to-protect-resources-and-assess-impacts","source_title":"Johnson County imposes moratorium on data centers to protect resources and assess impacts — CBS2 Iowa","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Johnson County Board of Supervisors; Johnson County Planning and Zoning Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted/processed during moratorium period"},{"id":"ia-taylor-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Taylor County, IA — Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 40: 12-Month Moratorium on Data Centers, Solar, BESS, and Mineral Rights (July 30, 2026)","short_title":"Taylor County IA Ordinance 40 — 12-month data center/BESS/solar moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Taylor County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Taylor","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-30","enacted_date":"2026-07-30","expires_date":"2027-07-30","last_verified_date":"2026-09-25","summary_plain":"Taylor County, Iowa's Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 40 on July 30, 2026, establishing a 12-month temporary moratorium on new applications for data centers, solar energy systems, battery energy storage systems, and mineral rights developments. The moratorium is one of the broadest in Iowa, covering not just data centers but also large-scale solar, battery storage, and mineral rights projects. Taylor County is in southwest Iowa (county seat Bedford). The moratorium expires approximately July 30, 2027.","summary_technical":"Taylor County, IA Board of Supervisors: Ordinance No. 40 adopted July 30, 2026 establishing 12-month moratorium on new applications for (1) data centers, (2) solar energy systems, (3) battery energy storage systems (BESS), and (4) mineral rights developments in unincorporated Taylor County. Notably broad scope combining data centers with energy/extraction uses — consistent with rural Iowa concerns about large-scale energy infrastructure. Source: official taylorcounty.iowa.gov page titled 'Data/Solar/etc Moratorium Draft Passed July 30, 2026' (confirmed in search index; direct page access blocked by environment proxy). Taylor County is in SW Iowa (county seat Bedford; population ~6,200); one of the smaller and more rural Iowa counties in the dataset.","who_is_protected":"Taylor County, IA residents from new large-scale data center, solar, battery storage, and mineral rights development applications during the moratorium period","who_must_comply":"Applicants seeking permits for data centers, solar energy systems, BESS, or mineral rights development in Taylor County, IA","citation":"Taylor County, IA, Ordinance No. 40 (adopted July 30, 2026; 12-month moratorium on data centers, solar, BESS, and mineral rights; expires ~July 30, 2027)","source_url":"https://taylorcounty.iowa.gov/data-solar-etc-moratorium-draft-passed-july-30-2026/","source_title":"Data/Solar/etc Moratorium Draft Passed July 30, 2026 — Taylor County, Iowa (Official)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Taylor County Board of Supervisors; Taylor County planning and zoning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted/processed during moratorium period"},{"id":"ia-iowa-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Iowa County, IA — Board of Supervisors 12-Month Moratorium on New Data Center Development (July 31, 2026)","short_title":"Iowa County IA data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Iowa County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Iowa","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-31","enacted_date":"2026-07-31","expires_date":"2027-07-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-26","summary_plain":"Iowa County, Iowa's Board of Supervisors passed Resolution 2026-07-31 on July 31, 2026, establishing a 12-month moratorium on new data center development while the county studies zoning and regulatory options. The resolution allows case-by-case exceptions if the board grants them. Iowa County is in east-central Iowa (county seat Marengo, population ~16,000). Upgraded to verified-secondary September 26, 2026: official county meeting minutes from iowacounty.iowa.gov confirm Resolution 2026-07-31, corroborated by two Citizen Portal articles.","summary_technical":"Iowa County, IA Board of Supervisors Resolution 2026-07-31 'Establishing a Twelve(12) Month Moratorium' (July 31, 2026). Motion by Montross, seconded by Degen. Iowa County Attorney Tim McMeen and Assistant County Attorney Tim Dille presented the resolution. County to study setbacks, utility impacts, and possible zoning language during the moratorium. Resolution allows case-by-case board exceptions. Iowa County is in east-central Iowa (county seat Marengo; population ~16,000). Estimated expiration: July 31, 2027. [UPGRADED from needs-confirmation to verified-secondary 2026-09-26: (1) iowacounty.iowa.gov official meeting minutes PDF (2026-07-31_minutes_3935.pdf) found in search index confirming Resolution 2026-07-31 and vote details; (2) citizenportal.ai articles 9757419 + 9758590 independently corroborate the moratorium.]","who_is_protected":"Iowa County, IA residents from unregulated data center development during the moratorium period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Iowa County, IA","citation":"Iowa County, IA Board of Supervisors Resolution 2026-07-31 Establishing a Twelve-Month Moratorium (July 31, 2026; expires July 31, 2027)","source_url":"https://iowacounty.iowa.gov/files/meetings/2026-07-31_minutes_3935.pdf","source_title":"Iowa County Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes July 31, 2026 — Resolution 2026-07-31 Data Center Moratorium","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Iowa County Board of Supervisors; Iowa County planning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted/processed during moratorium period; board exceptions available"},{"id":"pyramid-lake-paiute-tribe-nv-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe — Permanent Moratorium on Data Center Development on Tribal Homelands (August 21, 2026)","short_title":"Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe (NV) permanent data center moratorium (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe (NV)","state_abbr":"NV","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-21","enacted_date":"2026-08-21","last_verified_date":"2026-09-26","summary_plain":"The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribal Council passed a permanent moratorium on data center development on Pyramid Lake Paiute tribal homelands on August 21, 2026. Tribal Chairman Steven Wadsworth cited the tribe's decades-long fight for water sovereignty to protect endangered species — including the cui-ui sucker fish and the Lahontan cutthroat trout, found only in Pyramid Lake — and stated that tribal lands simply lack the water or power-grid infrastructure that large-scale data centers require. Autumn Harry, a Pyramid Lake Paiute tribal member and co-founder of the Water Over Data Alliance, has been an active advocate for educating indigenous communities about data centers as 'a form of land theft and water theft.' The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe's reservation spans approximately 475,000 acres in Washoe and Storey Counties, Nevada, centered on Pyramid Lake — a sacred site and one of the largest natural lakes in the Great Basin. The moratorium is permanent (not time-limited), placing it among the strongest tribal land-use restrictions enacted against data centers in 2026.","summary_technical":"Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribal Council resolution (August 21, 2026): permanent moratorium on data center development on Pyramid Lake Paiute homelands. RATIONALE: (1) Water scarcity — Pyramid Lake is a closed basin lake and primary tribal water resource; cui-ui sucker fish and Lahontan cutthroat trout are endemic and Endangered Species Act-listed; (2) Power infrastructure — 'we don't have the infrastructure, the power lines' for data-center-scale energy demand (Chairman Wadsworth, KUNR interview Sep 2, 2026); (3) Cultural and sovereign resource protection — 'Water Over Data Alliance' active on tribal data-center education. GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT: Pyramid Lake Paiute Reservation, ~475,000 acres, Washoe and Storey Counties, NV; Pyramid Lake (a sacred site, ~112 square miles) lies within tribal territory; reservation is approximately 35 miles northeast of Reno, NV. Nevada data-center context: Northern Nevada (Reno-Sparks metro area) is a rapidly growing hub for hyperscale data centers due to power availability and tax incentives; multiple tribal communities near Reno have faced development pressure. COMPARABLE ACTIONS: Moratorium joins Seminole Nation of Oklahoma (March 7, 2026), Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians (April 7, 2026), Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (May 7, 2026), Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (August 2026), and Hualapai Tribe of Arizona (September 2026).","who_is_protected":"Pyramid Lake Paiute tribal members and the tribe's water resources, endangered species, and cultural sites on the reservation.","who_must_comply":"Any entity seeking to develop data centers on Pyramid Lake Paiute tribal homelands.","citation":"Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribal Council resolution (August 21, 2026); reported KUNR Sep 2, 2026","source_url":"https://www.kunr.org/energy-and-environment/2026-09-02/northern-nevada-tribes-speak-out-against-data-centers","source_title":"Northern Nevada tribes speak out against data centers — KUNR (Nevada Public Radio)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribal Council / tribal government","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Tribal government will not authorize data center development; tribal law enforcement powers apply on reservation lands."},{"id":"oh-grove-city-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Grove City, Ohio — City Council Passes 1-Year Moratorium on Data Centers with 6-Month Review and Task Force (June 2026)","short_title":"Grove City OH 1-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Grove City, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Franklin County","city":"Grove City","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-01","enacted_date":"2026-06-01","expires_date":"2027-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-30","summary_plain":"The Grove City City Council voted 6-1 on June 1, 2026 to pause new data center applications for one year. Councilman Randy Holt was the sole dissenting vote. The meeting was standing-room-only and drew dozens of community members, with residents overflowing into the lobby. Amendments added a 6-month review point and a task force to study permanent regulations. Grove City is a fast-growing suburb of Columbus in Franklin County, Ohio, and sits in one of the most active data center moratorium clusters in the country — Central Ohio saw more than a dozen municipalities adopt moratoria in 2025 and 2026. A petition campaign, 'Protect Grassroots Grove City,' had been circulating a Community Consent Amendment that would have required citizen votes on large projects like data centers; the moratorium was adopted instead.","summary_technical":"Grove City, Ohio (Franklin County) — 1-YEAR MORATORIUM on data center applications adopted by the City Council 6-1 on June 1, 2026. Randy Holt (solo dissent). AMENDMENTS: (1) 6-month review clause — Council will evaluate progress on permanent regulations at approximately 6 months; (2) task force — a study body to develop permanent data center regulations. Ohio CENTRAL CONTEXT: Columbus City Council passed a conditional-use ordinance for data centers in July 2026 (oh-columbus-dc-regulations-proposed-2026). Grafton Township and Plain City were also weighing moratoria in the same cluster. The 'Protect Grassroots Grove City' initiative sought a Community Consent Amendment (ballot measure) to require citizen votes on large projects; that track was running concurrently but the moratorium was the adopted instrument. Franklin County is the county seat of Ohio; Grove City's action marks a suburb of Ohio's capital adopting a moratorium — distinct from the rural and exurban Ohio townships that make up the bulk of Ohio's 138-moratorium count. SCOPE not fully established: the moratorium applies to new data center applications; whether it also covers rezonings or permits is not stated. expires_date 2027-06-01 is computed as 12 months from enacted_date; no stated sunset in source. The 6-month review could result in early action or extension.","who_is_protected":"Grove City residents in Franklin County, Ohio","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking new data center applications in Grove City during the moratorium","citation":"Grove City, Ohio — City Council 6-1 vote, 1-year data center moratorium with 6-month review and task force (June 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://cwcolumbus.com/news/local/grove-city-data-center-moratorium-passes","source_title":"Grove City data center moratorium passes — CW Columbus (ABC6 affiliate)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Grove City City Council; Grove City planning department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"in-wabash-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Wabash County, Indiana — County Council Enacts Temporary Moratorium on Data Centers in All Zoning Districts (Ordinance 2026-85-08)","short_title":"Wabash County IN data center moratorium (Ordinance 2026-85-08)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Wabash County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Wabash County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-06","enacted_date":"2026-08-06","last_verified_date":"2026-10-02","summary_plain":"Wabash County, Indiana enacted Ordinance 2026-85-08 on August 6, 2026, imposing a temporary moratorium on data centers across all zoning districts in the county. The moratorium was enacted following a public hearing and prevents new data center development county-wide while the county evaluates its land-use regulations for such facilities. Indiana has seen one of the most extensive local responses to data center expansion in the United States, with nearly one-third of Indiana counties adopting restrictions, moratoriums, or bans.","summary_technical":"Wabash County, Ind. (Wabash County Council) — Ordinance 2026-85-08 imposing a temporary moratorium on DATA CENTERS across ALL ZONING DISTRICTS; enacted at a public hearing on August 6, 2026. SOURCE: official county .gov PDF at secure.in.gov/counties/wabash/files/ordinances/2026-85-08-Ordinance-Imposing-a-Temporary-Moratorium-on-Data-Centers.pdf. SCOPE: applies to all zoning districts in Wabash County — no carve-out for any zone. INSTRUMENT: an ordinance (stronger form than a resolution). TERM LENGTH: not established from the located source URL; expires_date is NULL until the ordinance text confirms a specific end date or review trigger. INDIANA CONTEXT: Wabash County sits in north-central Indiana (Wabash County seat: Wabash). Other indexed Indiana actions include in-elkhart-dc-and-battery-storage-moratorium-2026 (Elkhart, 9-0, Aug. 27, 2026), indianapolis-dc-moratorium-committee-2026 (Indianapolis through 2027), in-steuben-county-dc-moratorium-2026, in-portage-technology-campus-district-2026, and in-ic-6-2-5-15-15-5-data-center-local-revenue-share-2026 (state revenue share). VOTE: not established from located source. NOT ESTABLISHED: the specific term length (expires_date NULL), the exact vote count, any size threshold or exemptions beyond all-zoning-districts scope.","who_is_protected":"Wabash County, Indiana residents — protection from unregulated data center development while the county reviews its land-use regulations","who_must_comply":"Parties seeking to develop data centers in any zoning district within Wabash County, Indiana","citation":"Wabash County, Ind. — Ordinance 2026-85-08, Temporary Moratorium on Data Centers (Aug. 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://secure.in.gov/counties/wabash/files/ordinances/2026-85-08-Ordinance-Imposing-a-Temporary-Moratorium-on-Data-Centers.pdf","source_title":"Ordinance 2026-85-08: Ordinance Imposing a Temporary Moratorium on Data Centers — Wabash County, Indiana (official county .gov PDF)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Wabash County Council; county planning and zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not established from located source"},{"id":"oneida-nation-wi-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Oneida Nation of Wisconsin — Business Committee Resolution 07-22-26-B: Temporary Moratorium on Development, Construction, and Operation of Data Centers","short_title":"Oneida Nation (WI) temporary data center moratorium (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Oneida Nation (WI)","state_abbr":"WI","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-22","enacted_date":"2026-07-22","last_verified_date":"2026-10-03","summary_plain":"The Oneida Nation of Wisconsin's Business Committee adopted Resolution 07-22-26-B on July 22, 2026, imposing a temporary moratorium on the development, construction, and operation of data centers on Oneida Nation lands. The Business Committee found that incomplete information currently exists regarding the potential impacts of data center development and desired to provide adequate time for consultation with Oneida Nation members, technical experts, governmental partners, utility providers, and other stakeholders concerning the potential costs and benefits of such facilities. The Oneida Nation of Wisconsin is a federally recognized tribe located near Green Bay in Brown and Outagamie Counties, with approximately 16,000 enrolled members. The moratorium joins a growing list of tribal government restrictions on data-center development enacted in 2026 by the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma (March), the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (April), the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (May), the Cherokee Nation (August), and the Hualapai Tribe (September).","summary_technical":"Oneida Nation of Wisconsin Business Committee Resolution 07-22-26-B (regular open session, July 22, 2026). INSTRUMENT TYPE: Business Committee resolution — the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin's governing body. FINDING: incomplete information currently exists regarding the potential impacts of data center development on Oneida Nation lands. PURPOSE: provide adequate time for consultation with the Nation's members, technical experts, governmental partners, utility providers, and other stakeholders concerning potential costs and benefits of such facilities. SPONSORS: Jonas Hill (Councilman) and Jennifer Webster (Councilwoman). TERM: temporary — no confirmed end date or review trigger established from located sources; expires_date is NULL. SCOPE: applies to Oneida Nation lands. NOT ESTABLISHED from located sources: vote tally (beyond confirmed passage), specific term length, any size thresholds or exemptions, whether the moratorium has since been extended or lifted. SOURCE DOCUMENT: official oneida-nsn.gov PDF at /wp-content/uploads/2026/07/07-22-26-B-Temporary-Moratorium-on-Development-Construction-and-Operation-of-Data-Centers.pdf. Meeting agenda: /wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026-07-22-BC-Open-pkt-for-public.pdf. TRIBAL CONTEXT: The Oneida Nation of Wisconsin is one of three federally recognized Oneida tribes in the United States (the others being the Oneida Indian Nation of New York and the Oneida Nation of the Thames in Canada). The Wisconsin tribe is distinct from Oneida County, Wisconsin, which separately enacted a one-year data-center moratorium in August 2026.","who_is_protected":"Oneida Nation of Wisconsin members and tribal lands from unregulated data center development during the consultation and study period.","who_must_comply":"Any entity seeking to develop, construct, or operate data centers on Oneida Nation of Wisconsin lands during the moratorium.","citation":"Oneida Nation of Wisconsin Business Committee Resolution 07-22-26-B (July 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://oneida-nsn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/07-22-26-B-Temporary-Moratorium-on-Development-Construction-and-Operation-of-Data-Centers.pdf","source_title":"Resolution 07-22-26-B — Temporary Moratorium on Development, Construction, and Operation of Data Centers (Oneida Nation Business Committee, July 22, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Oneida Nation Business Committee; Oneida Nation tribal government","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Tribal government will not authorize prohibited development during the moratorium; tribal law enforcement powers apply on tribal lands."},{"id":"kiowa-tribe-kl-cy-2025-005-data-sovereignty","title":"Kiowa Tribe — Resolution KL-CY-2025-005: Affirming Tribal Data Sovereignty and Establishing Protections Against Unauthorized Data Collection and Usage","short_title":"Kiowa Tribe data sovereignty resolution (KL-CY-2025-005)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Kiowa Tribe (OK)","state_abbr":"OK","topics":["privacy","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-04-22","enacted_date":"2025-04-12","last_verified_date":"2026-10-03","summary_plain":"The Kiowa Tribe formally adopted Resolution KL-CY-2025-005 on April 12, 2025, affirming its sovereign right to govern, protect, and control all data concerning its members, governance, lands, cultural heritage, and economic enterprises. The resolution declares that such data is the exclusive property of the Kiowa Tribe and may not be exploited, misused, or accessed without tribal authorization. The Kiowa Tribe is a federally recognized tribe headquartered in Carnegie, Oklahoma, with approximately 12,000 enrolled members. The resolution directly addresses AI-era data collection by asserting that no AI system or external entity may collect, use, or process Kiowa data without tribal consent. A companion resolution (KL-CY-2025-00X) established guidelines for data-sharing agreements with external entities, recognizing data as a critical tribal asset.","summary_technical":"Kiowa Tribe Legislature Resolution KL-CY-2025-005, 'A Resolution Affirming Tribal Data Sovereignty, Establishing Protections Against Unauthorized Data Collection and Usage.' Adopted April 12, 2025; effective April 22, 2025. OPERATIVE PROVISIONS (from search-result extracts): (1) affirms the Kiowa Tribe's inherent sovereign right to regulate, protect, and control all data concerning its citizens, governance, lands, cultural heritage, and economic enterprises; (2) declares such data is the EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE KIOWA TRIBE; (3) prohibits exploitation, misuse, or access without tribal authorization; (4) asserts jurisdiction extends to data collected by AI systems, researchers, federal agencies, and commercial entities. COMPANION MEASURE: KL-CY-2025-00X, 'Establishing Guidelines for Enacting a Data Sharing Agreement with External Entities,' adopted the same day (March 5, 2025 draft date), recognizes data as a critical asset requiring protective management. DRAFTING HISTORY: A March 5, 2025 draft circulated as KL-CY-2025-0XX before receiving the final resolution number KL-CY-2025-005. Kiowa Tribe Legislator Warren Queton addressed tribal data sovereignty and AI at a University of Oklahoma forum on March 5, 2025. SOURCE: Kiowa Tribe Law Library canonical URL at https://law.kiowatribe.org/us/nsn/kiowa/council/resolutions/2025/KL-CY-2025-005; official PDF also at https://kiowatribe.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/KL-CY-2025-0XX... NOT ESTABLISHED from located sources: penalty provisions, specific enforcement mechanism, vote tally.","who_is_protected":"Kiowa Tribe members and the tribe's data concerning citizens, governance, lands, cultural heritage, and economic enterprises — including data subjects of AI systems collecting or using Kiowa data.","who_must_comply":"Researchers, federal agencies, companies, and AI developers collecting, using, or processing data about the Kiowa Tribe or its members — including AI systems trained on or operating with such data.","citation":"Kiowa Tribe Legislature Resolution KL-CY-2025-005 (effective April 22, 2025)","source_url":"https://law.kiowatribe.org/us/nsn/kiowa/council/resolutions/2025/KL-CY-2025-005","source_title":"Resolution KL-CY-2025-005 — Affirming Tribal Data Sovereignty, Establishing Protections Against Unauthorized Data Collection and Usage (Kiowa Tribe Law Library)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Kiowa Tribe Legislature / Kiowa Tribe tribal government; contract and tribal law enforcement against violators","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not established from located sources; tribal law enforcement and contract-law remedies apply"},{"id":"mn-hf-1606-nudification-ban-2026","title":"Minnesota HF 1606 — Deepfake and AI Exploitation Prevention Act: First-in-Nation AI Nudification Technology Ban","short_title":"MN HF 1606 AI Nudification Ban (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Minnesota","state_abbr":"MN","topics":["deepfakes","privacy","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-01","enacted_date":"2026-05-07","last_verified_date":"2026-10-04","summary_plain":"Minnesota enacted the first state law in the United States banning AI-powered 'nudification' technology — software that digitally strips clothing from images or videos of real people to create fake nude or sexualized images. Signed by Gov. Tim Walz on May 7, 2026, and effective August 1, 2026, the law makes it illegal for any website, application, software, or service to allow users to access, download, or use nudification tools, or to perform nudification on a user's behalf — even with the user's consent. Civil penalties are at least $500,000 per unlawful access, download, or use, enforced by the Attorney General under Minn. Stat. § 8.31. Injured persons can also sue for up to three times their actual damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. Elon Musk's xAI Corp. sued AG Keith Ellison on July 27, 2026 to block the law; a federal judge (Judge Donovan Frank) denied the preliminary injunction on July 31, 2026 and again on September 4, 2026.","summary_technical":"Minnesota HF 1606 (94th Legislature, 2025-2026 session), codified as the Deepfake and AI Exploitation Prevention Act. Senate companion: SF 1119. Gov. Tim Walz signed May 7, 2026; effective August 1, 2026. Votes: House 132-1 (April 23, 2026); Senate 65-0. OPERATIVE PROVISIONS: (1) Bans any person who owns or runs a website, application, software, program, or other service from allowing users to 'access, download, or use' the service 'to nudify an image or video'; (2) also bans nudifying on behalf of a user, even with consent; (3) exception: services requiring the technical skill of the user to nudify (e.g., manual Photoshop editing) remain legal — only automated/one-click nudification tools are prohibited. PENALTIES: Attorney General enforces under Minn. Stat. § 8.31; civil penalty 'not less than $500,000 for each unlawful access, download, or use.' PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION: An injured person may sue for compensatory damages up to 3× actual damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorney's fees. SCOPE: Applies to commercial nudification platforms and apps accessible in Minnesota; does not directly target individual users who manually edit photos. CHALLENGE STATUS: xAI Corp. v. Ellison (D. Minn., filed July 27, 2026): First Amendment challenge; preliminary injunction denied July 31, 2026 (Judge Donovan Frank — xAI failed to show irreparable harm; court noted xAI waited three months after signing before suing); second preliminary injunction denied September 4, 2026 (same judge, second denial). Law remains fully in effect.","who_is_protected":"Anyone depicted in nudified images or videos — particularly people targeted by non-consensual deepfake intimate imagery; minors are a primary concern","who_must_comply":"Owners and operators of websites, applications, software, programs, and other digital services that offer or facilitate AI nudification functionality accessible in Minnesota","citation":"Minn. Sess. Law 2026, Ch. [pending publication]; HF 1606 (94th Leg., 2025-2026)","source_url":"https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/94/2025/0/HF/1606/versions/2","source_title":"HF 1606, 94th Legislature — Minnesota Revisor of Statutes (enrolled version)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Minnesota Attorney General (AG Keith Ellison); private civil actions by injured persons","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"AG civil penalty: not less than $500,000 per unlawful access, download, or use; private plaintiff: up to 3× actual damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorney's fees"},{"id":"litig-xai-v-ellison-mn-nudification-2026","title":"xAI Corp. v. Ellison — First Amendment Challenge to Minnesota AI Nudification Ban (D. Minn. 2026)","short_title":"xAI v. Ellison (MN nudification ban challenge)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Minnesota","state_abbr":"MN","topics":["deepfakes","privacy","consumer-protection"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","effective_date":"2026-07-27","enacted_date":"2026-07-27","last_verified_date":"2026-10-04","summary_plain":"Elon Musk's xAI Corp. filed a federal lawsuit in Minnesota on July 27, 2026 — three months after Gov. Walz signed the state's AI nudification ban — seeking to block the law on First Amendment grounds. U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank denied xAI's first preliminary injunction request on July 31, 2026, just one day before the law took effect on August 1. The judge denied a second injunction bid on September 4, 2026, rejecting xAI's irreparable-harm argument and noting the company's delay in bringing suit. The Minnesota AG's office argued the law protects people from the serious harm of non-consensual deepfake intimate imagery. The underlying lawsuit remains pending on the merits.","summary_technical":"xAI Corp. v. Ellison, D. Minn. (filed July 27, 2026). Defendant: Minnesota AG Keith Ellison. Challenge: First Amendment — xAI argues HF 1606's ban on AI nudification tools is a content-based speech restriction not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest. Judge: Donovan Frank (U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota). PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HISTORY: (1) July 31, 2026 — Judge Frank denied first TRO/preliminary injunction; court found xAI's three-month delay after the May 7 signing undermined the claim of irreparable harm ('xAI is a sophisticated and well-resourced litigant with the means to move quickly when its interests are at stake'); (2) September 4, 2026 — court denied second preliminary injunction request; court found xAI failed to prove irreparable harm and that the State had a substantial interest in protecting the public from AI-nudification harm. HF 1606 effective August 1, 2026 throughout. Companion case: Doe v. X.AI Corp. (No. 5:26-cv-00772, N.D. Cal.) involving NCII deepfake class action (indexed separately). Note: xAI Corp. is Elon Musk's AI company, which also faces separate antitrust/preemption challenges over Colorado SB 26-189 (indexed as co-admt-sb26-189-2026).","who_is_protected":"Minnesota AI nudification ban enforcement; the litigation outcome will determine whether HF 1606 can serve as a national template for other states","who_must_comply":"xAI Corp. (plaintiff seeking to avoid compliance with HF 1606); decision would affect all operators of AI nudification services","citation":"xAI Corp. v. Ellison, D. Minn. (2026)","source_url":"https://ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2026/09/04_xAI.asp","source_title":"Judge again denies X.AI's attempt to block Minnesota's AI nudification ban — MN AG Office (Sept. 4, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Minnesota AG Keith Ellison (defendant/enforcer of HF 1606); Judge Donovan Frank (D. Minn.)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"N/A — this is a challenge to enforcement, not an enforcement action"},{"id":"tx-hb-3512-gov-ai-training","title":"Texas HB 3512 — State and Local Government Employees Who Use Computers at Least 25% of Job Duties Must Complete Annual DIR-Certified AI Awareness Training Beginning FY2026 (Effective September 1, 2025)","short_title":"Texas HB 3512 government AI training mandate (2025)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-01","enacted_date":"2025-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-10-06","summary_plain":"Texas HB 3512 requires state and local government employees who use a computer as at least 25 percent of their job duties to complete annual AI awareness training, beginning in FY2026 (which starts September 1, 2025 in Texas). The Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR) certifies at least five training programs. Each program must meet seven statutory standards: it must be designed for adults, cover practical use cases and examples of AI use in the workplace, define AI, be self-paced and online, take two hours or less, have no licensure requirement, and be offered at no cost. The 25 percent threshold is meaningful: it applies broadly across state agencies and political subdivisions, reaching not only IT workers but any employee whose job substantially involves a computer — administrators, case workers, clerks. The training mandate is a companion to Texas Government Code Chapter 2054 Subchapter S, already indexed as tx-ch-2054-ai-gov, which established the broader AI governance framework for state agencies requiring agency AI use inventories, responsible-use policies, and bias-risk assessments. HB 3512 adds the workforce-facing layer to that framework.","summary_technical":"Texas HB 3512, 89th Legislature, Regular Session (2025). Effective: September 1, 2025 (FY2026). Codified in Texas Government Code (exact section not confirmed; likely amends Ch. 2054 or adds adjacent section). OPERATIVE REQUIREMENTS: (1) STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES who use a computer as part of their job AT LEAST 25% OF JOB DUTIES must complete annual AI awareness training beginning FY2026. (2) Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR) must CERTIFY AT LEAST FIVE AI AWARENESS TRAINING PROGRAMS that meet the following seven statutory standards: (a) designed for use by adults in a work environment; (b) covers practical use cases and examples of AI use in the workplace; (c) provides definitions of artificial intelligence; (d) is self-paced and online; (e) can be completed in two hours or less; (f) does not require a license to access or use; (g) is offered at no cost. SCOPE: applies to political subdivisions (counties, cities, school districts) in addition to state agencies. RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING FRAMEWORK: companion to Govt Code Ch. 2054 Subchapter S (tx-ch-2054-ai-gov), which requires state agencies to maintain AI use inventories, develop responsible-use policies, and conduct bias-risk assessments. HB 3512 adds the workforce training layer. Also related to tx-agencyguidance-ai-systems-code-of-ethics-and-minimum-risk-management-and-go-2026 (1 TAC Ch. 219, eff. March 1, 2026). TRAIGA (HB 149, eff. Jan 1, 2026, tx-hb-149-traiga) is distinct — it governs private sector high-risk AI systems; HB 3512 governs only public sector employee training. ENFORCEMENT: not stated in located sources. No private right of action is mentioned.","who_is_protected":"Public sector employees using AI in their work, who receive baseline literacy training; residents interacting with government AI systems whose operators are trained","who_must_comply":"State agencies and political subdivisions (counties, cities, school districts, other local government entities) whose employees use a computer at least 25% of job duties","citation":"Tex. H.B. 3512, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025); Texas Gov't Code (Ch. 2054 or adjacent section, eff. Sept. 1, 2025)","source_url":"https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/analysis/html/HB03512S.htm","source_title":"HB 3512 Senate Committee Report Analysis — Texas Legislature Online (89th R.S.)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR) — certifies training programs; agency heads and political subdivision leadership responsible for compliance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in located sources"},{"id":"va-vita-ea400-ai-utilization-policy-2026","title":"Virginia VITA EA400 Artificial Intelligence (AI) Utilization Policy — All Executive Branch Agencies and Institutions of Higher Education Must Demonstrate Positive Citizen Outcome and Obtain VITA Approval Before Deploying AI (Updated June 2026)","short_title":"Virginia VITA EA400 AI Utilization Policy (Executive Branch AI deployment standard, 2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-01","enacted_date":"2026-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-10-07","summary_plain":"Virginia's IT governance agency (VITA) published an updated Artificial Intelligence (AI) Utilization Policy (standard EA400) in June 2026. The policy applies to all Virginia Executive Branch state agencies and institutions of higher education. Before deploying any AI capability, an agency must satisfy three conditions: (1) there is a positive outcome for citizens; (2) AI is the optimal solution for the problem; and (3) a regulatory impact analysis has been completed. Agencies must register all AI use cases with VITA before deployment, and VITA maintains a central AI registry to track and approve new use cases across state government. The policy is an internal governance standard — it governs how state agencies use AI, not how private entities must behave.","summary_technical":"Virginia VITA Enterprise Architecture Standard EA400 — Artificial Intelligence (AI) Utilization Policy (updated June 2026). AUTHORITY: Virginia IT Agency (VITA) under Va. Code § 2.2-2005 et seq. (VITA IT governance authority for Executive Branch). SCOPE: All Executive Branch state agencies and institutions of higher education (colleges/universities that use state IT systems). DEPLOYMENT CONDITIONS — before deploying any AI capability, the agency must demonstrate: (1) POSITIVE CITIZEN OUTCOME: AI use must result in a positive outcome for citizens; (2) OPTIMAL SOLUTION: AI must be the optimal solution for the identified problem; (3) REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS: agency must complete a regulatory impact analysis prior to deployment. REGISTRY REQUIREMENT: all AI use cases must be registered with VITA prior to deployment; VITA maintains a central AI registry for analysis and approval of new AI use cases across state government. GOVERNANCE MECHANISM: policy is implemented through VITA's Enterprise Architecture standards program; compliance is mandatory for all covered entities under VITA's IT governance authority. LIMITATIONS: this is an internal government IT governance policy; it does not create private rights of action for citizens, does not apply to private entities, and does not carry independent statutory penalty provisions beyond VITA's existing IT governance enforcement authority. SOURCE: vita.virginia.gov official PDF (EA400 standard document).","who_is_protected":"Virginia residents interacting with state government AI systems, through a requirement that agencies demonstrate positive citizen outcome before deploying AI","who_must_comply":"All Virginia Executive Branch state agencies and institutions of higher education","citation":"Virginia VITA Enterprise Architecture Standard EA400, Artificial Intelligence (AI) Utilization Policy (updated June 2026); Va. Code § 2.2-2005 et seq.","source_url":"https://www.vita.virginia.gov/media/vitavirginiagov/it-governance/ea/pdf/Artificial-Intelligence-(AI)-Utilization-Policy.pdf","source_title":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) Utilization Policy EA400 — Virginia Information Technologies Agency (VITA)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Virginia Information Technologies Agency (VITA) — administers EA standards; Chief Information Officer of the Commonwealth","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"VITA IT governance enforcement; non-compliant deployments may be required to register or cease operation; no standalone penalty provision stated in policy"},{"id":"in-grant-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Grant County, IN — Commissioners Adopt 24-Month Moratorium on Data Center Permits While Area Plan Commission Studies Zoning Amendments (Ordinance No. 4-2026, March 16, 2026)","short_title":"Grant County IN 24-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Grant County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Grant County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-03-16","enacted_date":"2026-03-16","expires_date":"2028-03-16","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Grant County, Indiana adopted a 24-month moratorium on data center permits on March 16, 2026 — one of the earliest and longest-duration county moratoria in the Indiana data center wave of 2026. Ordinance No. 4-2026 halts issuance of improvement-location permits and related applications for structures connected to data centers in unincorporated areas of the county. It remains in effect for 24 months or until the Area Plan Commission recommends a zoning amendment addressing data centers, whichever comes first. County Attorney Marty Harker drafted the ordinance, noting that the Grant County Zoning Ordinance had never addressed data centers — a code-silence problem common to many rural Indiana counties. Grant County's seat is the city of Marion (a different Marion from Marion County, which is Indianapolis).","summary_technical":"Grant County, Indiana — Ordinance No. 4-2026, adopted by the Board of Commissioners on March 16, 2026 (initial vote March 2, 2026; official signing March 16). INSTRUMENT: 24-month moratorium halting issuance or receipt of improvement-location permits and related applications for structures connected to data centers in unincorporated Grant County, Indiana. TRIGGER: code-silence — the Grant County Zoning Ordinance had not addressed data centers as a use class prior to this ordinance. DURATION: 24 months from adoption (expires approx. March 16, 2028) OR until the Grant County Area Plan Commission completes a study and recommends a zoning ordinance amendment addressing data centers, whichever occurs first. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE: unincorporated Grant County (excludes incorporated cities and towns including county seat Marion, IN). DRAFTING: County Attorney Marty Harker; Commissioner Ron Stewart (District 3) moved initial vote. STRENGTH: moderate — 24-month duration exceeds most Indiana county moratoria (typical range: 6-12 months), but is still a permit pause rather than a permanent standard. INDIANA CONTEXT: as of July 2026, Indiana University's Environmental Resilience Institute counted at least 17 Indiana counties with temporary moratoriums and 11 with data center ordinances; Grant County is among the earlier adopters (March vs. summer 2026 wave). Grant County is in north-central Indiana; county seat is Marion, IN (not the same as Marion County/Indianapolis).","who_is_protected":"Unincorporated Grant County, IN residents from unregulated large data center development during the moratorium period while the Area Plan Commission develops zoning standards","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking improvement-location permits or related approvals in unincorporated Grant County, Indiana","citation":"Grant County, Indiana, Ordinance No. 4-2026 (adopted March 16, 2026; 24-month moratorium on data center permits in unincorporated areas; expires March 16, 2028 or upon adoption of APC-recommended zoning amendment)","source_url":"https://www.chronicle-tribune.com/news/commissioners-pass-data-center-moratorium/article_a55a569b-62b5-578c-912e-f183d461f1b9.html","source_title":"Commissioners pass data center moratorium — Chronicle-Tribune (Marion, IN)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Grant County Area Plan Commission; Grant County Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Permits not accepted or processed during moratorium period"},{"id":"in-madison-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Madison County, IN — Commissioners Unanimously Adopt a Data Center Moratorium in June 2026; Plan Commission Recommends 12-Month Extension (Anderson Area, Howard County Border)","short_title":"Madison County IN data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Madison County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Madison County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-01","enacted_date":"2026-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Madison County, Indiana's commissioners voted unanimously in June 2026 to impose a data center moratorium, taking effect immediately — one of the first Indiana counties to act in the summer 2026 wave. The moratorium was initially for a shorter period; the county's Plan Commission subsequently voted 7-0 to recommend extending it to 12 months, with the extension scheduled for the commissioners' August 4 meeting. County planning staff noted that no data center applications had been filed before the moratorium. Businesses and the Madison County Economic Development Corporation opposed the pause. County planning expected to complete its data center ordinance work by October 2026 in advance of public hearings. Madison County's seat is Anderson, IN; the county is in central Indiana adjacent to Howard County (Kokomo).","summary_technical":"Madison County, Indiana Board of Commissioners — unanimous vote in June 2026 for short-term data center moratorium (exact date not confirmed from accessible sources; June per Indiana Public Radio reporting). Effective immediately upon vote. Plan Commission vote: 7-0 to recommend 12-month extension (Jerry Alexander voting present). Extension sent to Commissioners for vote at August 4 meeting (outcome not confirmed in accessible sources). SCOPE: data center permit applications in Madison County; no applications were on file prior to adoption. PLANNING TIMELINE: county staff expected to complete ordinance work by October 2026 for public hearings. OPPOSITION: Madison County Economic Development Corporation (Monique Flores) argued the moratorium would have negative economic growth effects. INDIANA CONTEXT: Madison County joins a substantial cohort — as of July 2026, Indiana University's Environmental Resilience Institute counted 17+ Indiana counties with temporary moratoriums. Commissioner Richwine indicated skepticism of a 1-year pause at the time of the initial vote, suggesting he would prefer a shorter duration with an option to extend. Madison County (seat Anderson) is in central Indiana; borders Howard County (Kokomo, subject to its own data center ordinance process).","who_is_protected":"Madison County, IN residents from unregulated data center development during moratorium while planning develops standards","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits in Madison County, Indiana","citation":"Madison County, Indiana — data center moratorium (June 2026; Plan Commission recommended 12-month extension for Aug. 4 Commissioners vote)","source_url":"https://indianapublicradio.org/news/2026/06/madison-county-passes-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Madison County passes short-term data center moratorium — Indiana Public Radio","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Madison County Board of Commissioners; Madison County Area Plan Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted/processed during moratorium period"},{"id":"in-washington-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Washington County, IN — Commissioners Adopt 12-Month Moratorium on Commercial and Large-Scale Data Centers (August 5, 2026); Planning Commission to Draft Zoning Amendments","short_title":"Washington County IN 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Washington County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Washington County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-05","enacted_date":"2026-08-05","expires_date":"2027-08-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Washington County, Indiana adopted a 12-month moratorium on commercial and large-scale data centers on August 5, 2026, giving planners time to study environmental, economic, and utility impacts before a facility is proposed. The resolution covers any structure larger than 2,000 square feet intended chiefly to house data-processing equipment. The Planning Commission is directed to draft ordinance amendments within the moratorium period. The moratorium will remain in effect for up to 12 months or until replaced by a permanent ordinance. Washington County is in south-central Indiana; its county seat is Salem.","summary_technical":"Washington County, Indiana — 12-month moratorium on commercial and large-scale data-center development, adopted by the Board of Commissioners on August 5, 2026. THRESHOLD DEFINITION: 'data center' is defined in the resolution as a structure larger than 2,000 square feet intended chiefly to house data-processing equipment. This is a meaningful definitional boundary — structures under 2,000 sq ft or with a different primary purpose are not covered. DURATION: up to 12 months (to approximately August 5, 2027) or until replaced by a permanent ordinance, whichever comes first. PURPOSE: provide time to study environmental, economic, and utility impacts. Planning Commission directed to draft ordinance amendments within the moratorium period. SCOPE: commercial and large-scale data centers; does not affect projects already operating or approved. Washington County is in southern Indiana; county seat Salem, IN. The moratorium does not include a no-permanent-ban language, so it is a standard permit pause. INDIANA CONTEXT: joins the cohort of Indiana county moratoria documented throughout 2026; one report listed Madison, Boone, Fulton, Dearborn, Putnam, Pulaski, Marshall, Starke, White and Marion counties alongside Washington County with pauses.","who_is_protected":"Washington County, IN residents from unregulated commercial and large-scale data center development","who_must_comply":"Developers of commercial or large-scale data centers (structures >2,000 sq ft intended chiefly to house data-processing equipment) in Washington County, Indiana","citation":"Washington County, Indiana — 12-month data center moratorium (adopted August 5, 2026; structure > 2,000 sq ft threshold; expires ~August 5, 2027 or upon permanent ordinance adoption)","source_url":"https://www.lpm.org/news/2026-06-17/indiana-community-passes-short-term-data-center-moratorium","source_title":"Indiana community passes short-term data center moratorium — Louisville Public Media (LPM)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Washington County Board of Commissioners; Washington County Planning Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted/processed during moratorium period"},{"id":"ks-riley-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Riley County, KS — Commissioners Adopt 6-Month Moratorium on Data Centers and Battery Energy Storage Facilities to Study Impacts Before Drafting Regulations (May 18–November 12, 2026)","short_title":"Riley County KS 6-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Riley County, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Riley County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-05-18","enacted_date":"2026-05-18","expires_date":"2026-11-12","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Riley County, Kansas adopted a 6-month moratorium on data centers and battery energy storage facilities that took effect on May 18, 2026, after publication in the county's official newspaper. The pause runs through November 12, 2026 and gives the county time to study impacts and develop regulations. County Planning Director Amanda Webb said no data center applications had been received before the moratorium, so the pause is a proactive step rather than a response to a pending project. The commission is expected to develop criteria covering water, power, and safety before the moratorium expires. Riley County's seat is Manhattan, Kansas (home of Kansas State University); neighboring Pottawatomie County has attracted interest from a data center developer near the Jeffrey Energy Center.","summary_technical":"Riley County, Kansas — 6-month moratorium on data centers and battery energy storage centers, approved by commissioners in April 2026 and effective upon publication in The Mercury (the official county newspaper) on May 18, 2026. Expires November 12, 2026. Commissioners may extend, amend, or end the resolution before expiration. SCOPE: county-wide; applies to data centers and battery energy storage centers. THRESHOLD: not defined in accessible coverage; the moratorium appears to cover data center land-use applications broadly. PROCESS: Resolution directs county staff to review existing land development regulations; Planning Board/Board of Zoning Appeals to bring forward proposed amendments. County has signaled it will not grant tax abatements for such projects. No applications were on file prior to adoption. NEIGHBORING CONTEXT: Pottawatomie County (adjacent to Riley) attracted interest from Beltline Energy for a data center near Jeffrey Energy Center; Riley County officials cited Commissioner John Ford's comment that the topic 'literally changes on a dime.' KANSAS CONTEXT: Riley County joins Harvey, Sedgwick, Saline, Geary, Franklin, and Shawnee counties with similar pauses; the statewide trend also produced state legislative activity (SB 531, which was proposed but not confirmed passed). County seat Manhattan, KS is also home to Kansas State University.","who_is_protected":"Riley County, KS residents and agricultural/water resources from unregulated data center and battery storage development during the moratorium period","who_must_comply":"Data center and battery energy storage facility developers seeking land-use approvals in Riley County, Kansas","citation":"Riley County, Kansas — data center and battery storage moratorium (effective May 18, 2026; expires November 12, 2026; subject to extension)","source_url":"https://www.wibw.com/2026/06/02/riley-county-planning-director-shares-details-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Riley County Planning Director shares details on data center moratorium — WIBW News 13","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Riley County Planning and Zoning; Board of County Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted/processed during moratorium period"},{"id":"ks-topeka-dc-moratorium-utility-2026","title":"Topeka, KS — City Council Passes 1-Year Data Center Moratorium (July 2026), Then Amends It to Also Restrict Utility Connections for Data Centers Both Inside and Outside City Limits","short_title":"Topeka KS 1-year data center moratorium + utility restriction (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Topeka, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Shawnee County","city":"Topeka","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-07-01","expires_date":"2027-07-01","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"The Topeka, Kansas City Council passed a one-year moratorium on new data centers in July 2026, then went further with an amendment that also restricts city utility connections for data centers — both inside and outside city limits. The utility restriction closes a loophole: without it, city staff could extend water or power service to a data center outside the city's boundaries under administrative authority, allowing a project to proceed despite the moratorium. The council suspended its normal four-month rule to amend ordinances so it could act more quickly. Topeka is the county seat of Shawnee County and the Kansas state capital. Shawnee County separately adopted a 6-month moratorium on August 13, 2026 (indexed as ks-shawnee-county-dc-moratorium-2026); this city-level measure is distinct.","summary_technical":"City of Topeka, Kansas City Council — 1-year data center moratorium passed in July 2026. Subsequently amended to add utility connection restriction; council suspended its standard 4-month waiting period for ordinance amendments to expedite the change. UTILITY RESTRICTION: prohibits city staff from extending utility connections (water, power) for data center projects both inside AND outside city limits — plugs an administrative loophole that would let staff service a data center in the extraterritorial service area without council review. This extraterritorial utility restriction is a more aggressive instrument than a simple within-city permit freeze: it prevents a developer from circumventing the moratorium by locating outside city limits but connecting to Topeka utilities. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE: (1) moratorium portion — new data center approvals within the City of Topeka; (2) utility restriction portion — city utility connections for data centers regardless of whether the data center site is inside or outside city limits. DISTINCTION FROM SHAWNEE COUNTY: Shawnee County (ks-shawnee-county-dc-moratorium-2026) adopted a separate 6-month county-level moratorium on August 13, 2026, covering unincorporated areas; the Topeka city measure covers the incorporated city. Topeka is the county seat and state capital of Kansas; population ~126,000. COMPASS DATACENTERS: the Shawnee County moratorium was partly triggered by a Compass Datacenters CUP application; Topeka's July moratorium predates the county's August action and may have provided the political model. effective_date and expires_date set to July 1, 2026 and July 1, 2027 as approximate placeholders (exact dates within July not confirmed).","who_is_protected":"Topeka, KS residents from unregulated data center development and from city resources being committed to data centers outside city boundaries without council oversight","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals or city utility connections within or adjacent to the City of Topeka, Kansas","citation":"City of Topeka, Kansas — 1-year data center moratorium (July 2026) as amended to include utility connection restriction inside and outside city limits; Topeka City Code (exact ordinance number not confirmed)","source_url":"https://www.ksnt.com/news/local-news/data-center-moratorium-language-amended-by-topeka-city-council-heres-what-changed/","source_title":"Data center moratorium language amended by Topeka City Council — here's what changed — KSNT 27 News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Topeka City Council; City of Topeka utilities department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted; utility connection requests denied during moratorium period"},{"id":"nyc-int-0919-2026-ai-oversight-office","title":"NYC Int 0919-2026 — Office of Artificial Intelligence Oversight","short_title":"Office of Artificial Intelligence Oversight","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York City","state_abbr":"NY","county":"New York","city":"New York","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Would establish an Office of Artificial Intelligence Oversight within the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. The office would investigate complaints about AI systems violating consumer protection laws, recommend enforcement actions, maintain a public complaint portal, run AI-harm consumer awareness campaigns, and propose rules clarifying how existing consumer protections apply to AI.","summary_technical":"Local Law to amend the New York city charter and the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to establishing an office of artificial intelligence oversight. Introduced 2026-05-20, referred same day to Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection.","who_is_protected":"NYC consumers and workers harmed by AI-driven decisions.","who_must_comply":"NYC agencies and private entities deploying AI in consumer-facing contexts.","citation":"NYC Int 0919-2026","source_url":"https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8034442&GUID=669B5731-411B-40A9-99F2-6AD05E945AE8","source_title":"NYC Council Legistar — Int 0919-2026","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (proposed Office of AI Oversight)","penalties":"To be set by rule if enacted; bill creates investigative + enforcement-recommendation authority."},{"id":"nyc-int-0287-2026-ai-gender-impact","title":"NYC Int 0287-2026 — Gendered Impact Assessment of Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"AI Gendered Impact Assessment + Interagency Taskforce","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York City","state_abbr":"NY","county":"New York","city":"New York","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","employment","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Requires the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications to conduct biennial assessments of whether algorithmic tools using gender data may create disparate impacts. Establishes an interagency task force meeting at least twice yearly to evaluate how AI affects city employees' employment outcomes by gender (job displacement, role changes). Task force draws from administrative services, worker protection, human rights, technology, and gender equity agencies.","summary_technical":"Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to an interagency taskforce and reporting on a gendered impact assessment of artificial intelligence.","who_is_protected":"NYC city employees, in particular women and gender-minority employees affected by AI-driven employment decisions.","who_must_comply":"NYC city agencies using AI tools that influence employment outcomes.","citation":"NYC Int 0287-2026","source_url":"https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?From=RSS&ID=7862228&GUID=677D37C3-C823-4EC2-BC10-A89A3DEF897D","source_title":"NYC Council Legistar — Int 0287-2026","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NYC Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (DoITT)"},{"id":"nyc-int-0213-2026-biometric-public-accommodation-ban","title":"NYC Int 0213-2026 — Ban on Biometric Recognition in Places of Public Accommodation","short_title":"Ban biometric recognition in public accommodations (Ban The Scan)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York City","state_abbr":"NY","county":"New York","city":"New York","topics":["biometrics","facial-recognition","privacy","consumer-protection"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Would make it illegal for places of public accommodation (stores, restaurants, music venues, theaters, etc.) to use biometric recognition systems to verify or identify customers without notice and prior written consent. Requires written policies governing use of collected biometric data and procedures for customers to request erasure of their biometric information.","summary_technical":"Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York in relation to prohibiting places or providers of public accommodation from using biometric recognition technology and protecting any biometric identifier information collected.","who_is_protected":"Customers/patrons of NYC businesses and public accommodations.","who_must_comply":"Owners and operators of NYC places of public accommodation that deploy biometric recognition.","citation":"NYC Int 0213-2026","source_url":"https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7861954&GUID=1D5898C5-53CA-49DA-BA41-84EF0DD03FC3","source_title":"NYC Council Legistar — Int 0213-2026","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"As reported in September 2026 coverage of the current draft: customers could sue for violations with damages of up to $5,000 for each intentional or reckless breach. Earlier Legistar-derived text said penalties were to be set by rule — reconcile against the enacted version if it passes."},{"id":"nyc-int-0428-2026-residential-facial-recognition-ban","title":"NYC Int 0428-2026 — Limit on Facial Recognition in Residential Buildings","short_title":"Limit facial recognition in residential buildings (Ban The Scan)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York City","state_abbr":"NY","county":"New York","city":"New York","topics":["biometrics","facial-recognition","privacy","housing-credit"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Would prohibit owners of multiple dwellings from installing or using biometric recognition systems that identify tenants or their guests. Modifies existing smart-access regulations and adds new restrictions on facial recognition and related biometric technologies in residential settings.","summary_technical":"Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to limiting the use of facial recognition technology in residential buildings.","who_is_protected":"NYC tenants and their guests in multiple-dwelling buildings.","who_must_comply":"Owners of NYC multiple-dwelling residential buildings.","citation":"NYC Int 0428-2026","source_url":"https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7862812&GUID=82868853-7D34-466F-B2FD-0617D9CF75DC","source_title":"NYC Council Legistar — Int 0428-2026","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development","penalties":"To be set by rule if enacted."},{"id":"nyc-res-0175-2026-advanced-ai-licensing","title":"NYC Res 0175-2026 — Calling for NYS Advanced AI Licensing Act","short_title":"NYC resolution urging NY State to pass Advanced AI Licensing Act (A.3356)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York City","state_abbr":"NY","county":"New York","city":"New York","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"unknown","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Resolution urging the NY State Legislature to enact, and Governor Hochul to sign, the Advanced AI Licensing Act (A.3356) — which would establish state oversight through the Department of State, require licensing for high-risk AI systems, and ban particularly dangerous applications like autonomous weapons.","summary_technical":"Resolution calling on the New York State Legislature to pass, and the Governor to sign, the advanced artificial intelligence licensing act.","who_is_protected":"New Yorkers using or subject to AI systems in healthcare, law enforcement, and employment.","who_must_comply":"(Non-binding resolution; the underlying state bill A.3356 would license operators of high-risk AI.)","citation":"NYC Res 0175-2026","source_url":"https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?From=RSS&ID=7866383&GUID=D36362CE-4886-4F16-A7F5-1281A86A391C","source_title":"NYC Council Legistar — Res 0175-2026","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"seattle-cb-121214-data-center-moratorium-2026","title":"Seattle CB 121214 — Emergency Moratorium on New Data Centers","short_title":"Emergency 365-day moratorium on new data centers (>20 MVA)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Seattle","state_abbr":"WA","county":"King","city":"Seattle","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-09","enacted_date":"2026-06-09","expires_date":"2027-06-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Emergency 365-day temporary freeze on new data center siting in Seattle. Defines data centers as facilities with power capacity over 20 megavolt-amperes (MVA) used primarily to store and process digital data. May be extended for an additional six months. A public hearing is required within 60 days of adoption.","summary_technical":"Amended Council Bill 121214 — Emergency interim moratorium ordinance on the siting of new data centers exceeding 20 MVA. Adopted unanimously June 9, 2026; emergency designation makes it effective immediately.","who_is_protected":"Seattle utility ratepayers, electrical grid reliability, residents in or near proposed data-center sites.","who_must_comply":"Developers and operators seeking to site new data centers in Seattle.","citation":"Seattle CB 121214 (2026)","source_url":"https://council.seattle.gov/2026/06/09/city-council-passes-emergency-data-center-moratorium-and-policy-framework/","source_title":"Seattle City Council — Press release on CB 121214 passage (June 9, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections","penalties":"Permit denial; standard zoning enforcement."},{"id":"seattle-res-32204-data-center-policy-framework-2026","title":"Seattle Resolution 32204 — Data Center Impact-Study Policy Framework","short_title":"Resolution setting Seattle data-center impact-study framework","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Seattle","state_abbr":"WA","county":"King","city":"Seattle","topics":["data-centers","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-09","enacted_date":"2026-06-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Companion resolution to CB 121214. Calls for impact studies on data centers' effects on electrical grid reliability, water consumption, environmental sustainability, utility rates, land use, employment, public health, and community welfare. Requests coordinated cross-departmental action to develop future policies.","summary_technical":"Resolution 32204 establishing the policy framework directing Seattle departments to analyze data-center impacts and develop policy recommendations during the CB 121214 moratorium period.","who_is_protected":"Seattle utility ratepayers, environmental quality.","who_must_comply":"Seattle City Light, Department of Construction and Inspections, Office of Sustainability and Environment, other relevant departments.","citation":"Seattle Res 32204 (2026)","source_url":"https://council.seattle.gov/2026/06/09/city-council-passes-emergency-data-center-moratorium-and-policy-framework/","source_title":"Seattle City Council — Press release on Resolution 32204","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of the Mayor (Seattle)"},{"id":"minneapolis-data-center-moratorium-2026-05","title":"Minneapolis Interim Ordinance — Six-Month Moratorium on Large Data Centers","short_title":"Six-month moratorium on data centers >350,000 sq ft (Minneapolis)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Minneapolis","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Hennepin","city":"Minneapolis","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-05-22","enacted_date":"2026-05-22","expires_date":"2026-11-22","last_verified_date":"2026-06-29","summary_plain":"Six-month moratorium on the construction, re-establishment, or expansion of data centers larger than 350,000 square feet anywhere in Minneapolis. As an interim ordinance, it took effect immediately and did not require the mayor's signature. Exempts data center projects under 350,000 sq ft within the downtown core.","summary_technical":"Interim moratorium ordinance pausing approvals for large data centers while the city studies environmental, infrastructure, and zoning impacts.","who_is_protected":"Minneapolis utility ratepayers and adjacent residential neighborhoods.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to site new or expanded large-scale data centers in Minneapolis.","citation":"Minneapolis interim data center moratorium ordinance (May 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-data-centers-moratorium/601846955","source_title":"Star Tribune — Minneapolis council approves 6-month moratorium on data centers","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Minneapolis Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED)","penalties":"Permit denial during moratorium window."},{"id":"nashville-metro-data-center-moratorium-2026","title":"Nashville Metro Council — Temporary Moratorium on Data Centers","short_title":"Nashville/Davidson County temporary moratorium on data centers","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Nashville-Davidson County","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Davidson","city":"Nashville","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Temporary moratorium on the acceptance, processing, approval and issuance of zoning, building or grading permits for data centers across Davidson County. Cites high electrical demand, backup generators, fuel storage, battery systems, substations, cooling, noise, lighting, stormwater, security fencing, and 24-hour operations. Two companion zoning bills (also introduced June 2) would define data centers in Metro code, create size-and-power categories, and set siting conditions.","summary_technical":"Ordinance temporarily pausing data center permitting in Metro Nashville/Davidson County, in effect until November 2026 or until other data-center zoning bills take effect.","who_is_protected":"Davidson County residents and ratepayers.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data-center permits in Davidson County.","citation":"Metro Nashville/Davidson data-center moratorium ordinance (first reading June 10, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wsmv.com/2026/06/10/temporary-moratorium-new-data-centers-nashville-passes-first-hurdle/","source_title":"WSMV — Temporary moratorium on new data centers in Nashville passes first hurdle","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Metro Nashville Department of Codes and Building Safety","penalties":"Permit denial during moratorium window."},{"id":"anderson-county-tn-data-center-moratorium-2026","title":"Anderson County (TN) — Two-Year Moratorium on Data Centers, Crypto Mining, and Battery Storage","short_title":"Two-year moratorium on data centers, crypto mining, battery storage","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Anderson County, Tennessee","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Anderson","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-16","enacted_date":"2026-06-16","expires_date":"2028-06-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Two-year moratorium on data centers, cryptocurrency mining facilities, and battery storage facilities in Anderson County. The pause is intended to give the county time to research the topic, see what other jurisdictions are doing, and develop regulations before approving large-scale projects.","summary_technical":"Anderson County Commission moratorium adopted June 16, 2026 covering data centers, crypto mining, and battery storage; commission will meet during the two-year window to develop ordinance language.","who_is_protected":"Rural Anderson County residents, particularly those near potential sites; concerns cited include 24/7 noise and low-frequency vibration.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to build data centers, crypto mining, or battery storage in Anderson County.","citation":"Anderson County, TN data-center moratorium (June 16, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wvlt.tv/2026/06/16/anderson-county-commission-proposes-2-year-moratorium-local-data-centers/","source_title":"WVLT — Anderson County Commission proposes 2-year moratorium on local data centers","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Anderson County Planning Commission","penalties":"Application denial during moratorium."},{"id":"boone-county-in-data-center-moratorium-2026","title":"Boone County (IN) — One-Year Moratorium on New Data Centers (Unincorporated Areas)","short_title":"One-year data-center moratorium in unincorporated Boone County","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Boone County, Indiana","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Boone","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-16","enacted_date":"2026-06-15","expires_date":"2027-06-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"One-year moratorium on new data center development in unincorporated Boone County and the town of Advance. Halts filing, processing, review, and acceptance of new data-center facility applications in those areas. Meant to allow study of land-use, infrastructure, utility, agricultural, and rural-character impacts. Boone County is the twelfth Indiana county to enact a data-center pause; Meta's LEAP-district campus (Lebanon) is unaffected.","summary_technical":"Boone County Indiana Board of Commissioners ordinance imposing a 365-day moratorium on data-center applications in unincorporated areas, effective June 16, 2026 through June 15, 2027.","who_is_protected":"Boone County residents in unincorporated areas; agricultural land users.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to build new data centers in unincorporated Boone County.","citation":"Boone County (IN) one-year data-center moratorium (June 15, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/articles/boone-county-passes-moratorium-on-data-center-development","source_title":"Inside INdiana Business — Boone County passes moratorium on data center development","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Boone County Area Plan Commission","penalties":"Application denial during moratorium."},{"id":"holmes-county-fl-ai-data-center-moratorium-2026","title":"Holmes County (FL) — Proposed One-Year Moratorium on AI Data Centers","short_title":"Proposed one-year ban on AI data centers (Holmes County, FL)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Holmes County, Florida","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Holmes","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Holmes County commissioners directed the county attorney to draft a one-year moratorium on AI data centers and a separate ordinance for a permanent ban; commission members noted no applications have yet been submitted but residents largely favor a permanent ban. Public hearing scheduled June 16, 2026.","summary_technical":"Two ordinance drafts under preparation: (1) one-year moratorium on AI data centers; (2) permanent ban on AI data centers. Action follows similar discussions in Jackson, Bay, and Walton counties.","who_is_protected":"Rural Holmes County residents concerned about environmental impact.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to build AI data centers in Holmes County.","citation":"Holmes County, FL proposed AI data-center moratorium (drafting initiated June 2, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wjhg.com/2026/06/03/holmes-county-moves-forward-with-moratorium-ai-data-centers/","source_title":"WJHG — Holmes County moves forward with moratorium on AI data centers","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Holmes County Planning Department","penalties":"Application denial during moratorium."},{"id":"montgomery-county-md-data-center-moratorium-proposal-2026","title":"Montgomery County (MD) — Six-Month Data Center Permit Moratorium (County Executive Executive Order)","short_title":"Six-month data-center permit moratorium (Montgomery County, MD)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Montgomery County, Maryland","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Montgomery","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-12","enacted_date":"2026-06-12","last_verified_date":"2026-07-05","summary_plain":"Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich signed an Executive Order around June 12, 2026 enacting a six-month moratorium on new data-center building permits in Montgomery County, Maryland. Council Member Evan Glass had proposed the measure in May 2026; the County Executive acted on the recommendation. The moratorium pauses new data-center permitting while county officials review grid-cost impacts on ratepayers and potential effects on affordable housing near future Red Line infrastructure. The Atmosphere Data Centers project in Dickerson and any other in-process applications not yet approved would be paused.","summary_technical":"Montgomery County Executive Order (signed ~June 12, 2026): six-month interim moratorium on issuance of new data-center building permits in Montgomery County, MD. Grounds: grid infrastructure cost allocation concerns for residential ratepayers; affordable-housing preservation near future Metro Red Line corridor. Initiated by Council Member Evan Glass proposal (May 5, 2026). Effective date ~June 12, 2026; runs approximately six months.","who_is_protected":"Montgomery County residents and electricity ratepayers who would otherwise bear grid upgrade costs driven by data center load growth.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking new data-center building permits in Montgomery County, MD.","citation":"Montgomery County (MD) County Executive Executive Order — six-month data-center permit moratorium (signed ~June 12, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/news/montgomery-update-county-executive-signs-data-center-moratorium-executive-order-preserving-affordable-housing-upcoming-red-line-disruptions","source_title":"County Executive Signs Data Center Moratorium Executive Order — MontgomeryCountyMD.gov","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Montgomery County Department of Permitting Services","penalties":"Building permit applications rejected during moratorium period"},{"id":"calvert-county-md-data-center-text-amendment-2026-05","title":"Calvert County (MD) — Data Center Text Amendments","short_title":"Calvert County data-center text amendments adopted May 5, 2026","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Calvert County, Maryland","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Calvert","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-05-05","enacted_date":"2026-05-05","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Data center text amendments adopted by Calvert County BOCC. Amendments mandate closed-loop cooling systems, prohibit groundwater use for cooling, require developers to fund infrastructure upgrades, and enforce Tier 4 generator standards. Action taken May 5 after two prior failed motions (by Commissioners Mike Hart and Catherine Grasso) to enact a temporary 24-month moratorium.","summary_technical":"Calvert County BOCC adopted data-center text amendments requiring compliance through construction start. Triggered by AWS job postings for a data-center build in Lusby; AWS submitted site plan documents April 15, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Calvert County residents (groundwater, energy infrastructure, public health from generators).","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers in Calvert County, MD.","citation":"Calvert County, MD data-center text amendments (May 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.calvertcountymd.gov/3880/Data-Centers","source_title":"Calvert County, MD — Data Centers (official page)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Calvert County Department of Planning & Zoning","penalties":"Permit denial or conditional approval contingent on compliance."},{"id":"fayetteville-nc-data-center-ordinance-2026-06","title":"Fayetteville (NC) — Proposed Data Center Ordinance","short_title":"Fayetteville data-center ordinance (public hearing Aug 10, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Fayetteville, North Carolina","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Cumberland","city":"Fayetteville","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Proposed data center ordinance for Fayetteville. After an initial April 27 vote to delay 120 days, council voted 8-2 on June 8 to revive the draft and schedule a public hearing for August 10, 2026. The ordinance would set rules for data center siting and operation within Fayetteville city limits (Cumberland County's moratorium applies only to unincorporated areas).","summary_technical":"Fayetteville City Council draft data-center ordinance. Active deliberation; subject of council friction over who drafts the rules.","who_is_protected":"Fayetteville residents.","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers seeking permits within Fayetteville city limits.","citation":"Fayetteville (NC) proposed data-center ordinance (active deliberation June 8, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.cityviewnc.com/stories/fayetteville-council-revives-data-center-ordinance-despite-public-pushback/","source_title":"CityView NC — Fayetteville Council Revives Data Center Ordinance Despite Public Pushback","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Fayetteville Development Services"},{"id":"okc-data-center-emergency-moratorium-2026-04","title":"Oklahoma City — Emergency Moratorium on New Data Center Rezoning","short_title":"OKC emergency data-center moratorium through end of 2026","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Oklahoma City","state_abbr":"OK","county":"Oklahoma","city":"Oklahoma City","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-04-22","enacted_date":"2026-04-22","expires_date":"2026-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Emergency moratorium on new zoning and development applications for data centers in Oklahoma City through the end of 2026. Specifically prohibits rezoning requests for data centers and creates an appeals process for projects seeking exemption. Two proposed data centers already in the permitting pipeline are exempt.","summary_technical":"OKC ordinance imposing emergency moratorium on data-center zoning applications; allows city to evaluate concerns with staff and developers and potentially amend city codes to address hyperscale data centers.","who_is_protected":"OKC residents and utility ratepayers.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to rezone OKC properties for new data-center use.","citation":"Oklahoma City data-center emergency moratorium (April 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.okc.gov/News-articles/Oklahoma-City-Council-approves-moratorium-on-new-data-centers","source_title":"City of Oklahoma City — Council approves moratorium on new data centers (official press release)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Oklahoma City Planning Department","penalties":"Rezoning denial during moratorium."},{"id":"spokane-data-center-moratorium-2026-06","title":"Spokane City Council — One-Year Citywide Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"One-year citywide data-center moratorium (Spokane)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Spokane","state_abbr":"WA","county":"Spokane","city":"Spokane","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-22","enacted_date":"2026-06-22","expires_date":"2027-06-22","last_verified_date":"2026-06-23","summary_plain":"Spokane City Council voted 6-1 on June 22, 2026 to impose an immediate one-year citywide moratorium on building permit applications for new computer data centers. The ordinance was amended before passage to focus on data-center activity rather than building type. Gives the city one year to develop a permanent regulatory framework.","summary_technical":"Emergency ordinance imposing an immediate one-year citywide moratorium on data-center building permit applications; amended to target activity type rather than facility/building type. Vote: 6-1. Term expires approximately June 22, 2027.","who_is_protected":"Spokane residents and ratepayers.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data-center building permits in Spokane.","citation":"Spokane one-year citywide data center moratorium ordinance (adopted June 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jun/22/spokane-city-council-approves-yearlong-moratorium-/","source_title":"Spokane City Council approves yearlong moratorium on new large data centers — The Spokesman-Review","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Spokane Department of Planning and Economic Development","penalties":"Permit denial during moratorium."},{"id":"cumberland-county-nc-data-center-moratorium-2026-06","title":"Cumberland County (NC) — Six-Month Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Six-month data-center moratorium (Cumberland County, NC)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Cumberland County, North Carolina","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Cumberland","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-15","enacted_date":"2026-06-15","expires_date":"2026-12-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Six-month moratorium on new data-center construction in unincorporated areas of Cumberland County. During this period, county staff will not review site plans or issue zoning and building permits for data centers. Ordinance defines data center as a facility 'housing critical information technology infrastructure ... used for cloud services, internet applications, and artificial intelligence workloads.' Does not apply within Fayetteville city limits.","summary_technical":"Cumberland County data-center moratorium ordinance — 180 days, runs through December 15, 2026 — adopted to give the county time to develop a regulatory framework.","who_is_protected":"Cumberland County residents in unincorporated areas.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data-center permits in unincorporated Cumberland County.","citation":"Cumberland County (NC) six-month data-center moratorium (June 15, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.cityviewnc.com/stories/cumberland-county-enacts-6-month-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"CityView NC — Cumberland County Enacts 6-Month Data Center Moratorium","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Cumberland County Planning and Inspections","penalties":"Permit denial during moratorium."},{"id":"rockdale-county-ga-data-center-bess-moratorium-2026-05","title":"Rockdale County (GA) Resolution 2026-12 — Data Center + Battery Storage Moratorium Extension","short_title":"Rockdale County data-center + BESS moratorium extended through Sept 8","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Rockdale County, Georgia","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Rockdale","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"expired","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-05-13","enacted_date":"2026-05-13","expires_date":"2026-09-08","last_verified_date":"2026-07-31","summary_plain":"Extends the existing moratorium on the acceptance, processing, and approval of applications related to the establishment or expansion of data centers and battery energy storage systems (BESS) through September 8, 2026. Amends Resolution 2026-01 (initial 180-day moratorium enacted March 2026 covering high-water-use facilities).","summary_technical":"Resolution 2026-12 extending data-center + BESS moratorium; gives Rockdale County more time to evaluate policies, land use/zoning, infrastructure needs, and community impacts while updating its Unified Development Ordinance.","who_is_protected":"Rockdale County residents and ratepayers; water/power infrastructure.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data-center or BESS permits in Rockdale County.","citation":"Rockdale County (GA) Res 2026-12 (May 13, 2026)","source_url":"https://ocgnews.com/rockdale-county-extends-data-center-and-battery-energy-storage-moratorium-through-sept-8/","source_title":"On Common Ground News — Rockdale County extends data center and battery energy storage moratorium through Sept. 8","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Rockdale County Planning and Development","penalties":"Application denial during moratorium."},{"id":"charles-county-md-zta-25-187-data-centers-2026","title":"Charles County (MD) ZTA #25-187 — Proposed Data Center Zoning Text Amendment","short_title":"Data center ZTA #25-187 (Charles County, MD) — Planning Commission recommended denial","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Charles County, Maryland","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Charles","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Proposed Zoning Text Amendment that would define and permit (with conditions) a new land-use designation (7.01.130, Data Center) in the General Industrial (IG) and Heavy Industrial (IH) zones. After a June 1, 2026 public hearing, the Charles County Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial citing concerns over size limitations, decommissioning, environmental analysis, and community benefit agreements. Proposal now goes to the Board of County Commissioners for a final vote.","summary_technical":"ZTA #25-187 — revised zoning text amendment; Planning Commission June 1, 2026 vote was unanimous denial recommendation.","who_is_protected":"Charles County residents (utility costs, noise, farmland preservation, wildlife, quality of life).","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers seeking permits in Charles County.","citation":"Charles County (MD) ZTA #25-187 (Planning Commission action June 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.charlescountymd.gov/Home/Components/News/News/6475/407","source_title":"Charles County (MD) public notice — ZTA #25-187 hearing","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Charles County Department of Planning and Growth Management"},{"id":"newton-county-ga-data-center-moratorium-2026-02","title":"Newton County (GA) — Data Center Application Moratorium","short_title":"Newton County data-center application moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Newton County, Georgia","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Newton","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"expired","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-02-17","enacted_date":"2026-02-17","expires_date":"2026-10-07","last_verified_date":"2026-10-08","summary_plain":"Moratorium on the acceptance of applications, requests, or submissions proposing the development of data centers in Newton County. Initial moratorium was 30 days (enacted Feb 17, 2026); extended April 8, 2026 through October 7, 2026 via 180-day extension (Resolution R-040726b). Newton County's ordinance specifies that data centers can only exist in the Stanton Springs overlay. Concerns include developers seeking annexation into incorporated areas (Covington, Social Circle, Porterdale). The moratorium expires or must be renewed by October 7, 2026.","summary_technical":"Newton County Board of Commissioners moratorium on data-center applications. Initial enactment 2026-02-17; extended 2026-03-03 to 2026-04-08; extended again by Resolution R-040726b (April 7, 2026) through October 7, 2026 (180-day extension). Resolution R-040726b is available on the Newton County official document portal (newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7830/Resolution-R-040726b). The BOC found the moratorium 'reasonably necessary, the least restrictive means available, and in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare' of Newton County residents while the UDO is updated. Expiry: 2026-10-07.","who_is_protected":"Newton County residents.","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers proposing projects in unincorporated Newton County.","citation":"Newton County (GA) data-center moratorium (February 2026; extended through October 7, 2026 by Resolution R-040726b)","source_url":"https://www.covnews.com/news/county/newton-county-enacts-moratoriums-data-centers-convenience-stores/","source_title":"The Covington News — Newton County enacts moratoriums on data centers, convenience stores","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Newton County Department of Development Services","penalties":"Application denial during moratorium."},{"id":"indianapolis-data-center-pause-resolution-2026-05","title":"Indianapolis City-County Council — Resolution Calling for Pause on Data Center Development","short_title":"Indianapolis-Marion County data-center pause resolution","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Indianapolis/Marion County","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Marion","city":"Indianapolis","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-05-04","enacted_date":"2026-05-04","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Special resolution unanimously approved by the Indianapolis City-County Council calling on the city's Metropolitan Development Commission to temporarily stop approving new data centers. Accompanied by ongoing drafting of a zoning ordinance setting a maximum 65 dB noise limit at property lines, restrictions on backup-generator testing, required physical buffers (berms, fencing, tree lines), and disclosure of power/water capacity and infrastructure connections.","summary_technical":"Council resolution + companion zoning-ordinance proposal under drafting; ordinance may be introduced at the council meeting following May 2026 and voted on in July 2026.","who_is_protected":"Indianapolis/Marion County residents near proposed data-center sites.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data-center permits in Marion County.","citation":"Indianapolis City-County Council data-center pause resolution (May 4, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wthr.com/article/news/local/city-county-council-passes-unanimous-resolution-calling-for-pause-data-center-development-indianapolis/531-981b44da-cda9-4adf-be1c-37b865904199","source_title":"WTHR — City-County Council passes unanimous resolution calling for a pause on data center development in Indianapolis","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Indianapolis Metropolitan Development Commission","penalties":"Permit denial during pause; zoning enforcement upon ordinance adoption."},{"id":"atlanta-26-r-3663-ai-commission-recommendations","title":"Atlanta Resolution 26-R-3663 — Accepting AI Commission Final Report","short_title":"Atlanta City Council resolution accepting AI Commission recommendations","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Atlanta","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Fulton","city":"Atlanta","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency","consumer-protection"],"status":"unknown","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Resolution accepting the final report and 16 recommendations of the Atlanta AI Commission. Recommendations include equity impact assessments in AI procurement, role-specific staff training, cybersecurity standards for AI vendors, a public registry of all AI systems in use across City departments, and creation of a permanent AI Advisory Board co-chaired by the City's Chief Information Officer and Senior Technology Advisor. Directs the Mayor's office to examine administrative implementation steps while Council considers legislative follow-up.","summary_technical":"Resolution to accept the final report and recommendations of the Atlanta Artificial Intelligence Commission. Introduced June 1, 2026; reported out favorably from Finance/Executive Committee June 10, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Atlanta residents subject to City AI-driven decisions; City employees facing AI-mediated employment processes.","who_must_comply":"City of Atlanta departments and AI vendors.","citation":"Atlanta 26-R-3663 (introduced June 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://atlantacityga.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?ID=40550","source_title":"Atlanta City Council Legistar — 26-R-3663","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Atlanta Department of Information Management (CIO)"},{"id":"dekalb-county-ga-data-center-moratorium-extension-2026-06","title":"DeKalb County (GA) — Data Center Moratorium Extended Through March 30, 2027","short_title":"DeKalb County GA data-center moratorium (through Mar 30, 2027)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"DeKalb County, Georgia","state_abbr":"GA","county":"DeKalb","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-09","enacted_date":"2026-06-09","expires_date":"2027-03-30","last_verified_date":"2026-09-10","summary_plain":"DeKalb County, Georgia's moratorium on new data centers has been extended repeatedly. Most recently, on July 7, 2026, commissioners voted to extend the freeze through March 30, 2027 — the longest extension yet. The July extension followed a surprise June 23, 2026 commission vote to reject a set of proposed permanent data-center regulations from the Planning & Sustainability Department. That rejection reset the regulatory process, requiring a new attempt at permanent rules. The new extension directs the county CEO to coordinate departments (Public Safety, Transportation, Watershed Management, Public Health) to identify impacts on their operations. Originally enacted July 2025, extended December 2025, June 9, 2026, and again July 7, 2026.","summary_technical":"DeKalb County (GA) Board of Commissioners data-center moratorium: original enactment July 2025; extended December 2025 (to June 23, 2026); extended again June 9, 2026 (5-2 vote, +100 days to September 30, 2026); extended again July 7, 2026 through March 30, 2027. July 7 extension followed the June 23, 2026 commission vote rejecting proposed permanent data-center regulations from Planning & Sustainability (the regulations would have allowed data centers under strict conditions). The new extension directs CEO Lorraine Cochran-Johnson to coordinate Watershed Management (water/sewer protocols), Public Safety, Transportation, Roads and Drainage, and Public Health to identify department-specific impacts for incorporation into the next regulatory draft.","who_is_protected":"DeKalb County residents (public-health and infrastructure concerns).","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data-center permits in DeKalb County.","citation":"DeKalb County (GA) data-center moratorium extension through March 30, 2027 (adopted July 7, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.decaturish.com/news/dekalb/dekalb-extends-data-center-moratorium-through-early-2027/article_22c7d964-ee2f-49f5-a879-9abaabbd6b45.html","source_title":"DeKalb County extends data center moratorium through 2027 — Decaturish (July 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"DeKalb County Department of Planning and Sustainability","penalties":"Application denial during moratorium."},{"id":"il-sb315-frontier-ai-safety-2026","title":"Illinois SB 315 — Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act","short_title":"AI Safety Measures Act (frontier model audits)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Illinois","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["automated-decisions","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-07-06","last_verified_date":"2026-07-12","summary_plain":"Illinois is the first state to require independent third-party safety audits of the largest 'frontier' AI developers (companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind). Covered developers — those with >$500M annual gross revenue whose models meet defined compute thresholds — must publish and annually update a frontier AI safety framework addressing catastrophic risks (defined as incidents threatening 50+ deaths, serious injuries, or $1B+ in damages), file transparency reports before deploying new or substantially modified models, report critical safety incidents within 72 hours (24 hours for imminent harm), and protect whistleblowers. Enforced by the Illinois Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security with the Attorney General; civil penalties; no private right of action. Law takes effect January 1, 2027; audit requirements operative January 1, 2028.","summary_technical":"Creates the Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act (P.A. 104-___). Signed July 6, 2026. Law effective January 1, 2027; audit/transparency-report provisions operative January 1, 2028. Covered entity: 'large frontier developer' (annual gross revenue >$500M; AI system trained above defined compute thresholds — targeting OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, xAI). Key requirements: (1) publish and annually update Frontier AI Framework covering catastrophic risk, cybersecurity, governance, third-party evaluation, and internal-use risk; (2) pre-deployment transparency reports and catastrophic-risk assessment summaries; (3) annual independent third-party audit with access/reporting/retention/publication requirements; (4) report 'critical safety incidents' within 72 hours (24 hours for imminent death/serious injury risk); (5) whistleblower protections and internal reporting channels for covered employees. Amends Freedom of Information Act and Whistleblower Act. Enforcement: Illinois Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security in consultation with AG. Passed House 110-0; Senate 52-5 (2026-05-29).","who_is_protected":"Illinois public and downstream users exposed to catastrophic risks from frontier AI models; covered-employee whistleblowers at frontier developers.","who_must_comply":"Large \"frontier\" AI developers meeting the Act's covered-developer thresholds (the largest model developers).","citation":"IL SB315 (104th General Assembly, 2025-2026)","source_url":"https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus?DocNum=315&GAID=18&DocTypeID=SB&SessionID=114&GA=104","source_title":"Illinois General Assembly — SB0315 Bill Status (104th GA)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Illinois Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security; Illinois Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties for violations as set by the Act."},{"id":"il-sb343-rental-algorithm-price-fixing-2026","title":"Illinois SB 343 — Ban on Algorithmic Residential Rental Price-Fixing","short_title":"Algorithmic rent price-fixing ban","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Illinois","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Would amend the Illinois Antitrust Act to ban landlords from using shared rent-setting algorithms or third-party pricing software (such as RealPage) to coordinate residential rental prices. Targets \"algorithmic\" or \"AI-enabled\" rent price-fixing, where competing landlords feed data into a common service that recommends prices, indirectly coordinating rents across the market. Prohibits fixing, controlling, or maintaining rental pricing or terms for residential units, including through any service or product that involves price coordination.","summary_technical":"Amends the Illinois Antitrust Act to make it a violation to engage in price coordination — or to use, subscribe to, or contract with a service that involves price coordination — for residential rental units in Illinois, including through the sale, licensure, or provision of any service or product (e.g., a shared rent-setting algorithm) that coordinates pricing across competing landlords. Responds to the RealPage algorithmic rent-pricing controversy. Cleared both chambers 2026-06-01 (House 75-34-1; Senate 34-21-0; Senate concurrence 51-6-0); awaiting transmittal to and action by the Governor as of 2026-06-25 — not yet enacted.","who_is_protected":"Illinois residential renters subject to algorithmically coordinated rent pricing.","who_must_comply":"Landlords and providers of rent-setting algorithm / pricing-coordination software and services operating in Illinois.","citation":"IL SB343 (104th General Assembly, 2025-2026)","source_url":"https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus?DocNum=343&GAID=18&DocTypeID=SB&SessionID=114&GA=104","source_title":"Illinois General Assembly — SB0343 Bill Status (104th GA)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Illinois Attorney General (Illinois Antitrust Act enforcement)","penalties":"As provided under the Illinois Antitrust Act."},{"id":"legiscan-active-ga-sb436","title":"Counties, Municipal Corporations; local governments and political subdivisions from entering into nondisclosure agreements regarding electricity usage or water usage of any entity; prohibit (SB436)","short_title":"SB436","level":"state","jurisdiction":"GA","state_abbr":"GA","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Chapter 80 of Title 36 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to general provisions applicable to counties, municipal corporations, and other governmental entities, so as to prohibit local governments and political subdivisions from entering into nondisclosure agreements regarding electricity usage or water usage of any entity; to amend Code Section 48-8-3 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to exemptions from sales and use tax, so as to suspend the issuance of new certificates of exemption for certain high-technology data cent","summary_technical":"A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Chapter 80 of Title 36 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to general provisions applicable to counties, municipal corporations, and other governmental entities, so as to prohibit local governments and political subdivisions from entering into nondisclosure agreements regarding electricity usage or water usage of any entity; to amend Code Section 48-8-3 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to exemptions from sales and use tax, so as to suspend the issuance of new certificates of exemption for certain high-technology data center equipment during a certain period; to provide for an exception; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"GA SB436 (2025-2026 Regular Session)","source_url":"https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/72578","source_title":"State legislature bill page — GA SB436 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"legiscan-active-ks-sb526","title":"Requiring data centers to be located on land that was zoned for industrial or manufacturing uses or was not zoned on July 1, 2025, to qualify for the sales tax exemption for qualified data centers. (SB526)","short_title":"SB526","level":"state","jurisdiction":"KS","state_abbr":"KS","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"Requiring data centers to be located on land that was zoned for industrial or manufacturing uses or was not zoned on July 1, 2025, to qualify for the sales tax exemption for qualified data centers.","summary_technical":"Requiring data centers to be located on land that was zoned for industrial or manufacturing uses or was not zoned on July 1, 2025, to qualify for the sales tax exemption for qualified data centers.","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"KS SB526 (2025-2026 Regular Session)","source_url":"https://kslegislature.gov/li/b2025_26/measures/sb526/","source_title":"State legislature bill page — KS SB526 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"legiscan-active-md-hb560","title":"Sales and Use Tax and Property Tax - Exemptions for Data Centers - Repeal (HB560)","short_title":"HB560","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MD","state_abbr":"MD","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"Repealing an exemption from the sales and use tax for certain sales of certain personal property for use at certain qualified data centers under certain circumstances; and repealing the authorization for a governing body of a county or municipal corporation to reduce or eliminate the assessment of certain personal property used in certain qualified data centers.","summary_technical":"Repealing an exemption from the sales and use tax for certain sales of certain personal property for use at certain qualified data centers under certain circumstances; and repealing the authorization for a governing body of a county or municipal corporation to reduce or eliminate the assessment of certain personal property used in certain qualified data centers.","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"MD HB560 (2026 Regular Session)","source_url":"https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/HB0560?ys=2026RS","source_title":"State legislature bill page — MD HB560 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"legiscan-active-mi-sb1077","title":"Labor: fair employment practices; use of electronic monitoring or automated decisions tools by an employer; prohibit except for certain purposes. Creates new act. (SB1077)","short_title":"SB1077","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MI","state_abbr":"MI","topics":["automated-decisions"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"Labor: fair employment practices; use of electronic monitoring or automated decisions tools by an employer; prohibit except for certain purposes. Creates new act.","summary_technical":"Labor: fair employment practices; use of electronic monitoring or automated decisions tools by an employer; prohibit except for certain purposes. Creates new act.","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"MI SB1077 (103rd Legislature)","source_url":"https://legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2026-SB-1077","source_title":"State legislature bill page — MI SB1077 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"legiscan-active-mi-hb6137","title":"Businesses: other; community benefit agreements; require certain data centers to be subject to. Creates new act. TIE BAR WITH: HB 6135'26, HB 6136'26, HB 6140'26, HB 6141'26, HB 6138'26, HB 6142'26, HB 6139'26 (HB6137)","short_title":"HB6137","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MI","state_abbr":"MI","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"Businesses: other; community benefit agreements; require certain data centers to be subject to. Creates new act. TIE BAR WITH: HB 6135'26, HB 6136'26, HB 6140'26, HB 6141'26, HB 6138'26, HB 6142'26, HB 6139'26","summary_technical":"Businesses: other; community benefit agreements; require certain data centers to be subject to. Creates new act. TIE BAR WITH: HB 6135'26, HB 6136'26, HB 6140'26, HB 6141'26, HB 6138'26, HB 6142'26, HB 6139'26","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"MI HB6137 (103rd Legislature)","source_url":"https://legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2026-HB-6137","source_title":"State legislature bill page — MI HB6137 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"legiscan-active-mi-hb6138","title":"Businesses: other; data center water usage requirements; provide for. Creates new act. TIE BAR WITH: HB 6135'26, HB 6140'26, HB 6141'26, HB 6137'26, HB 6142'26, HB 6139'26 (HB6138)","short_title":"HB6138","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MI","state_abbr":"MI","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"Businesses: other; data center water usage requirements; provide for. Creates new act. TIE BAR WITH: HB 6135'26, HB 6140'26, HB 6141'26, HB 6137'26, HB 6142'26, HB 6139'26","summary_technical":"Businesses: other; data center water usage requirements; provide for. Creates new act. TIE BAR WITH: HB 6135'26, HB 6140'26, HB 6141'26, HB 6137'26, HB 6142'26, HB 6139'26","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"MI HB6138 (103rd Legislature)","source_url":"https://legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2026-HB-6138","source_title":"State legislature bill page — MI HB6138 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"legiscan-active-mi-sb1050","title":"Businesses: other; community benefit agreements; require certain data centers to be subject to. Creates new act. (SB1050)","short_title":"SB1050","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MI","state_abbr":"MI","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"Businesses: other; community benefit agreements; require certain data centers to be subject to. Creates new act.","summary_technical":"Businesses: other; community benefit agreements; require certain data centers to be subject to. Creates new act.","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"MI SB1050 (103rd Legislature)","source_url":"https://legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2026-SB-1050","source_title":"State legislature bill page — MI SB1050 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"legiscan-active-mi-hb6139","title":"Construction: permits; acoustic engineering report for data center; require to receive building permit. Amends 1972 PA 230 (MCL 125.1501 - 125.1531) by adding sec. 10a. TIE BAR WITH: HB 6135'26, HB 6140'26, HB 6141'26, HB 6137'26, HB 6138'26, HB 6142'26 (HB6139)","short_title":"HB6139","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MI","state_abbr":"MI","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"Construction: permits; acoustic engineering report for data center; require to receive building permit. Amends 1972 PA 230 (MCL 125.1501 - 125.1531) by adding sec. 10a. TIE BAR WITH: HB 6135'26, HB 6140'26, HB 6141'26, HB 6137'26, HB 6138'26, HB 6142'26","summary_technical":"Construction: permits; acoustic engineering report for data center; require to receive building permit. Amends 1972 PA 230 (MCL 125.1501 - 125.1531) by adding sec. 10a. TIE BAR WITH: HB 6135'26, HB 6140'26, HB 6141'26, HB 6137'26, HB 6138'26, HB 6142'26","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"MI HB6139 (103rd Legislature)","source_url":"https://legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2026-HB-6139","source_title":"State legislature bill page — MI HB6139 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"legiscan-active-mi-hb6135","title":"Public utilities: rates; large load commercial rates for data centers; establish. Amends 1939 PA 3 (MCL 460.1 - 460.11) by adding sec. 10ii. TIE BAR WITH: HB 6140'26, HB 6141'26, HB 6137'26, HB 6138'26, HB 6142'26, HB 6139'26 (HB6135)","short_title":"HB6135","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MI","state_abbr":"MI","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"Public utilities: rates; large load commercial rates for data centers; establish. Amends 1939 PA 3 (MCL 460.1 - 460.11) by adding sec. 10ii. TIE BAR WITH: HB 6140'26, HB 6141'26, HB 6137'26, HB 6138'26, HB 6142'26, HB 6139'26","summary_technical":"Public utilities: rates; large load commercial rates for data centers; establish. Amends 1939 PA 3 (MCL 460.1 - 460.11) by adding sec. 10ii. TIE BAR WITH: HB 6140'26, HB 6141'26, HB 6137'26, HB 6138'26, HB 6142'26, HB 6139'26","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"MI HB6135 (103rd Legislature)","source_url":"https://legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2026-HB-6135","source_title":"State legislature bill page — MI HB6135 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"legiscan-active-mi-hb6140","title":"Public employees and officers: other; nondisclosure agreements related to the construction of data centers; prohibit. Creates new act. TIE BAR WITH: HB 6135'26, HB 6141'26, HB 6137'26, HB 6138'26, HB 6142'26, HB 6139'26 (HB6140)","short_title":"HB6140","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MI","state_abbr":"MI","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"Public employees and officers: other; nondisclosure agreements related to the construction of data centers; prohibit. Creates new act. TIE BAR WITH: HB 6135'26, HB 6141'26, HB 6137'26, HB 6138'26, HB 6142'26, HB 6139'26","summary_technical":"Public employees and officers: other; nondisclosure agreements related to the construction of data centers; prohibit. Creates new act. TIE BAR WITH: HB 6135'26, HB 6141'26, HB 6137'26, HB 6138'26, HB 6142'26, HB 6139'26","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"MI HB6140 (103rd Legislature)","source_url":"https://legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2026-HB-6140","source_title":"State legislature bill page — MI HB6140 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"legiscan-active-mn-sf4203","title":"Exemption of data centers modification for sales and use tax (SF4203)","short_title":"SF4203","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MN","state_abbr":"MN","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"Exemption of data centers modification for sales and use tax","summary_technical":"Exemption of data centers modification for sales and use tax","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"MN SF4203 (94th Legislature 2025-2026)","source_url":"https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/94/2026/0/SF/4203/","source_title":"State legislature bill page — MN SF4203 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"legiscan-active-mn-sf5231","title":"Data centers tax exemption repeal; contingent reduction in special education aid appropriation repeal (SF5231)","short_title":"SF5231","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MN","state_abbr":"MN","topics":["education","data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"Data centers tax exemption repeal; contingent reduction in special education aid appropriation repeal","summary_technical":"Data centers tax exemption repeal; contingent reduction in special education aid appropriation repeal","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"MN SF5231 (94th Legislature 2025-2026)","source_url":"https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/94/2026/0/SF/5231/","source_title":"State legislature bill page — MN SF5231 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"legiscan-active-mn-hf5125","title":"Data centers sales and use tax exemption repealed, and contingent reduction in special education aid appropriations repealed. (HF5125)","short_title":"HF5125","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MN","state_abbr":"MN","topics":["education","data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"Data centers sales and use tax exemption repealed, and contingent reduction in special education aid appropriations repealed.","summary_technical":"Data centers sales and use tax exemption repealed, and contingent reduction in special education aid appropriations repealed.","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"MN HF5125 (94th Legislature 2025-2026)","source_url":"https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/94/2026/0/HF/5125/","source_title":"State legislature bill page — MN HF5125 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"legiscan-active-ny-a10909","title":"Enacts the \"Shirley Myers White Right To Reconciliation and Digital Identity Repair Act\"; establishes a right for individuals to have outdated, inaccurate, or incomplete public and digital narratives corrected once a legal matter is resolved; requires institutions to provide mechanisms for context, updates, and correction so that individuals are not permanently penalized by disproven or obsolete information in digital and automated systems. (A10909)","short_title":"A10909","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NY","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["automated-decisions"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"Enacts the \"Shirley Myers White Right To Reconciliation and Digital Identity Repair Act\"; establishes a right for individuals to have outdated, inaccurate, or incomplete public and digital narratives corrected once a legal matter is resolved; requires institutions to provide mechanisms for context, updates, and correction so that individuals are not permanently penalized by disproven or obsolete information in digital and automated systems.","summary_technical":"Enacts the \"Shirley Myers White Right To Reconciliation and Digital Identity Repair Act\"; establishes a right for individuals to have outdated, inaccurate, or incomplete public and digital narratives corrected once a legal matter is resolved; requires institutions to provide mechanisms for context, updates, and correction so that individuals are not permanently penalized by disproven or obsolete information in digital and automated systems.","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"NY A10909 (2025-2026 General Assembly)","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/A10909","source_title":"State legislature bill page — NY A10909 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"legiscan-active-pa-hb2678","title":"In powers and duties, further providing for definitions and providing for artificial intelligence. (HB2678)","short_title":"HB2678","level":"state","jurisdiction":"PA","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["automated-decisions"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"An Act amending Title 63 (Professions and Occupations (State Licensed)) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in powers and duties, further providing for definitions and providing for artificial intelligence.","summary_technical":"An Act amending Title 63 (Professions and Occupations (State Licensed)) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in powers and duties, further providing for definitions and providing for artificial intelligence.","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"PA HB2678 (2025-2026 Regular Session)","source_url":"https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2025/hb2678","source_title":"State legislature bill page — PA HB2678 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"legiscan-active-pa-hb2666","title":"Providing for limitations on the use of user data in the creation of artificial intelligence simulations and for private right of action; and imposing penalties. (HB2666)","short_title":"HB2666","level":"state","jurisdiction":"PA","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["automated-decisions"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"An Act providing for limitations on the use of user data in the creation of artificial intelligence simulations and for private right of action; and imposing penalties.","summary_technical":"An Act providing for limitations on the use of user data in the creation of artificial intelligence simulations and for private right of action; and imposing penalties.","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"PA HB2666 (2025-2026 Regular Session)","source_url":"https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2025/hb2666","source_title":"State legislature bill page — PA HB2666 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"legiscan-active-pa-hb2669","title":"Providing for employer disclosure when employee layoffs occur due to an employer's use of artificial intelligence or other technological change; and imposing civil penalties. (HB2669)","short_title":"HB2669","level":"state","jurisdiction":"PA","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["automated-decisions"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"An Act providing for employer disclosure when employee layoffs occur due to an employer's use of artificial intelligence or other technological change; and imposing civil penalties.","summary_technical":"An Act providing for employer disclosure when employee layoffs occur due to an employer's use of artificial intelligence or other technological change; and imposing civil penalties.","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"PA HB2669 (2025-2026 Regular Session)","source_url":"https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2025/hb2669","source_title":"State legislature bill page — PA HB2669 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"legiscan-active-pa-hb2359","title":"Amending the act of March 4, 1971 (P.L.6, No.2), entitled \"An act relating to tax reform and State taxation by codifying and enumerating certain subjects of taxation and imposing taxes thereon; providing procedures for the payment, collection, administration and enforcement thereof; providing for tax credits in certain cases; conferring powers and imposing duties upon the Department of Revenue, certain employers, fiduciaries, individuals, persons, corporations and other entities; prescribing crimes, offenses and penalties,\" in computer data center equipment incentive program, further providing for definitions, for application for certification, for eligibility requirements relating to sales and use tax refund program, for notification, for eligibility requirements relating to sales and use tax exemption program and for notification and records. (HB2359)","short_title":"HB2359","level":"state","jurisdiction":"PA","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"An Act amending the act of March 4, 1971 (P.L.6, No.2), entitled \"An act relating to tax reform and State taxation by codifying and enumerating certain subjects of taxation and imposing taxes thereon; providing procedures for the payment, collection, administration and enforcement thereof; providing for tax credits in certain cases; conferring powers and imposing duties upon the Department of Revenue, certain employers, fiduciaries, individuals, persons, corporations and other entities; prescribing crimes, offenses and penalties,\" in computer data center equipment incentive program, further pr","summary_technical":"An Act amending the act of March 4, 1971 (P.L.6, No.2), entitled \"An act relating to tax reform and State taxation by codifying and enumerating certain subjects of taxation and imposing taxes thereon; providing procedures for the payment, collection, administration and enforcement thereof; providing for tax credits in certain cases; conferring powers and imposing duties upon the Department of Revenue, certain employers, fiduciaries, individuals, persons, corporations and other entities; prescribing crimes, offenses and penalties,\" in computer data center equipment incentive program, further providing for definitions, for application for certification, for eligibility requirements relating to sales and use tax refund program, for notification, for eligibility requirements relating to sales and use tax exemption program and for notification and records.","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"PA HB2359 (2025-2026 Regular Session)","source_url":"https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2025/hb2359","source_title":"State legislature bill page — PA HB2359 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"legiscan-active-pa-hb2516","title":"In general provisions, further providing for definitions; in comprehensive plan, providing for comprehensive plan element for commercial data centers; and, in zoning, providing for zoning, commercial data centers and agricultural land protections and for zoning, commercial data centers, approval procedure and minimum standards. (HB2516)","short_title":"HB2516","level":"state","jurisdiction":"PA","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"An Act amending the act of July 31, 1968 (P.L.805, No.247), known as the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, in general provisions, further providing for definitions; in comprehensive plan, providing for comprehensive plan element for commercial data centers; and, in zoning, providing for zoning, commercial data centers and agricultural land protections and for zoning, commercial data centers, approval procedure and minimum standards.","summary_technical":"An Act amending the act of July 31, 1968 (P.L.805, No.247), known as the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, in general provisions, further providing for definitions; in comprehensive plan, providing for comprehensive plan element for commercial data centers; and, in zoning, providing for zoning, commercial data centers and agricultural land protections and for zoning, commercial data centers, approval procedure and minimum standards.","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"PA HB2516 (2025-2026 Regular Session)","source_url":"https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2025/hb2516","source_title":"State legislature bill page — PA HB2516 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"legiscan-active-sd-sb239","title":"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. (SB239)","short_title":"SB239","level":"state","jurisdiction":"SD","state_abbr":"SD","topics":["automated-decisions"],"status":"expired","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"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.","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"SD SB239 (2026 Regular Session)","source_url":"https://sdlegislature.gov/#/Session/Bill/27299","source_title":"State legislature bill page — SD SB239 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"legiscan-active-wa-hb2655","title":"Providing a retail sales and use tax exemption for the construction and equipping of new data centers located in a county east of the Cascades that borders another state and has a population of at least 500,000. (HB2655)","short_title":"HB2655","level":"state","jurisdiction":"WA","state_abbr":"WA","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-30","summary_plain":"Providing a retail sales and use tax exemption for the construction and equipping of new data centers located in a county east of the Cascades that borders another state and has a population of at least 500,000.","summary_technical":"Providing a retail sales and use tax exemption for the construction and equipping of new data centers located in a county east of the Cascades that borders another state and has a population of at least 500,000.","who_is_protected":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","who_must_comply":"See bill text. Active session bill imported via LegiScan; pending primary-source verification.","citation":"WA HB2655 (2025-2026 Regular Session)","source_url":"https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2655&Year=2025&Initiative=false","source_title":"State legislature bill page — WA HB2655 (data via LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"tx-ag-google-1375b-settlement-2025","title":"Texas v. Google — $1.375B Biometric and Location Data Settlement","short_title":"Texas v. Google","level":"state","jurisdiction":"TX","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["biometrics","privacy","facial-recognition"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-05-09","enacted_date":"2025-05-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-28","summary_plain":"Paxton resolved 2022 claims that Google unlawfully captured voiceprints and face geometry and tracked location/Incognito searches without consent, violating Texas CUBI and DTPA. Largest single-state privacy recovery from Google.","summary_technical":"Paxton resolved 2022 claims that Google unlawfully captured voiceprints and face geometry and tracked location/Incognito searches without consent, violating Texas CUBI and DTPA. Largest single-state privacy recovery from Google. State AG enforcement / guidance action.","who_is_protected":"TX consumers, workers, and residents affected by AI","who_must_comply":"Defendants in the action / regulated entities the guidance addresses","citation":"Texas v. Google — $1.375B Biometric and Location Data Settlement (2025-05-09)","source_url":"https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-secures-historic-1375-billion-settlement-google-related-texans-data","source_title":"Texas v. Google — $1.375B Biometric and Location Data Settlement — AG source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"TX Attorney General","penalties":"Settlement / civil penalties / injunctive relief depending on action"},{"id":"tx-ag-allstate-arity-2025","title":"Texas v. Allstate / Arity — Driving Data Collection Suit (TDPSA + Data Broker Law)","short_title":"Texas v. Allstate / Arity","level":"state","jurisdiction":"TX","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["privacy","automated-decisions","insurance"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-13","enacted_date":"2025-01-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-28","summary_plain":"First-ever TDPSA and Data Broker Law suit. Alleges SDK-based collection of geolocation and driving-behavior data from 45M+ Americans via Life360, GasBuddy, etc., used to score drivers and set premiums. Active in 2026.","summary_technical":"First-ever TDPSA and Data Broker Law suit. Alleges SDK-based collection of geolocation and driving-behavior data from 45M+ Americans via Life360, GasBuddy, etc., used to score drivers and set premiums. Active in 2026. State AG enforcement / guidance action.","who_is_protected":"TX consumers, workers, and residents affected by AI","who_must_comply":"Defendants in the action / regulated entities the guidance addresses","citation":"Texas v. Allstate / Arity — Driving Data Collection Suit (TDPSA + Data Broker Law) (2025-01-13)","source_url":"https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-sues-allstate-and-arity-unlawfully-collecting-using-and-selling-over-45","source_title":"Texas v. Allstate / Arity — Driving Data Collection Suit (TDPSA + Data Broker Law) — AG source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"TX Attorney General","penalties":"Settlement / civil penalties / injunctive relief depending on action"},{"id":"tx-ag-pieces-tech-2024","title":"Texas v. Pieces Technologies — Healthcare Generative AI Settlement","short_title":"Texas v. Pieces Technologies","level":"state","jurisdiction":"TX","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["healthcare","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-09-18","enacted_date":"2024-09-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-28","summary_plain":"First state AG settlement targeting deceptive GenAI clinical marketing. Alleged Pieces misrepresented hallucination rates of a hospital summarization tool at four TX hospitals; settlement mandates accurate disclosures and monitoring. This action is an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (AVC), not a monetary settlement; no penalty was assessed and Pieces Technologies denies wrongdoing.","summary_technical":"First state AG settlement targeting deceptive GenAI clinical marketing. Alleged Pieces misrepresented hallucination rates of a hospital summarization tool at four TX hospitals; settlement mandates accurate disclosures and monitoring. This action is an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (AVC), not a monetary settlement; no penalty was assessed and Pieces Technologies denies wrongdoing. State AG enforcement / guidance action.","who_is_protected":"TX consumers, workers, and residents affected by AI","who_must_comply":"Defendants in the action / regulated entities the guidance addresses","citation":"Texas v. Pieces Technologies — Healthcare Generative AI Settlement (2024-09-18)","source_url":"https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-reaches-settlement-first-its-kind-healthcare-generative-ai-investigation","source_title":"Texas v. Pieces Technologies — Healthcare Generative AI Settlement — AG source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"TX Attorney General","penalties":"Settlement / civil penalties / injunctive relief depending on action"},{"id":"ny-ag-ai-symposium-priorities-2024","title":"NY AG — Symposium Report on the Next Decade of AI (enforcement priorities)","short_title":"NY AG","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NY","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["automated-decisions","employment","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-10-17","enacted_date":"2024-10-17","last_verified_date":"2026-06-28","summary_plain":"James outlines enforcement priorities: hiring tool bias, GenAI misinformation, deepfakes, ADS. References LL144 precedent; previews state ADS guidance and legislative recommendations.","summary_technical":"James outlines enforcement priorities: hiring tool bias, GenAI misinformation, deepfakes, ADS. References LL144 precedent; previews state ADS guidance and legislative recommendations. State AG enforcement / guidance action.","who_is_protected":"NY consumers, workers, and residents affected by AI","who_must_comply":"Defendants in the action / regulated entities the guidance addresses","citation":"NY AG — Symposium Report on the Next Decade of AI (enforcement priorities) (2024-10-17)","source_url":"https://ag.ny.gov/symposium-report-next-decade-ai","source_title":"NY AG — Symposium Report on the Next Decade of AI (enforcement priorities) — AG source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NY Attorney General","penalties":"Settlement / civil penalties / injunctive relief depending on action"},{"id":"ma-ag-ai-advisory-2024","title":"MA AG Campbell — Advisory on Consumer Protection, Anti-Discrimination, Data Security and AI","short_title":"MA AG Campbell","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MA","state_abbr":"MA","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-16","enacted_date":"2024-04-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-28","summary_plain":"Clarifies that Chapter 93A, the Anti-Discrimination Law, and MA Data Security Regs apply fully to AI developers, suppliers, and users; identifies algorithmic discrimination and misrepresenting AI capabilities as unfair/deceptive.","summary_technical":"Clarifies that Chapter 93A, the Anti-Discrimination Law, and MA Data Security Regs apply fully to AI developers, suppliers, and users; identifies algorithmic discrimination and misrepresenting AI capabilities as unfair/deceptive. State AG enforcement / guidance action.","who_is_protected":"MA consumers, workers, and residents affected by AI","who_must_comply":"Defendants in the action / regulated entities the guidance addresses","citation":"MA AG Campbell — Advisory on Consumer Protection, Anti-Discrimination, Data Security and AI (2024-04-16)","source_url":"https://www.mass.gov/news/ag-campbell-issues-advisory-providing-guidance-on-how-state-consumer-protection-and-other-laws-apply-to-artificial-intelligence","source_title":"MA AG Campbell — Advisory on Consumer Protection, Anti-Discrimination, Data Security and AI — AG source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"MA Attorney General","penalties":"Settlement / civil penalties / injunctive relief depending on action"},{"id":"ma-ag-earnest-25m-2025","title":"MA AG — $2.5M Earnest Operations Settlement (AI Underwriting Discrimination)","short_title":"MA AG","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MA","state_abbr":"MA","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-10","enacted_date":"2025-07-10","last_verified_date":"2026-06-28","summary_plain":"Settlement with student-loan lender Earnest over allegations its AI underwriting model and 'Knockout Rule' produced disparate impacts on Black, Hispanic, and non-citizen applicants. Mandates AI governance, annual fair-lending testing, AG reporting.","summary_technical":"Settlement with student-loan lender Earnest over allegations its AI underwriting model and 'Knockout Rule' produced disparate impacts on Black, Hispanic, and non-citizen applicants. Mandates AI governance, annual fair-lending testing, AG reporting. State AG enforcement / guidance action.","who_is_protected":"MA consumers, workers, and residents affected by AI","who_must_comply":"Defendants in the action / regulated entities the guidance addresses","citation":"MA AG — $2.5M Earnest Operations Settlement (AI Underwriting Discrimination) (2025-07-10)","source_url":"https://www.mass.gov/news/ag-campbell-announces-25-million-settlement-with-student-loan-lender-for-unlawful-practices-through-ai-use-other-consumer-protection-violations","source_title":"MA AG — $2.5M Earnest Operations Settlement (AI Underwriting Discrimination) — AG source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"MA Attorney General","penalties":"Settlement / civil penalties / injunctive relief depending on action"},{"id":"nj-ag-platkin-ads-guidance-2025","title":"NJ AG Platkin / DCR — Guidance on Algorithmic Discrimination and the NJLAD","short_title":"NJ AG Platkin / DCR","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["employment","housing-credit","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-09","enacted_date":"2025-01-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-28","summary_plain":"13-page guidance affirming NJLAD applies to ADS-driven discrimination in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations. Launches Civil Rights and Technology Initiative and Civil Rights Innovation Lab.","summary_technical":"13-page guidance affirming NJLAD applies to ADS-driven discrimination in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations. Launches Civil Rights and Technology Initiative and Civil Rights Innovation Lab. State AG enforcement / guidance action.","who_is_protected":"NJ consumers, workers, and residents affected by AI","who_must_comply":"Defendants in the action / regulated entities the guidance addresses","citation":"NJ AG Platkin / DCR — Guidance on Algorithmic Discrimination and the NJLAD (2025-01-09)","source_url":"https://www.njoag.gov/attorney-general-platkin-and-division-on-civil-rights-announce-new-guidance-on-algorithmic-discrimination-creation-of-civil-rights-innovation-lab/","source_title":"NJ AG Platkin / DCR — Guidance on Algorithmic Discrimination and the NJLAD — AG source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NJ Attorney General","penalties":"Settlement / civil penalties / injunctive relief depending on action"},{"id":"co-ag-weiser-ai-rule-suspension-2026","title":"CO AG Weiser — Suspension of Colorado AI Act Rulemaking and Enforcement (x.AI v. Weiser)","short_title":"CO AG Weiser","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CO","state_abbr":"CO","topics":["automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-04-27","enacted_date":"2026-04-27","last_verified_date":"2026-06-28","summary_plain":"AG entered joint motion to stay enforcement of SB 24-205 in xAI Corp. v. Weiser, No. 1:26-cv-01515-DDD-CYC (D. Colo.; Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico; Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung). DOJ intervened on xAI's side April 24, 2026; federal court entered enforcement stay April 27, 2026. Colorado enacted SB 26-189 (signed May 14, 2026) to repeal and replace SB 24-205; enforcement suspended until rulemaking under new ADMT law by December 31, 2026.","summary_technical":"AG entered joint motion to stay enforcement of SB 24-205 in xAI Corp. v. Weiser, No. 1:26-cv-01515-DDD-CYC (D. Colo.; Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico; Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung). DOJ intervened on xAI's side April 24, 2026; federal court entered enforcement stay April 27, 2026. Colorado enacted SB 26-189 (signed May 14, 2026) to repeal and replace SB 24-205; enforcement suspended until rulemaking under new ADMT law by December 31, 2026. State AG enforcement / guidance action.","who_is_protected":"CO consumers, workers, and residents affected by AI","who_must_comply":"Defendants in the action / regulated entities the guidance addresses","citation":"CO AG Weiser — Suspension of Colorado AI Act Rulemaking and Enforcement (x.AI v. Weiser) (2026-04-27)","source_url":"https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1437846/dl","source_title":"CO AG Weiser — Suspension of Colorado AI Act Rulemaking and Enforcement (x.AI v. Weiser) — AG source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"CO Attorney General","penalties":"Settlement / civil penalties / injunctive relief depending on action"},{"id":"or-ag-rosenblum-ai-guidance-2024","title":"OR AG Rosenblum — AI Guidance (UTPA, OCPA, Equality Act)","short_title":"OR AG Rosenblum","level":"state","jurisdiction":"OR","state_abbr":"OR","topics":["consumer-protection","privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-12-24","enacted_date":"2024-12-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-28","summary_plain":"Clarifies that Oregon's UTPA, OCPA, and Equality Act apply to AI absent AI-specific law. Misrepresenting AI capabilities, discriminatory outcomes, and processing biometric/sensitive data without consent are actionable.","summary_technical":"Clarifies that Oregon's UTPA, OCPA, and Equality Act apply to AI absent AI-specific law. Misrepresenting AI capabilities, discriminatory outcomes, and processing biometric/sensitive data without consent are actionable. State AG enforcement / guidance action.","who_is_protected":"OR consumers, workers, and residents affected by AI","who_must_comply":"Defendants in the action / regulated entities the guidance addresses","citation":"OR AG Rosenblum — AI Guidance (UTPA, OCPA, Equality Act) (2024-12-24)","source_url":"https://www.doj.state.or.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/AI-Guidance-12-24-24.pdf","source_title":"OR AG Rosenblum — AI Guidance (UTPA, OCPA, Equality Act) — AG source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"OR Attorney General","penalties":"Settlement / civil penalties / injunctive relief depending on action"},{"id":"ca-ag-bonta-streaming-sweep-2024","title":"CA AG Bonta — CCPA Investigative Sweep of Streaming Services","short_title":"CA AG Bonta","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CA","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["privacy","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-26","enacted_date":"2024-01-26","last_verified_date":"2026-06-28","summary_plain":"Sweep into streaming services' opt-out compliance; led to a $530K Sling TV settlement in 2025 and parallel CPPA actions (Honda $632,500) on ADMT-adjacent practices.","summary_technical":"Sweep into streaming services' opt-out compliance; led to a $530K Sling TV settlement in 2025 and parallel CPPA actions (Honda $632,500) on ADMT-adjacent practices. State AG enforcement / guidance action.","who_is_protected":"CA consumers, workers, and residents affected by AI","who_must_comply":"Defendants in the action / regulated entities the guidance addresses","citation":"CA AG Bonta — CCPA Investigative Sweep of Streaming Services (2024-01-26)","source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-announces-investigative-sweep-focuses-streaming-services%E2%80%99","source_title":"CA AG Bonta — CCPA Investigative Sweep of Streaming Services — AG source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"CA Attorney General","penalties":"Settlement / civil penalties / injunctive relief depending on action"},{"id":"vt-ag-clark-data-broker-loophole-2026","title":"VT AG Clark — 17-State Coalition Letter on Data Broker AI Surveillance Loophole","short_title":"VT AG Clark","level":"state","jurisdiction":"VT","state_abbr":"VT","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-03-24","enacted_date":"2026-03-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-28","summary_plain":"Joined 17-state coalition urging Congress to close the loophole letting federal agencies purchase commercial data for AI surveillance, bypassing Fourth Amendment protections.","summary_technical":"Joined 17-state coalition urging Congress to close the loophole letting federal agencies purchase commercial data for AI surveillance, bypassing Fourth Amendment protections. State AG enforcement / guidance action.","who_is_protected":"VT consumers, workers, and residents affected by AI","who_must_comply":"Defendants in the action / regulated entities the guidance addresses","citation":"VT AG Clark — 17-State Coalition Letter on Data Broker AI Surveillance Loophole (2026-03-24)","source_url":"https://ago.vermont.gov/blog/2026/03/24/attorney-general-clark-calls-congress-close-loophole-enabling-federal-mass-surveillance","source_title":"VT AG Clark — 17-State Coalition Letter on Data Broker AI Surveillance Loophole — AG source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"VT Attorney General","penalties":"Settlement / civil penalties / injunctive relief depending on action"},{"id":"mn-ag-ellison-biometric-alert-2026","title":"Attorney General Ellison releases consumer alert on DHS' digital surveillance and how to protect your privacy","short_title":"Attorney General Ellison releases consumer alert on DHS' digital surveillance an","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MN","state_abbr":"MN","topics":["biometrics","privacy","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-15","enacted_date":"2026-01-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-28","summary_plain":"Ellison alert and online reporting tool warn residents about AI-powered ID/tracking using biometric, app, and vehicle data; recommends disabling FaceID/TouchID. Follows expert filings in Kohls v. Ellison deepfake case.","summary_technical":"Ellison alert and online reporting tool warn residents about AI-powered ID/tracking using biometric, app, and vehicle data; recommends disabling FaceID/TouchID. Follows expert filings in Kohls v. Ellison deepfake case. State AG enforcement / guidance action.","who_is_protected":"MN consumers, workers, and residents affected by AI","who_must_comply":"Defendants in the action / regulated entities the guidance addresses","citation":"Attorney General Ellison releases consumer alert on DHS' digital surveillance and how to protect your privacy (2026-01-15)","source_url":"https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2026/01/15_DHS_Digital-Surveillance.asp","source_title":"Attorney General Ellison releases consumer alert on DHS' digital surveillance and how to protect your privacy — AG source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"MN Attorney General","penalties":"Settlement / civil penalties / injunctive relief depending on action"},{"id":"ferc-large-load-interconnection-rm26-4-2026","title":"FERC Section 206 Show-Cause Orders on Large Load Interconnection (Docket RM26-4-000)","short_title":"FERC Large-Load Interconnection Orders (RM26-4)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-18","enacted_date":"2026-06-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-22","summary_plain":"On June 18, 2026, FERC issued tailored show-cause orders under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act to the six major U.S. regional grid operators (PJM, MISO, SPP, CAISO, ISO-NE, and NYISO), directing each to either justify its existing large-load interconnection tariff as just and reasonable or file tariff revisions within 60 days. The orders target the surge in demand from AI data centers and large industrial loads, requiring reforms to study processes, cost transparency to prevent cost-shifting onto ordinary ratepayers, co-location and behind-the-meter accommodation, and new services for flexible large loads. FERC left retail cost-shifting protection to state regulators; reforms apply prospectively and do not disrupt existing deals.","summary_technical":"FERC Docket No. RM26-4-000. Section 206 (16 U.S.C. § 824e) show-cause orders to PJM, MISO, SPP, CAISO, ISO-NE, and NYISO, each addressing five reform categories: (1) efficient application/study processes including alternative transmission technologies, (2) cost transparency and prevention of cost-shifting to ordinary ratepayers, (3) co-location agreements and behind-the-meter generation, (4) new transmission services for flexible large loads, and (5) study processes for generation serving electrically proximate or co-located loads. RTOs must respond within 60 days, with a separate 30-day deadline for resource-adequacy informational reports.","who_is_protected":"Electricity ratepayers in the six RTO/ISO regions — guards against large-load (data-center) interconnection costs being shifted onto ordinary customers","who_must_comply":"Regional transmission organizations / independent system operators (PJM, MISO, SPP, CAISO, ISO-NE, NYISO) and large-load interconnection customers","citation":"FPA § 206 show-cause orders, FERC Docket Nos. EL26-67 through EL26-72 (June 18, 2026), advancing ANOPR Docket No. RM26-4-000","source_url":"https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/ferc-launches-aggressive-targeted-action-speed-large-load-integration","source_title":"FERC — 'Launches Aggressive Targeted Action to Speed Large Load Integration' (official news release, June 18, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal Energy Regulatory Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Tariff revisions ordered under FPA § 206; FERC may set just-and-reasonable rates if an RTO fails to justify its existing tariff"},{"id":"us-hhs-ocr-section1557-final-rule-2024","title":"HHS Office for Civil Rights — Section 1557 Final Rule (nondiscrimination in patient care decision-support tools, including AI)","short_title":"HHS § 1557 Rule (AI clinical tools)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["healthcare","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-07-05","enacted_date":"2024-05-06","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"HHS's Section 1557 rule bans discrimination in 'patient care decision-support tools,' which includes AI and algorithmic clinical tools. Covered health programs and providers must identify when a tool relies on patient race, age, disability, or other protected traits and take steps to mitigate the risk of discrimination.","summary_technical":"45 C.F.R. § 92.210 (HHS Final Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. 37522, May 6, 2024) requires covered entities receiving HHS funding to make reasonable efforts to identify uses of patient care decision-support tools (defined to include AI/clinical algorithms) that employ protected characteristics as inputs and to mitigate the risk of discrimination resulting from their use. Compliance for § 92.210 began May 1, 2025.","who_is_protected":"Patients in covered health programs — protected categories include race, color, national origin, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity), age, and disability","who_must_comply":"Health programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance from HHS; HHS-administered programs; health insurance marketplaces","citation":"45 C.F.R. § 92.210; 89 Fed. Reg. 37522","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/06/2024-08711/nondiscrimination-in-health-programs-and-activities","source_title":"Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities — Final Rule (89 FR 37522)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"HHS Office for Civil Rights","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Loss of federal financial assistance; corrective action plans; referral to DOJ for litigation; private right of action under § 1557"},{"id":"us-cms-ma-prior-auth-ai-rule-2024","title":"CMS Medicare Advantage Final Rule (CMS-4201-F) — algorithmic prior authorization limits","short_title":"CMS MA Rule (AI prior auth)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["healthcare","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-01-01","enacted_date":"2023-04-12","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Medicare Advantage plans cannot use algorithms or AI to deny medically necessary care. Any algorithm-driven coverage decision must comply with traditional Medicare coverage criteria and consider the individual patient's circumstances — not just generic model output.","summary_technical":"42 C.F.R. § 422.101(c) (CMS-4201-F, 88 Fed. Reg. 22120) requires MA organizations to base coverage decisions on individual patient circumstances and applicable Medicare coverage criteria; algorithm or AI tools may not be used to deny care that would be covered under traditional Medicare. CMS reiterated in FAQ (Feb. 2024) that AI tools cannot override the requirement for individualized assessment.","who_is_protected":"Medicare Advantage enrollees facing prior-authorization or coverage decisions made or aided by AI","who_must_comply":"Medicare Advantage organizations and their delegated utilization-management vendors (including AI/algorithmic prior-authorization platforms such as those at issue in current MA UM litigation)","citation":"42 C.F.R. § 422.101(c); 88 Fed. Reg. 22120 (Apr. 12, 2023)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-04-12/html/2023-07115.htm","source_title":"CMS FAQ on Medicare Advantage Coverage Criteria and Utilization Management (CMS-4201-F)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Plan compliance actions; civil money penalties; suspension or termination of MA contracts"},{"id":"us-fda-pccp-final-guidance-2024","title":"FDA Final Guidance — Predetermined Change Control Plans for AI/ML-Enabled Device Software Functions","short_title":"FDA PCCP Guidance (AI/ML devices)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["healthcare","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-12-04","enacted_date":"2024-12-04","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"FDA finalized a framework that lets manufacturers update an AI-enabled medical device after clearance without filing a new submission for each change — but only if they pre-specify what changes are allowed, how they'll be validated, and how transparency to clinicians and patients will be preserved.","summary_technical":"Final guidance (Dec. 4, 2024) implementing § 3308 of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (21 U.S.C. § 360e-4). Establishes that a marketing submission for an AI/ML-enabled device software function may include a Predetermined Change Control Plan describing modifications, the Modification Protocol, and an Impact Assessment so that pre-specified changes do not trigger a new 510(k)/De Novo/PMA.","who_is_protected":"Patients using AI/ML-enabled medical devices that may update after FDA clearance","who_must_comply":"Sponsors of AI/ML-enabled medical device software functions submitted for FDA marketing authorization","citation":"FDA Guidance (Dec. 4, 2024); 21 U.S.C. § 360e-4","source_url":"https://www.fda.gov/media/166704/download","source_title":"Predetermined Change Control Plans for Machine Learning-Enabled Medical Devices — Final Guidance","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Failure to follow the PCCP triggers full new-submission requirement; misbranding/adulteration enforcement"},{"id":"us-fda-ai-drug-mfg-discussion-paper-2023","title":"FDA AI/ML in Drug Development and Manufacturing — Discussion Papers and Framework","short_title":"FDA AI Drug/Bio Guidance","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["healthcare","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-05-10","enacted_date":"2023-05-10","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"FDA published a framework setting expectations for how drug and biologics companies use AI/ML across drug discovery, clinical trials, postmarket safety surveillance, and manufacturing. The framework signals that AI used in regulatory submissions must be transparent, validated, and reproducible.","summary_technical":"FDA CDER/CBER Discussion Paper, 'Using Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in the Development of Drug and Biological Products' (May 2023), and follow-on draft guidance, 'Considerations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Drug and Biological Products' (Jan. 2025), define a risk-based credibility framework for AI models used in regulatory submissions.","who_is_protected":"Patients enrolled in clinical trials and consumers of AI-developed or AI-manufactured drugs/biologics","who_must_comply":"Sponsors of drug and biological product applications using AI/ML in development or manufacturing","citation":"FDA Discussion Paper (May 2023); CDER/CBER Draft Guidance (Jan. 2025)","source_url":"https://www.fda.gov/media/167973/download","source_title":"FDA Discussion Paper — AI/ML in Drug Development and Manufacturing (May 2023)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Clinical hold; application refusal; manufacturing enforcement actions"},{"id":"us-cfpb-section-1071-small-biz-2023","title":"CFPB Section 1071 Small Business Lending Data Collection Rule","short_title":"CFPB § 1071 Rule (small-biz AI lending)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions","transparency","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-08-29","enacted_date":"2023-03-30","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Lenders covered by the rule must collect and report demographic and transactional data on small-business credit applications — including data needed to detect algorithmic discrimination by AI underwriting models.","summary_technical":"12 C.F.R. Part 1002, Subpart B (Regulation B), implementing § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act / § 704B of ECOA (15 U.S.C. § 1691c-2). Requires covered financial institutions to compile, maintain, and submit data on credit applications from small businesses, including demographic data permitting fair-lending analysis of algorithmic and AI-driven underwriting decisions.","who_is_protected":"Small-business credit applicants, especially minority-owned and women-owned businesses","who_must_comply":"Financial institutions originating at least 100 covered small-business credit transactions per year","citation":"12 C.F.R. Part 1002 Subpart B; 88 Fed. Reg. 35150","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/05/31/2023-07230/small-business-lending-under-the-equal-credit-opportunity-act-regulation-b","source_title":"Small Business Lending Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B) — Final Rule (88 FR 35150)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; federal banking agencies","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"ECOA civil money penalties (tiered to $13,237/$66,184/$1,323,663 per day, adjusted annually); injunctive relief"},{"id":"us-ftc-cars-rule-2024","title":"FTC Combating Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Rule","short_title":"FTC CARS Rule (AI auto)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","enacted_date":"2023-12-12","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The FTC rule targets deceptive auto-dealer practices, including AI-powered tools used in financing offers and add-on sales. The rule's compliance date is stayed pending Fifth Circuit litigation, but core deception standards still apply under FTC Act Section 5.","summary_technical":"16 C.F.R. Part 463 (Combating Auto Retail Scams Trade Regulation Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. 590). Prohibits misrepresentations in dealer sales including those in algorithmic or AI-assisted financing offers and requires clear written disclosure of price, add-ons, and total payments. Implementation stayed by the Fifth Circuit in NADA v. FTC (No. 24-60013); FTC withdrew the rule in early 2025 for reconsideration.","who_is_protected":"Consumers buying or leasing motor vehicles, including those targeted by AI-driven sales recommendation engines","who_must_comply":"Motor vehicle dealers as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1029","citation":"16 C.F.R. Part 463; 89 Fed. Reg. 590","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/04/2023-28658/combating-auto-retail-scams-trade-regulation-rule","source_title":"Combating Auto Retail Scams Trade Regulation Rule (89 FR 590)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal Trade Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"FTC Act civil penalties (currently $53,088 per violation) and consumer redress"},{"id":"us-ftc-health-breach-notification-rule-2024","title":"FTC Health Breach Notification Rule — Amended (covers AI health-app inferences)","short_title":"FTC HBNR Rule (AI health apps)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["privacy","healthcare","consumer-protection","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-07-29","enacted_date":"2024-04-26","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Health apps and connected devices — including AI-powered mental health and fitness tools — must notify users, the FTC, and (in some cases) the media within 60 days of a breach of identifiable health information. The 2024 amendments confirm that AI-generated inferences about health are covered.","summary_technical":"16 C.F.R. Part 318 (as amended, 89 Fed. Reg. 47028). Clarifies that 'PHR identifiable health information' includes data emerging from algorithmic and AI inferences; covers vendors of personal health records and PHR-related entities; expands what constitutes a 'breach' to include unauthorized disclosures.","who_is_protected":"U.S. consumers of non-HIPAA-covered health apps, including AI symptom checkers, mental health chatbots, and fitness wearables","who_must_comply":"Vendors of personal health records, PHR-related entities, and third-party service providers handling identifiable health information","citation":"16 C.F.R. Part 318; 89 Fed. Reg. 47028","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/30/2024-10855/health-breach-notification-rule","source_title":"Health Breach Notification Rule — Final Amendments (89 FR 47028)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal Trade Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties of $53,088 per violation per day; consumer redress"},{"id":"us-ftc-commercial-surveillance-anpr","title":"FTC Commercial Surveillance and Data Security ANPR (16 CFR Part 437)","short_title":"FTC Commercial Surveillance ANPR","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["privacy","consumer-protection","automated-decisions","biometrics"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","enacted_date":"2022-08-22","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The FTC's advance notice of proposed rulemaking on 'commercial surveillance and data security' asked whether to write rules limiting how companies collect data, train AI models on consumers, and use automated decision-making. The proceeding is technically open but has not advanced to a notice of proposed rulemaking.","summary_technical":"Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Commercial Surveillance and Data Security, 87 Fed. Reg. 51273 (Aug. 22, 2022). Solicited comment on rules addressing automated decision-making systems, algorithmic discrimination, biometric data, dark patterns, and data minimization — would be codified at 16 C.F.R. Part 437 if finalized.","who_is_protected":"U.S. consumers, especially those subject to algorithmic and AI-driven commercial profiling","who_must_comply":"Would apply broadly to entities engaging in commercial surveillance subject to FTC jurisdiction","citation":"87 Fed. Reg. 51273","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/08/22/2022-17752/trade-regulation-rule-on-commercial-surveillance-and-data-security","source_title":"Trade Regulation Rule on Commercial Surveillance and Data Security — ANPR (87 FR 51273)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal Trade Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Would carry FTC civil penalties if finalized"},{"id":"us-occ-fdic-frb-ai-ml-risk-mgmt-2024","title":"Interagency Joint Statement — Risk Management of AI/ML in Banking","short_title":"Interagency AI/ML Risk Mgmt (OCC/Fed/FDIC)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2021-03-31","enacted_date":"2021-03-31","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Banking regulators issued a joint request for information setting their supervisory expectations for banks using AI and machine learning — covering model risk, fair lending, third-party AI vendors, and consumer-protection compliance. The 2011 model-risk-management guidance (SR 11-7) governs AI underwriting models.","summary_technical":"Interagency Request for Information and Comment on Financial Institutions' Use of AI/ML, 86 Fed. Reg. 16837 (Mar. 31, 2021). The OCC, FDIC, FRB, CFPB, and NCUA jointly outlined that AI/ML models are governed by existing Model Risk Management guidance (SR 11-7 / OCC Bulletin 2011-12), fair-lending laws, and third-party risk management standards. OCC's Comptroller's Handbook updates incorporate AI/ML examination expectations.","who_is_protected":"Bank customers and credit applicants subject to AI/ML decisions","who_must_comply":"National banks, federal savings associations, state member and nonmember banks, credit unions, and their third-party AI vendors","citation":"86 Fed. Reg. 16837; SR 11-7; OCC Bulletin 2011-12","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/03/31/2021-06607/request-for-information-and-comment-on-financial-institutions-use-of-artificial-intelligence","source_title":"Interagency RFI on Financial Institutions' Use of AI (86 FR 16837)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"OCC; Federal Reserve; FDIC; NCUA; CFPB (overlapping)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Matters Requiring Attention (MRAs); enforcement orders; civil money penalties under 12 U.S.C. § 1818"},{"id":"us-treasury-ai-cyber-fin-services-2024","title":"Treasury Report — Managing AI-Specific Cybersecurity Risks in the Financial Services Sector","short_title":"Treasury AI Cyber Report (Fin. Services)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-03-27","enacted_date":"2024-03-27","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Treasury released a sector-wide report outlining AI-specific cybersecurity risks facing banks and financial institutions, the gap between large and small firms in AI-fraud defense, and supervisory expectations for AI-driven fraud, deepfakes, and prompt-injection attacks.","summary_technical":"U.S. Treasury Department, 'Managing Artificial Intelligence-Specific Cybersecurity Risks in the Financial Services Sector' (March 2024). Directs financial firms to extend existing third-party risk management (FFIEC, NIST), incident response, and model risk management programs to AI use cases including LLM agents, AI-enabled fraud, and synthetic identity.","who_is_protected":"Consumers and businesses banking with U.S. financial institutions","who_must_comply":"Banks, credit unions, broker-dealers, and other financial-services firms regulated by Treasury bureaus and partner agencies","citation":"Treasury Report (March 2024)","source_url":"https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Managing-Artificial-Intelligence-Specific-Cybersecurity-Risks-In-The-Financial-Services-Sector.pdf","source_title":"Treasury Report — Managing AI-Specific Cybersecurity Risks in the Financial Services Sector","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"U.S. Department of the Treasury (with OCC, FRB, FDIC, NCUA, FinCEN, SEC, CFTC)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No direct penalties; supervisory expectations enforced via existing examination authority"},{"id":"us-nist-genai-profile-ai-600-1","title":"NIST Generative AI Profile (NIST AI 600-1) — Companion to the AI Risk Management Framework","short_title":"NIST GenAI Profile (AI 600-1)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["automated-decisions","transparency","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-26","enacted_date":"2024-07-26","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"NIST's voluntary GenAI Profile is the leading federal playbook for managing risks unique to generative AI: hallucinations, harmful content, intellectual property leakage, data poisoning, and CBRN misuse. Federal contractors and many enterprises adopt it as the de facto AI risk-management baseline.","summary_technical":"NIST AI 600-1 (July 26, 2024). A profile of the NIST AI RMF (AI 100-1) targeting 12 risks unique to or exacerbated by generative AI, with 200+ recommended actions mapped to the RMF's Govern/Map/Measure/Manage functions. Implements directives in EO 14110 (since revoked) and remains the NIST baseline referenced by EO 14179 and the 2025 AI Action Plan.","who_is_protected":"End users of generative AI systems, including consumers exposed to AI hallucinations or harmful outputs","who_must_comply":"Voluntary; federal agencies and contractors typically adopt under OMB M-25-21 / M-25-22 baseline requirements","citation":"NIST AI 600-1","source_url":"https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/NIST.AI.600-1.pdf","source_title":"NIST AI 600-1 — Generative AI Profile (July 2024)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"National Institute of Standards and Technology (no enforcement; widely incorporated by reference)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No direct penalties; incorporated into federal procurement and OMB AI risk management requirements"},{"id":"us-nist-aisi-consortium-2024","title":"NIST U.S. AI Safety Institute and AI Safety Institute Consortium","short_title":"NIST AISI / AISIC","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["automated-decisions","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-02-08","enacted_date":"2024-02-08","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"NIST stood up the U.S. AI Safety Institute and a consortium of AI developers, civil-society groups, and academic labs to develop technical guidance, test methodologies, and safety evaluations for advanced AI models — including red-teaming and dual-use foundation model evaluation.","summary_technical":"Established under NIST authority pursuant to EO 14110 (since revoked); AISI Consortium chartered Feb. 8, 2024, with 280+ member organizations. Issued NIST AI 800-1 (managing risks of misuse for dual-use foundation models, draft July 2024). Continued under NIST statutory authority after EO 14110 revocation; congressional reauthorization pending in 119th Congress.","who_is_protected":"Public exposed to safety-relevant risks from advanced AI systems","who_must_comply":"Voluntary; AISI publishes guidance and conducts pre-deployment evaluations with cooperating frontier labs","citation":"NIST AISI Charter (Feb. 8, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.nist.gov/aisi","source_title":"U.S. AI Safety Institute (NIST)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S. AI Safety Institute)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None — guidance and evaluation only"},{"id":"us-dhs-ai-critical-infra-framework-2024","title":"DHS Framework for AI in Critical Infrastructure (Roles and Responsibilities)","short_title":"DHS AI Critical Infra Framework","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","data-centers","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-11-14","enacted_date":"2024-11-14","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"DHS released a voluntary framework that lays out the responsibilities of cloud providers, AI developers, AI deployers, critical-infrastructure owners, and civil society for the safe and secure use of AI in U.S. critical infrastructure sectors — including grid, water, financial services, and healthcare.","summary_technical":"DHS, 'Roles and Responsibilities Framework for Artificial Intelligence in Critical Infrastructure' (Nov. 14, 2024). Targets the 16 critical-infrastructure sectors, organized around five role categories: cloud and compute infrastructure providers, AI developers, critical infrastructure owners and operators, civil society, and the public sector. Implements EO 14110 § 4.3(a)(iv) directives that survived the EO's revocation.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, workers, and patients dependent on AI-augmented critical-infrastructure operations","who_must_comply":"Voluntary; targeted to the 16 critical-infrastructure sectors and their AI vendors","citation":"DHS Framework (Nov. 14, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-11/24_1114_dhs_ai-roles-and-responsibilities-framework-508.pdf","source_title":"DHS Framework for AI in Critical Infrastructure (Nov. 2024)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Department of Homeland Security; CISA (sector risk management agency coordination)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No direct penalties; informs sector-specific regulation"},{"id":"us-cisa-ai-roadmap-2023","title":"CISA Roadmap for Artificial Intelligence (AI in cybersecurity defense and risk)","short_title":"CISA AI Roadmap","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-11-14","enacted_date":"2023-11-14","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"CISA's AI Roadmap outlines how the U.S. cybersecurity agency will use AI to defend networks, secure AI systems against attacks, and protect critical infrastructure from AI-enabled threats — including deepfakes and AI-driven cyberattacks on the 16 critical-infrastructure sectors.","summary_technical":"Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, 'Roadmap for Artificial Intelligence' (Nov. 14, 2023). Five lines of effort: responsibly use AI to defend, assure AI system security, protect critical infrastructure from malicious AI use, collaborate with international AI partners, and expand CISA AI expertise. Implements EO 14110 § 4.3(b) and continues under CISA's existing authority.","who_is_protected":"U.S. critical-infrastructure operators and downstream consumers","who_must_comply":"Voluntary cooperation with critical-infrastructure sectors","citation":"CISA AI Roadmap (Nov. 14, 2023)","source_url":"https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/ARCHIVE_20232024CISARoadmapAI508.pdf","source_title":"CISA Roadmap for Artificial Intelligence (Nov. 2023)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None; advisory and coordination role"},{"id":"us-ed-ai-in-education-report-2023","title":"U.S. Department of Education — AI and the Future of Teaching and Learning Report","short_title":"ED AI in Education Report","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["education","children","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-05-24","enacted_date":"2023-05-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The Education Department's first major AI report set federal policy direction for AI in K-12 and higher education — calling for human-centered design, educator oversight, equity safeguards, and a moratorium on high-stakes uses of AI to evaluate students or teachers without strong evidence and oversight.","summary_technical":"U.S. Dept. of Education Office of Educational Technology, 'Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Teaching and Learning: Insights and Recommendations' (May 2023). Sets seven recommendations including emphasizing humans in the loop, aligning AI to a shared vision for education, designing AI using modern learning principles, prioritizing educator trust, developing guidelines, and informing research and development.","who_is_protected":"K-12 and higher-education students, educators, and parents","who_must_comply":"Voluntary; informs Title IV/Title I, IDEA, and FERPA program guidance","citation":"ED OET Report (May 24, 2023)","source_url":"https://www2.ed.gov/documents/ai-report/ai-report.pdf","source_title":"U.S. Dept. of Education — AI and the Future of Teaching and Learning (May 2023)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"U.S. Department of Education","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None directly; informs federal grant compliance"},{"id":"us-ofccp-ai-contractor-guidance-2024","title":"DOL OFCCP — Federal Contractor Guidance on AI in Selection Procedures","short_title":"OFCCP AI Selection Guidance","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["employment","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-04-29","enacted_date":"2024-04-29","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Federal contractors using AI in hiring must comply with OFCCP nondiscrimination requirements: vendor due diligence, recordkeeping, validation under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, and accommodations for applicants with disabilities. OFCCP makes clear contractors cannot outsource liability to AI vendors.","summary_technical":"OFCCP, 'Artificial Intelligence and Equal Employment Opportunity for Federal Contractors' (Apr. 29, 2024). Reaffirms application of 41 C.F.R. Part 60-3 (Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures) and 41 C.F.R. Part 60-1 to AI selection tools; identifies recordkeeping (60-1.12) and validation requirements. Companion guidance under EO 11246, Section 503, VEVRAA.","who_is_protected":"Job applicants and employees of federal contractors subjected to AI hiring tools","who_must_comply":"Federal contractors and subcontractors covered by EO 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, and VEVRAA","citation":"OFCCP AI EEO Guidance (Apr. 29, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/ai/ai-eeo-guide","source_title":"OFCCP — AI and Equal Employment Opportunity for Federal Contractors (Apr. 2024)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Contract debarment; back pay; required hiring; injunctive relief"},{"id":"us-va-trustworthy-ai-framework-2023","title":"Department of Veterans Affairs — Trustworthy AI Framework and Directive 1003.2","short_title":"VA Trustworthy AI Framework","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["healthcare","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-09-22","enacted_date":"2023-09-22","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The VA's Trustworthy AI Framework governs how AI may be used across VA healthcare, benefits, and operations. AI used in benefits or clinical decisions requires human review, bias testing, and an AI use-case inventory submitted to OMB.","summary_technical":"VA AI Strategy and Trustworthy AI Framework (Sept. 22, 2023), implementing OMB M-24-10 use-case inventory and rights/safety-impacting AI requirements. VA Directive 1003.2 (AI Use-Case Inventory) and 1003.3 (AI risk management). Covers high-impact uses including clinical decision support, suicide risk prediction (REACH VET), benefits adjudication, and AI claims processing.","who_is_protected":"U.S. veterans receiving healthcare or benefits from the VA","who_must_comply":"All VA administrations, employees, and contractors deploying AI in VA programs","citation":"VA Directive 1003.2; VA AI Strategy (Sept. 2023)","source_url":"https://www.research.va.gov/naii/VA-AI-Strategy.pdf","source_title":"VA Artificial Intelligence Strategy and Trustworthy AI Framework","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"VA Chief AI Officer; VA Office of Inspector General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Internal disciplinary action; contract termination; OMB oversight"},{"id":"us-ntia-ai-accountability-report-2024","title":"NTIA AI Accountability Policy Report","short_title":"NTIA AI Accountability Report","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["automated-decisions","transparency","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-03-27","enacted_date":"2024-03-27","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The Commerce Department's NTIA released the federal government's flagship policy report on AI accountability — concluding that independent AI audits, evaluations, and disclosure mechanisms are essential and recommending federal investment in the AI accountability ecosystem.","summary_technical":"NTIA, 'Artificial Intelligence Accountability Policy Report' (March 27, 2024). Sets 8 federal policy recommendations including supporting AI audits and evaluations, mandating transparency for high-risk AI, and government use of accountability tools. Companion to NIST AI RMF.","who_is_protected":"Public exposed to high-risk AI systems","who_must_comply":"Voluntary; informs federal agency rulemaking and procurement","citation":"NTIA AI Accountability Report (Mar. 27, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ntia-ai-report-final.pdf","source_title":"NTIA AI Accountability Policy Report (March 2024)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"National Telecommunications and Information Administration (Commerce)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None; policy report"},{"id":"us-ntia-open-model-weights-report-2024","title":"NTIA Report — Dual-Use Foundation Models with Widely Available Weights","short_title":"NTIA Open Weights Report","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["transparency","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-30","enacted_date":"2024-07-30","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"NTIA's open-weights report concluded that the federal government should monitor — but not currently restrict — the public release of advanced AI model weights. It established the federal policy baseline that open AI models offer competitive and research benefits that outweigh current risks.","summary_technical":"NTIA, 'Dual-Use Foundation Models with Widely Available Model Weights' Report (July 30, 2024). Implements EO 14110 § 4.6 (since revoked). Recommends federal monitoring of capabilities and risks rather than restrictions; cited by the 2025 'AI Action Plan' as supporting open-source AI innovation policy.","who_is_protected":"AI researchers, developers of open-weight models, and downstream users","who_must_comply":"Voluntary; informs federal policy on open-weight models","citation":"NTIA Open Weights Report (July 30, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.ntia.gov/programs-and-initiatives/artificial-intelligence/open-model-weights-report","source_title":"NTIA — Dual-Use Foundation Models with Widely Available Model Weights (July 2024)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NTIA (Commerce)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None"},{"id":"us-ostp-ai-bill-of-rights-2022","title":"White House OSTP — Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights","short_title":"OSTP AI Bill of Rights Blueprint","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["automated-decisions","transparency","consumer-protection","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2022-10-04","enacted_date":"2022-10-04","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The Blueprint laid out five non-binding principles for protecting Americans from automated systems: safe and effective systems, algorithmic discrimination protections, data privacy, notice and explanation, and human alternatives. It remains the most widely cited federal articulation of AI rights and is referenced by state AI laws.","summary_technical":"Office of Science and Technology Policy, 'Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights: Making Automated Systems Work for the American People' (October 2022). Five principles: (1) Safe and Effective Systems; (2) Algorithmic Discrimination Protections; (3) Data Privacy; (4) Notice and Explanation; (5) Human Alternatives, Consideration, and Fallback. Non-binding but cited as the framework underlying CT SB 1103, CO SB 21-169 model regulations, NYC LL 144, and CA AI laws.","who_is_protected":"U.S. public exposed to automated decision systems","who_must_comply":"Voluntary; cited as the model for state AI bills of rights and federal agency rulemakings","citation":"OSTP Blueprint (October 2022)","source_url":"https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/","source_title":"Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights | OSTP","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"OSTP (no enforcement)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None; non-binding framework"},{"id":"us-omb-m-24-18-superseded","title":"OMB Memorandum M-24-18 — Advancing the Responsible Acquisition of AI in Government (superseded)","short_title":"OMB M-24-18 (superseded by M-25-22)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"repealed","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-10-03","enacted_date":"2024-10-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"OMB's original federal AI acquisition memo set rules for how agencies buy AI, including performance testing, vendor competition, and IP protections for federal AI use cases. Superseded by M-25-22 in April 2025 but established the federal baseline for AI procurement still in effect through M-25-22.","summary_technical":"OMB M-24-18, 'Advancing the Responsible Acquisition of Artificial Intelligence in Government' (Oct. 3, 2024). Implemented EO 14110 § 10.1(f) (since revoked). Rescinded and replaced by OMB M-25-22 (Apr. 3, 2025) on pro-competition, pro-innovation grounds. Many baseline acquisition principles carried forward.","who_is_protected":"Federal employees and members of the public served by federal AI systems","who_must_comply":"All federal agencies (CFO Act); no longer in force","citation":"OMB M-24-18 (Oct. 3, 2024)","source_url":"https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/M-24-18-AI-Acquisition-Memorandum.pdf","source_title":"OMB M-24-18 — Advancing Responsible AI Acquisition in Government (archived)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of Management and Budget","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None during effectiveness; superseded"},{"id":"us-nhtsa-ads-standing-general-order-2021","title":"NHTSA Standing General Order 2021-01 — Crash Reporting for ADS and Level 2 ADAS","short_title":"NHTSA SGO 2021-01 (AV/ADAS reporting)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2021-06-29","enacted_date":"2021-06-29","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Manufacturers and operators of vehicles equipped with SAE Level 2 driver-assistance (Tesla Autopilot, GM Super Cruise) or Level 3-5 automated driving systems must report crashes to NHTSA on a strict timeline — within one day for serious crashes. The data drives recall actions including Tesla's Dec. 2023 over-the-air Autopilot recall.","summary_technical":"NHTSA Standing General Order 2021-01 (Incident Reporting for ADS and Level 2 ADAS-Equipped Vehicles), as amended Aug. 5, 2021 and May 31, 2024. Requires manufacturers and operators to report crashes meeting specified criteria within 1 calendar day for fatal/airbag-deploying crashes and monthly for other reportable crashes.","who_is_protected":"Drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and other road users exposed to AV/ADAS-equipped vehicles","who_must_comply":"Manufacturers and operators of Level 2 ADAS- and Level 3-5 ADS-equipped vehicles","citation":"NHTSA SGO 2021-01","source_url":"https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting","source_title":"NHTSA Standing General Order 2021-01 (Third Amended, May 2022)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties up to $26,315 per violation per day, capped at $131,564,183 per related series (49 U.S.C. § 30165)"},{"id":"us-gsa-ai-mvp-guide-2024","title":"GSA — AI Guide for Government and AI Procurement Resource Center","short_title":"GSA AI Procurement Guide","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-09-24","enacted_date":"2024-09-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"GSA's AI procurement guide gives federal contracting officers a step-by-step playbook for buying AI — including risk classification, vendor due diligence, evaluation criteria, and contract clauses that comply with OMB M-25-22.","summary_technical":"GSA, 'AI Guide for Government: A Living and Evolving Guide to the Application of AI' (Sept. 24, 2024) and accompanying AI Procurement Resource Center. Operationalizes OMB M-25-22 federal AI acquisition baseline. Includes model contract clauses, risk assessment templates, and vendor evaluation rubrics for generative AI, biometric, and high-risk AI systems.","who_is_protected":"Federal employees and members of the public served by federally procured AI","who_must_comply":"Federal contracting officers and program offices procuring AI","citation":"GSA AI Guide for Government (2024)","source_url":"https://coe.gsa.gov/coe/ai-guide-for-government/","source_title":"GSA — AI Guide for Government (Centers of Excellence)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"General Services Administration; OMB oversight","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Contract compliance enforcement; OMB inspector general review"},{"id":"us-doe-ai-energy-framework-2024","title":"DOE AI for Energy — AI Risk Management Playbook for Critical Energy Infrastructure","short_title":"DOE AI Energy Framework","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","data-centers","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-29","enacted_date":"2024-04-29","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"DOE's AI for Energy report sets federal expectations for how utilities, grid operators, and large compute customers use AI for grid operations, demand forecasting, and energy-resource planning — including data centers that strain regional grids.","summary_technical":"U.S. Department of Energy, 'AI for Energy: Opportunities for a Modern Grid and Clean Energy Economy' (April 29, 2024). Identifies AI use cases in grid operations, generation forecasting, supply chain, and load growth from data centers. Companion DOE Office of Critical and Emerging Technologies AI Risk Management Playbook (2024) for energy critical infrastructure.","who_is_protected":"Electricity consumers in regions affected by AI/data-center load growth","who_must_comply":"Voluntary; informs FERC, NERC, and state PUC rulemakings on grid reliability","citation":"DOE AI for Energy Report (Apr. 29, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/AI%20EO%20Report%20Section%205.2g%28i%29_043024.pdf","source_title":"DOE Report — AI for Energy (April 2024)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"U.S. Department of Energy","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None directly; informs FERC, NERC, and state PUC regulation"},{"id":"us-usda-ai-strategy-2024","title":"USDA AI Strategy and Use-Case Inventory","short_title":"USDA AI Strategy","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-09-30","enacted_date":"2024-09-30","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"USDA's AI Strategy governs how the department deploys AI across food safety inspection, SNAP eligibility processing, agricultural research, and farm-loan adjudication — with use-case inventory disclosure required by OMB.","summary_technical":"USDA AI Strategy (Sept. 30, 2024). Implements OMB M-24-10 / M-25-21 across USDA agencies including Food Safety and Inspection Service, Food and Nutrition Service (SNAP), Farm Service Agency, NRCS, ARS. Public use-case inventory under 40 U.S.C. § 11302 note.","who_is_protected":"SNAP recipients, farm-loan applicants, food consumers, and others affected by USDA AI","who_must_comply":"All USDA agencies, employees, and contractors","citation":"USDA AI Strategy (Sept. 30, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fy-2025-2026-usda-ai-strategy.pdf","source_title":"USDA Artificial Intelligence Strategy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"USDA Chief AI Officer; USDA OIG","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Internal program compliance; OMB review"},{"id":"us-epa-ai-strategic-plan-2024","title":"EPA AI Strategy (Final 2025)","short_title":"EPA AI Strategic Plan","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-10-30","enacted_date":"2025-10-30","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"EPA's AI Strategic Plan governs the use of AI for environmental enforcement, pollution monitoring, satellite imagery analysis, and permit review — establishing risk classifications and human-review requirements for AI in enforcement decisions.","summary_technical":"EPA Artificial Intelligence Strategic Plan (Dec. 12, 2024). Implements OMB M-24-10 / M-25-21 across EPA program offices including OECA (enforcement), OAR (air), OW (water), OLEM (waste). Use-case inventory under 40 U.S.C. § 11302 note.","who_is_protected":"Communities and regulated entities affected by EPA enforcement and permit decisions","who_must_comply":"All EPA offices, employees, and contractors","citation":"EPA AI Strategy (Oct. 30, 2025)","source_url":"https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-10/epa_ai_strategy_plan_final2025.pdf","source_title":"EPA Artificial Intelligence Strategy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"EPA Chief AI Officer; EPA OIG","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Internal compliance; OMB review"},{"id":"us-nsf-naiirr-pilot-2023","title":"NSF National AI Research Resource (NAIRR) Pilot","short_title":"NSF NAIRR Pilot","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-24","enacted_date":"2024-01-24","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"NSF's NAIRR pilot is a two-year initiative providing U.S. academic researchers with shared access to compute, data, and AI models — establishing federal terms for responsible AI research, including bias evaluation, model documentation, and access guardrails.","summary_technical":"National Science Foundation National AI Research Resource Pilot launched January 24, 2024. Implements EO 14110 § 5.2(a)(i) (since revoked) and the National AI Initiative Act of 2020 (15 U.S.C. § 9401 et seq.). Full NAIRR statutory authorization pending in Congress.","who_is_protected":"U.S. AI researchers and downstream beneficiaries of trustworthy AI research","who_must_comply":"NAIRR pilot participants (academic, nonprofit, federally funded researchers)","citation":"NSF NAIRR Pilot (Jan. 24, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.nsf.gov/news/democratizing-future-ai-rd-nsf-launch-national-ai-research","source_title":"NSF — Democratizing the future of AI R&D: NSF to launch National AI Research Resource pilot (Jan. 24, 2024)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"National Science Foundation","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Loss of NAIRR access; standard NSF research-misconduct procedures"},{"id":"ca-bar-genai-practical-guidance-2023","title":"California State Bar — Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative AI in the Practice of Law","short_title":"CA Bar GenAI Guidance","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CA","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-11-16","enacted_date":"2023-11-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"California lawyers using ChatGPT, CoPilot, or other generative AI tools must protect client confidentiality, verify AI-generated work, supervise AI outputs, disclose AI use where required, and avoid billing for time saved by AI. Misuse of generative AI is a discipline-eligible violation.","summary_technical":"State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct, 'Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law' (Nov. 16, 2023). Applies California Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.6 (confidentiality), 5.1-5.3 (supervision), 1.5 (fees), 8.4 (misconduct) to generative AI.","who_is_protected":"Clients of California-licensed attorneys; California courts","who_must_comply":"All California-licensed attorneys","citation":"State Bar of California, COPRAC Practical Guidance (Nov. 16, 2023)","source_url":"https://www.calbar.ca.gov/sites/default/files/portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf","source_title":"California State Bar — Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative AI (Nov. 2023)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"State Bar of California; Office of Chief Trial Counsel","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Attorney discipline including reproval, suspension, disbarment under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068 et seq."},{"id":"fl-bar-opinion-24-1-genai-2024","title":"Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 — Generative AI in Legal Practice","short_title":"FL Bar Op. 24-1 (GenAI)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"FL","state_abbr":"FL","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-19","enacted_date":"2024-01-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Florida lawyers using generative AI must obtain informed client consent before using AI to handle client information, supervise AI like nonlawyer staff, verify factual and legal accuracy, comply with advertising rules for AI chatbots, and follow billing requirements that prevent overcharging.","summary_technical":"Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1, 'Generative Artificial Intelligence' (Jan. 19, 2024). Binding ethics opinion applying Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.1, 4-1.5, 4-1.6, 4-5.3, 4-7 (advertising), 4-7.13 (chatbot disclosure). Pre-deployment confidentiality assessment required.","who_is_protected":"Clients of Florida-licensed attorneys","who_must_comply":"All Florida Bar members","citation":"Fla. Bar Ethics Op. 24-1","source_url":"https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/opinion-24-1/","source_title":"Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 (Generative AI)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Florida Bar; Florida Supreme Court","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary action including suspension and disbarment"},{"id":"ny-bar-ai-report-2024","title":"New York State Bar Association — Report and Recommendations on Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"NY Bar AI Report","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NY","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-06","enacted_date":"2024-04-06","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The New York State Bar adopted recommendations on AI in legal practice covering competence, confidentiality, supervision, candor to the court, and advertising — explicitly noting that 'hallucination' sanctions in Mata v. Avianca apply to all New York lawyers using AI.","summary_technical":"NYSBA Task Force on Artificial Intelligence Report and Recommendations, adopted by House of Delegates Apr. 6, 2024. Applies N.Y. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.6, 5.1-5.3, 3.3 (candor), 7.1-7.5 (advertising) to AI use.","who_is_protected":"Clients of New York-licensed attorneys; New York courts","who_must_comply":"All New York-licensed attorneys","citation":"NYSBA AI Task Force Report (Apr. 6, 2024)","source_url":"https://nysba.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2024-April-Report-and-Recommendations-of-the-Task-Force-on-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf","source_title":"NYSBA Task Force on AI — Report and Recommendations (Apr. 2024)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New York State Bar; First Department / Departmental Disciplinary Committees","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Attorney discipline under N.Y. Judiciary Law"},{"id":"nj-bar-genai-notice-2024","title":"New Jersey Supreme Court — Notice on Use of Generative AI by New Jersey Lawyers","short_title":"NJ Supreme Court GenAI Notice","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-25","enacted_date":"2024-01-25","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a binding notice requiring lawyers using generative AI to comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct, including verifying citations, protecting client confidentiality, and supervising AI output. Sanctions follow citation hallucination.","summary_technical":"New Jersey Supreme Court Notice to the Bar, 'Preliminary Guidelines on New Jersey Lawyers' Use of Artificial Intelligence' (Jan. 25, 2024). Applies N.J. RPC 1.1, 1.6, 5.1, 5.3, 8.4. Companion task-force report issued Apr. 24, 2024.","who_is_protected":"Clients of New Jersey-licensed attorneys; New Jersey courts","who_must_comply":"All New Jersey-licensed attorneys","citation":"NJ Supreme Court Notice (Jan. 25, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2024/01/n240125a.pdf","source_title":"NJ Supreme Court — Preliminary Guidelines on Lawyers' Use of AI (Jan. 2024)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New Jersey Supreme Court; Office of Attorney Ethics","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Attorney discipline including suspension and disbarment"},{"id":"dc-bar-ethics-opinion-388-2024","title":"DC Bar Ethics Opinion 388 — Attorneys' Use of Generative AI","short_title":"DC Bar Op. 388 (GenAI)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"DC","state_abbr":"DC","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-24","enacted_date":"2024-04-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"DC Bar Legal Ethics Committee Opinion 388, 'Attorneys' Use of Generative AI' (April 24, 2024). Applies D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 5.1, 5.3, 5.5, 8.4 to GenAI use.","who_is_protected":"Clients of DC-licensed attorneys","who_must_comply":"All DC Bar members","citation":"D.C. Bar Op. 388 (Apr. 24, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-388","source_title":"DC Bar Ethics Opinion 388 (Generative AI)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"DC Bar; DC Court of Appeals","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Attorney discipline including suspension and disbarment"},{"id":"il-bar-ai-resolution-2024","title":"Illinois State Bar Association — Standing Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Mandatory CLE","short_title":"IL Bar AI Standing Committee","level":"state","jurisdiction":"IL","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-12-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Illinois Supreme Court adopted a Policy on Artificial Intelligence (effective January 1, 2025) authorizing AI use by attorneys, judges, and court staff provided it complies with legal and ethical standards. The policy explicitly states that disclosure of AI use should not be required in a pleading, and does not impose mandatory CLE requirements; instead it supports ongoing education on AI and holds all users accountable for thoroughly reviewing AI-generated content before submission.","summary_technical":"Illinois Supreme Court Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (effective Jan. 1, 2025). Companion ISBA AI Task Force Standing Committee resolution (June 21, 2024). Requires verification of AI-generated content, confidentiality compliance, and disclosure when required by court rules.","who_is_protected":"Illinois litigants and clients of Illinois-licensed attorneys","who_must_comply":"All Illinois-licensed attorneys and judges in Illinois state courts","citation":"Ill. Sup. Ct. Policy on AI (eff. Jan. 1, 2025)","source_url":"https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf","source_title":"Illinois Supreme Court Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Illinois Supreme Court; Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Attorney discipline; judicial discipline by Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board"},{"id":"fsmb-ai-guidance-2024","title":"Federation of State Medical Boards — Navigating the Responsible and Ethical Incorporation of AI into Clinical Practice","short_title":"FSMB AI Guidance","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["healthcare","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-26","enacted_date":"2024-04-26","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"FSMB adopted a national framework guiding all U.S. state medical boards on what physicians must do when using AI: maintain transparency with patients, ensure AI tools are appropriate to use, supervise AI outputs, and protect patient privacy. States are adopting it as the model framework.","summary_technical":"Federation of State Medical Boards, 'Navigating the Responsible and Ethical Incorporation of AI into Clinical Practice' (adopted April 26, 2024). Recommends state medical boards adopt regulations covering physician competence in AI, informed consent, patient transparency, supervision of AI tools, and accountability for AI-assisted clinical decisions.","who_is_protected":"Patients treated by U.S. physicians using AI clinical tools","who_must_comply":"Voluntary; framework for U.S. state medical boards to adopt","citation":"FSMB Policy (Apr. 26, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.fsmb.org/siteassets/advocacy/policies/incorporation-of-ai-into-practice.pdf","source_title":"FSMB — Navigating the Responsible and Ethical Incorporation of AI into Clinical Practice","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"State medical boards (varies)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Medical license discipline as adopted state-by-state"},{"id":"pa-allegheny-afst-2016","title":"Allegheny County, PA — Allegheny Family Screening Tool (AFST) Operational Policy","short_title":"PA Allegheny AFST","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Allegheny County, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Allegheny","topics":["children","automated-decisions","public-sector","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2016-08-01","enacted_date":"2016-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Allegheny County deploys a predictive risk model — the Allegheny Family Screening Tool — to score child-welfare hotline calls. Decisions to screen-in cases for investigation incorporate AFST scores. The DOJ has investigated the tool for ADA discrimination concerns; the county continues to operate it with documented protocols.","summary_technical":"Allegheny County Department of Human Services Operational Protocols for the Allegheny Family Screening Tool (deployed Aug. 2016). DOJ Civil Rights Division investigation under Title II ADA opened Nov. 2024 (DJ #204-69-0); county denies discriminatory intent. Successor tool (Hello Baby) deployed 2020 for prenatal/birth families.","who_is_protected":"Families subject to Allegheny County child welfare hotline screening","who_must_comply":"Allegheny County DHS staff and contractors","citation":"Allegheny County DHS AFST Methodology (May 2019 update)","source_url":"https://www.alleghenycountyanalytics.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/16-ACDHS-26_PredictiveRisk_Package_050119_FINAL-2.pdf","source_title":"Developing Predictive Risk Models to Support Child Maltreatment Hotline Screening Decisions (Allegheny County)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Allegheny County DHS; DOJ Civil Rights Division (ADA Title II investigation pending)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"DOJ Title II ADA settlements; county-level program reforms"},{"id":"mi-sos-deepfake-election-policy-2024","title":"Michigan Secretary of State — Deepfake and AI Election Disinformation Response Plan","short_title":"MI SOS Deepfake Election Policy","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MI","state_abbr":"MI","topics":["elections","deepfakes","ai-images","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-02-13","enacted_date":"2024-02-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Michigan's Secretary of State adopted a statewide response plan for AI-generated deepfake election content, coordinating with Michigan Cyber Command and Michigan State Police. Local clerks have standardized procedures for documenting and escalating AI deepfake incidents.","summary_technical":"Michigan Secretary of State election integrity policy implementing 2023 Mich. Pub. Act 264 (deepfake election communications). Coordinates incident response under Michigan Cyber Command (DTMB) and county clerks.","who_is_protected":"Michigan voters","who_must_comply":"Michigan SOS staff; county and local clerks; Michigan Cyber Command","citation":"Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.932f, enacted by P.A. 265 of 2023","source_url":"https://www.michigan.gov/sos/elections/disclosure/deceptive-ai","source_title":"Michigan Secretary of State — Deceptive AI and Elections","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Michigan Secretary of State; Michigan Department of Attorney General","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Criminal penalties under MCL § 168.932f for deepfake violations"},{"id":"va-scc-data-center-rates-investigation-2024","title":"Virginia SCC — Investigation of Data Center Cost Allocation and Rate Class Tariffs","short_title":"VA SCC Data Center Rate Case","level":"state","jurisdiction":"VA","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-11-13","enacted_date":"2024-11-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Virginia's State Corporation Commission opened a formal investigation into how data center load growth — driven by AI compute demand — should be allocated across electricity rate classes, to keep residential customers from subsidizing AI data centers. Includes minimum-billing demands and special tariffs.","summary_technical":"Virginia State Corporation Commission Case No. PUR-2024-00184 (initiated Nov. 13, 2024). Investigation into Dominion Energy Virginia rate class allocation for large data center customers (200+ MW); JLARC Dec. 2024 report flagged $1,400/year/household cost-shift risk. Companion HB 2027 (2025) data-center transparency bill enacted.","who_is_protected":"Virginia residential and small-commercial electricity customers","who_must_comply":"Dominion Energy Virginia, Appalachian Power Co., large data center customers in Virginia","citation":"Va. SCC Case No. PUR-2024-00144","source_url":"https://www.scc.virginia.gov/about-the-scc/newsreleases/release/commission-schedules-technical-conference-news/commission-schedules-technical-conference.html","source_title":"Virginia SCC Case No. PUR-2024-00184 (Data Center Cost Allocation)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Virginia State Corporation Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Cost reallocation orders; rate-design conditions on data center service"},{"id":"or-puc-data-center-rate-class-2024","title":"Oregon PUC — Order on Large-Load Customer Rate Class (Data Centers)","short_title":"OR PUC Data Center Rate Class","level":"state","jurisdiction":"OR","state_abbr":"OR","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-12-04","enacted_date":"2024-12-04","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Oregon's Public Utility Commission established a separate large-load rate class — covering data centers, crypto, and AI compute customers — to protect residential customers from cost-shifting and require minimum-take obligations. PacifiCorp and Portland General Electric must apply the new tariffs to incoming AI data centers.","summary_technical":"Oregon PUC Order No. 24-447 (Dec. 4, 2024) in Docket No. UM 2225. Implements 2023 Or. Laws Ch. 298 (HB 2065) requiring separate rate treatment of high-density data center loads. Applies to PacifiCorp, Portland General Electric, Idaho Power.","who_is_protected":"Oregon residential and small-commercial electricity customers","who_must_comply":"Oregon investor-owned electric utilities; large data center customers","citation":"Or. PUC Order No. 24-447","source_url":"https://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2024ords/24-447.pdf","source_title":"Oregon PUC Order 24-447 (Large-Load Rate Class)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Oregon Public Utility Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Rate disallowance; tariff compliance orders"},{"id":"mi-uia-midas-post-litigation-rules","title":"Michigan UIA — Post-MIDAS Rules on Automated Fraud Determinations in Unemployment Insurance","short_title":"MI UIA MIDAS Reform Rules","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MI","state_abbr":"MI","topics":["employment","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2017-12-13","enacted_date":"2017-12-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"After Michigan's MIDAS automated fraud-detection system wrongly accused tens of thousands of unemployment claimants of fraud and seized their tax refunds, Michigan adopted statutory and regulatory reforms requiring human review before fraud determinations, restitution for wrongful determinations, and prohibition on fully automated fraud findings.","summary_technical":"2017 Mich. Pub. Acts 224-228 (codified in MCL §§ 421.62, 421.62a, 421.54), in response to Bauserman v. UIA (Mich. 2019, settled $20M class action). Prohibits Michigan UIA from making fraud determinations based solely on automated indicators; requires individualized review and adverse-action notice with right to contest.","who_is_protected":"Michigan unemployment insurance claimants","who_must_comply":"Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency; LEO (Dept. of Labor and Economic Opportunity)","citation":"MCL § 421.62a; 2017 Mich. Pub. Acts 224-228","source_url":"https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qvxxz1wbg3l4u1f0nz2g1pt5))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-421-62a","source_title":"MCL § 421.62a (Michigan UIA Determinations)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity; Michigan AG (Bauserman class)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Restitution to wrongfully accused claimants; civil liability under MI tort claims act"},{"id":"ca-cppa-automated-decisionmaking-regs-2024","title":"California Privacy Protection Agency — Automated Decisionmaking Technology (ADMT) Regulations","short_title":"CA CPPA ADMT Regs","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CA","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["privacy","automated-decisions","consumer-protection","transparency","employment"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2025-11-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"California's privacy agency finalized binding regulations governing automated decision-making and AI used to make significant decisions about Californians — including hiring, housing, education, healthcare, financial services, and ads to minors. Consumers gain rights to pre-use notice, opt-out, and access to information about how AI made the decision.","summary_technical":"California Privacy Protection Agency Regulations, 11 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 7200-7232 (ADMT regulations adopted Nov. 21, 2025; effective Apr. 1, 2026 with phased compliance through Jan. 2027). Implements California Privacy Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.185(a)(15)-(16)). Covers ADMT for 'significant decisions' (employment, housing, education, healthcare, financial services), extensive profiling (workplace surveillance), and training of ADMT/AI.","who_is_protected":"California consumers, employees, students, and applicants subjected to automated decision-making","who_must_comply":"Businesses subject to CCPA/CPRA using ADMT for significant decisions, extensive profiling, or model training","citation":"11 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 7200-7232","source_url":"https://cppa.ca.gov/regulations/pdf/admt_regs_final.pdf","source_title":"CPPA — Final ADMT, Risk Assessment, Cybersecurity Audit, and Insurance Regulations (Nov. 2025)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Privacy Protection Agency; California Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Administrative fines up to $2,500 per violation ($7,500 if intentional or involving minors) under Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.155"},{"id":"us-eeoc-strategic-enforcement-plan-2024","title":"EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan FY 2024-2028 — Algorithmic Hiring Priority","short_title":"EEOC SEP FY24-28 (AI priority)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["employment","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-09-21","enacted_date":"2023-09-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan elevates algorithmic and AI hiring discrimination to one of the agency's top investigation priorities through FY 2028 — even after the agency removed its 2023 AI technical assistance documents in January 2025.","summary_technical":"EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan for FY 2024-2028, 88 Fed. Reg. 65042 (Sept. 21, 2023). Designates 'algorithmic and AI-related discrimination in employment' as a priority within the 'protecting vulnerable workers' enforcement focus. Survived the Jan. 27, 2025 removal of AI technical assistance.","who_is_protected":"U.S. job applicants and employees subject to AI hiring tools","who_must_comply":"U.S. employers (Title VII covered) using AI in employment decisions","citation":"88 Fed. Reg. 65042","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/09/21/2023-20582/strategic-enforcement-plan-fiscal-years-2024-2028","source_title":"EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan FY 2024-2028 (88 FR 65042)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Equal Employment Opportunity Commission","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Back pay; reinstatement; compensatory and punitive damages (Title VII caps)"},{"id":"us-doj-crd-fair-housing-ai-2023","title":"DOJ Civil Rights Division — Statement on Algorithmic Discrimination Under Federal Civil Rights Laws","short_title":"DOJ Civil Rights AI Statement","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["automated-decisions","housing-credit","employment","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-04-25","enacted_date":"2023-04-25","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"DOJ joined three other federal agencies in an interagency statement confirming that existing civil rights laws — Fair Housing Act, ECOA, Title VII, ADA — apply fully to AI and algorithmic systems. AI does not create a 'liability shield' for discrimination.","summary_technical":"Joint Statement on Enforcement of Civil Rights, Fair Competition, Consumer Protection, and Equal Opportunity Laws in Automated Systems (Apr. 25, 2023), signed by DOJ Civil Rights Division, CFPB, EEOC, and FTC. Subsequent statements May 2024 reaffirmed. Survived EO 14110 revocation.","who_is_protected":"U.S. consumers subjected to automated systems in housing, lending, employment, and commerce","who_must_comply":"All entities subject to FHA, ECOA, Title VII, ADA, and FTC Act","citation":"DOJ-CFPB-EEOC-FTC Joint Statement (Apr. 25, 2023)","source_url":"https://www.justice.gov/archives/crt/media/1346821/dl?inline=","source_title":"Joint Statement on Enforcement of Civil Rights Laws in Automated Systems (April 2023)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Department of Justice; CFPB; EEOC; FTC","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Underlying statutory penalties"},{"id":"us-hhs-aspr-ai-public-health-framework-2024","title":"HHS ASPR — AI for Public Health Emergency Preparedness Framework","short_title":"HHS ASPR AI Public Health","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["healthcare","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-28","enacted_date":"2024-08-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"HHS's Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response framework governs AI use in public-health emergencies — including pandemic modeling, vaccine distribution, and resource allocation — with bias auditing and transparency required for algorithms that affect access to scarce medical countermeasures.","summary_technical":"HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response AI Framework (Aug. 28, 2024). Implements OMB M-24-10 / M-25-21 across HHS preparedness and response functions including BARDA, ASPR, SNS, and CDC coordination.","who_is_protected":"U.S. public during public-health emergencies including pandemics, bioterrorism response","who_must_comply":"HHS preparedness and response agencies and contractors","citation":"HHS ASPR AI Framework (Aug. 28, 2024)","source_url":"https://aspr.hhs.gov/AI/Pages/default.aspx","source_title":"HHS ASPR — Artificial Intelligence","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"HHS ASPR; HHS Chief AI Officer","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Internal compliance; OMB review"},{"id":"us-ssa-ai-adjudication-guidance-2024","title":"SSA — Use of AI in Disability Claims Adjudication Guidance","short_title":"SSA AI Disability Adjudication","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-30","enacted_date":"2024-07-30","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Social Security Administration governance for AI used to help adjudicate disability claims — including the Insight tool and Quick Disability Determinations. Human adjudicators must review every AI-assisted determination; AI cannot deny benefits without ALJ or examiner review.","summary_technical":"SSA AI Use-Case Inventory and Governance Framework (July 30, 2024). Implements OMB M-24-10 / M-25-21 across SSA Disability Determination Services (DDS), Office of Hearings Operations, and Office of Appellate Operations. Covers Insight, Quick Disability Determinations (QDD), Compassionate Allowances (CAL), and ALJ decision-writing aids.","who_is_protected":"U.S. Social Security disability claimants","who_must_comply":"SSA, state DDS agencies (federally funded), ALJs","citation":"SSA AI Governance Framework (July 30, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.ssa.gov/ai/","source_title":"SSA — Artificial Intelligence","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"SSA Office of Chief AI Officer; SSA OIG","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Internal compliance; OMB review; appellate reversal"},{"id":"us-fcc-lingo-telecom-tcpa-biden-deepfake-2024","title":"FCC v. Lingo Telecom — $1M TCPA Settlement for AI-Cloned Biden Robocalls","short_title":"FCC Lingo Telecom Biden deepfake fine","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","deepfakes","elections"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-08-21","enacted_date":"2024-08-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The FCC fined voice provider Lingo Telecom $1 million for carrying AI-generated robocalls that used a cloned voice of President Biden to suppress votes in the January 2024 New Hampshire primary. It was the first FCC enforcement action against a carrier for transmitting AI deepfake robocalls.","summary_technical":"Consent decree resolving FCC Enforcement Bureau investigation into Lingo Telecom's transmission of AI-cloned Biden robocalls in NH on Jan. 21, 2024. Lingo improperly attested A-level STIR/SHAKEN authentication to Life Corporation calls, violating 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.6301, 64.6305 and the TCPA. $1M civil penalty plus compliance plan requiring KYC and improved STIR/SHAKEN attestation.","who_is_protected":"Voters; recipients of AI-cloned voice robocalls","who_must_comply":"Voice service providers originating or carrying AI-generated robocalls","citation":"FCC Consent Decree, DA 24-823 (Aug. 21, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-settles-investigation-lingo-telecom-over-ai-generated-robocalls","source_title":"FCC Settles Investigation with Lingo Telecom over AI-Generated Robocalls","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"$1M civil penalty + 3-year compliance plan"},{"id":"us-sec-delphia-global-predictions-ai-washing-2024","title":"SEC v. Delphia & Global Predictions — First AI-Washing Enforcement","short_title":"SEC AI-washing settlement","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-03-18","enacted_date":"2024-03-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The SEC charged two investment advisers — Delphia (USA) and Global Predictions — with making false and misleading statements about using AI and machine learning. The firms paid $400,000 combined in civil penalties. It was the SEC's first 'AI-washing' enforcement action and signals scrutiny of overstated AI capability claims in financial services.","summary_technical":"SEC orders (33-11264 / 34-99704; 33-11265 / 34-99705) under Securities Act § 17(a)(2) and Investment Advisers Act § 206(2) and (4): Delphia falsely claimed it used 'collective data' to power an AI that 'predicts which companies and trends are about to make it big'; Global Predictions falsely claimed to be the 'first regulated AI financial advisor.' $225K and $175K penalties respectively; cease-and-desist orders.","who_is_protected":"Retail investors and advisory clients","who_must_comply":"Registered investment advisers and broker-dealers marketing AI/ML capabilities","citation":"In re Delphia (USA) Inc., Securities Act Rel. No. 11264 (Mar. 18, 2024); In re Global Predictions Inc., Securities Act Rel. No. 11265 (Mar. 18, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-36","source_title":"SEC Charges Two Investment Advisers with Making False and Misleading Statements About Their Use of Artificial Intelligence","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Securities and Exchange Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"$225K (Delphia) + $175K (Global Predictions) civil penalties; cease-and-desist"},{"id":"us-doj-fraud-section-ai-fraud-guidance-2024","title":"DOJ Criminal Division — AI Aggravating Factor in Corporate Compliance and Sentencing","short_title":"DOJ AI-fraud sentencing guidance","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","deepfakes","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-09-23","enacted_date":"2024-03-05","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The Justice Department updated its corporate compliance guidance in September 2024 to require companies to assess and mitigate AI-related risks, and Deputy AG Lisa Monaco announced in March 2024 that DOJ will seek stiffer sentences when AI is used to commit fraud — treating AI as an aggravating factor.","summary_technical":"DOJ Criminal Division 'Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs' (Sept. 23, 2024) revised to add AI risk-management criteria; Deputy AG Monaco's ABA Mar. 5, 2024 speech directed prosecutors to seek enhanced sentences for AI-enabled fraud and asked the U.S. Sentencing Commission to consider whether AI use should increase offense levels. DOJ also created a Chief AI Officer and AI/Emerging Tech Strike Force.","who_is_protected":"Fraud victims, including consumers, investors, and federal program beneficiaries","who_must_comply":"Corporations subject to DOJ scrutiny; defendants in federal fraud prosecutions","citation":"DOJ Criminal Division ECCP (Sept. 23, 2024); Deputy AG Lisa Monaco, ABA White Collar Conf. (Mar. 5, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-fraud/page/file/937501/dl","source_title":"Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (Sept. 2024)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Enhanced sentencing recommendations; aggravated charging decisions"},{"id":"us-cftc-ai-fraud-customer-advisory-2024","title":"CFTC Customer Advisory — AI Won't Turn Trading Bots into Money Machines","short_title":"CFTC AI trading-scam advisory","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-25","enacted_date":"2024-01-25","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The Commodity Futures Trading Commission warned consumers about AI-related investment scams — fraudsters promising guaranteed returns from AI trading bots, AI-generated celebrity endorsements, and AI-themed pump-and-dump schemes in crypto and forex markets. The advisory laid the groundwork for CFTC enforcement against AI-touted commodity fraud.","summary_technical":"CFTC Office of Customer Education and Outreach advisory dated Jan. 25, 2024 warns about fraud schemes promoting AI/algorithmic trading bots in commodities, derivatives, and digital assets. CFTC followed with enforcement against AI-touted forex/crypto pools (e.g., Mosaic Exchange Limited LLC, June 2024) under Commodity Exchange Act §§ 4b, 4o.","who_is_protected":"Retail commodity, forex, and digital-asset traders","who_must_comply":"Commodity trading advisors, pool operators, and firms marketing AI trading capabilities","citation":"CFTC OCEO Customer Advisory (Jan. 25, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.cftc.gov/LearnAndProtect/AdvisoriesAndArticles/AITradingBots.html","source_title":"CFTC Customer Advisory: AI Won't Turn a Trading Bot into a Money Machine","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Commodity Futures Trading Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil monetary penalties, restitution, trading bans under the Commodity Exchange Act"},{"id":"us-finra-reg-notice-24-09-ai-2024","title":"FINRA Regulatory Notice 24-09 — Member Firm Obligations for AI Tools","short_title":"FINRA AI Notice 24-09","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-06-27","enacted_date":"2024-06-27","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"FINRA reminded broker-dealers that existing rules — supervision, recordkeeping, advertising, and anti-fraud — apply fully to AI tools, including generative AI used for customer communications, surveillance, and trading. Firms misrepresenting AI capabilities or failing to supervise AI outputs face enforcement.","summary_technical":"FINRA Reg. Notice 24-09 (June 27, 2024) reiterates that Rules 2210 (communications), 3110 (supervision), 4511 (books and records), 2010 (standards of commercial honor), and the SEC anti-fraud regime apply to AI applications including LLMs. Firms must address hallucinations, IP risks, and customer-data confidentiality in supervisory procedures.","who_is_protected":"Retail investors and broker-dealer clients","who_must_comply":"FINRA-registered broker-dealers and associated persons","citation":"FINRA Reg. Notice 24-09 (June 27, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/24-09","source_title":"Regulatory Notice 24-09 — Firms' Obligations in the Use of Generative AI and Large Language Models","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Financial Industry Regulatory Authority","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"FINRA fines, suspensions, expulsions, and disgorgement"},{"id":"us-fincen-ai-deepfake-financial-alert-2024","title":"FinCEN Alert FIN-2024-Alert004 — GenAI Deepfake Media for Financial Fraud","short_title":"FinCEN deepfake-fraud BSA alert","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","deepfakes","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-11-13","enacted_date":"2024-11-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"FinCEN issued an alert telling banks and other financial institutions how to spot — and report — fraud schemes that use generative-AI deepfakes to defeat identity verification. Suspicious activity reports must use the SAR keyword 'FIN-2024-DEEPFAKEFRAUD' so FinCEN can track the trend in synthetic identity and account-takeover fraud.","summary_technical":"FinCEN Alert FIN-2024-Alert004 (Nov. 13, 2024) issued under the Bank Secrecy Act describes typologies — deepfake images and videos used to defeat CIP/KYC, deepfake audio for elder fraud and business email compromise — and lists red flags. Filers must use SAR keyword 'FIN-2024-DEEPFAKEFRAUD' and reference the alert.","who_is_protected":"Banking customers, fintech customers, financial system integrity","who_must_comply":"Banks, MSBs, broker-dealers, and other BSA-covered financial institutions","citation":"FinCEN Alert FIN-2024-Alert004 (Nov. 13, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/FinCEN-Alert-DeepFakes-Alert508FINAL.pdf","source_title":"FinCEN Alert on Fraud Schemes Involving Deepfake Media Targeting Financial Institutions","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"FinCEN; federal banking regulators","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"BSA civil and criminal penalties for AML/SAR failures"},{"id":"us-fbi-ic3-psa-i120324-deepfake-2024","title":"FBI IC3 Public Service Announcement I-120324-PSA — Criminal Use of Generative AI","short_title":"FBI IC3 AI fraud PSA","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","deepfakes","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-12-03","enacted_date":"2024-12-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center warned that criminals are using generative AI for phishing, impersonation, romance scams, investment fraud, and synthetic identity creation — and gave concrete defenses, like asking a 'secret word' on suspicious family calls. The PSA underpins FBI investigative priority and informs federal AI-fraud charging decisions.","summary_technical":"FBI IC3 PSA I-120324-PSA (Dec. 3, 2024) catalogues criminal uses of GenAI: AI-cloned voice for grandparent/CEO scams; AI-generated images for romance and investment fraud; deepfake videos for celebrity-endorsement scams; LLM-drafted phishing; synthetic identities for credit and benefit fraud. Recommends consumer mitigations (secret word, multi-channel verification) and feeds IC3 complaint data into federal investigations.","who_is_protected":"U.S. consumers, businesses, and elder fraud targets","who_must_comply":"N/A (consumer-facing PSA); informs FBI/DOJ investigations","citation":"FBI IC3 PSA I-120324-PSA (Dec. 3, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2024/PSA241203","source_title":"Criminals Use Generative Artificial Intelligence to Facilitate Financial Fraud (FBI IC3 PSA)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal Bureau of Investigation","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Underlying wire fraud, mail fraud, identity theft and computer-fraud statutes apply"},{"id":"us-ftc-impersonation-rule-ai-2024","title":"FTC Government and Business Impersonation Rule — AI-Impersonation Enforcement","short_title":"FTC Impersonation Rule (AI)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","deepfakes"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2024-04-01","enacted_date":"2024-02-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"16 C.F.R. Part 461 (Trade Reg. Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses), 89 Fed. Reg. 15017 (Mar. 1, 2024), eff. Apr. 1, 2024. Authorizes federal-court actions for civil penalties and redress. Feb. 15, 2024 supplemental NPRM proposes Rule on Impersonation of Individuals — explicitly justified by AI deepfake fraud against private individuals.","who_is_protected":"Consumers receiving AI-impersonation calls/emails/videos; impersonated government bodies and businesses","who_must_comply":"Anyone in or affecting U.S. commerce who impersonates a government entity or business","citation":"16 C.F.R. Part 461; 89 Fed. Reg. 15017","source_url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-impersonation-rule-goes-effect-today","source_title":"FTC Announces Impersonation Rule Goes Into Effect","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal Trade Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties (up to $53,088 per violation in 2025), redress, injunctive relief"},{"id":"us-cfpb-circular-2024-05-genai-chatbot","title":"CFPB Circular 2024-05 — Improper Overdraft and AI Chatbot Practices","short_title":"CFPB AI chatbot circular","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions","housing-credit"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-10-23","enacted_date":"2024-10-23","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Building on its 2023 chatbot report, the CFPB has warned that banks and lenders using generative-AI chatbots that mislead consumers — about fees, account terms, or credit denials — face liability under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Truth in Lending Act. Hallucinating chatbots are not a regulatory loophole.","summary_technical":"CFPB Issue Spotlight 'Chatbots in Consumer Finance' (June 2023) and follow-on Circular guidance treat AI/chatbot misstatements as UDAAPs under 12 U.S.C. § 5536, ECOA adverse-action obligations under 15 U.S.C. § 1691, and TILA disclosure rules. CFPB has investigated several large banks' AI chatbot deployments.","who_is_protected":"Consumers interacting with bank, lender, or fintech AI chatbots","who_must_comply":"Banks, credit unions, fintechs, and non-bank lenders deploying customer-facing AI","citation":"CFPB Issue Spotlight (June 2023); CFPB UDAAP / ECOA / TILA enforcement posture (2024)","source_url":"https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/chatbots-in-consumer-finance/","source_title":"Chatbots in Consumer Finance (Issue Spotlight)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; state AGs (parallel UDAP authority)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"CFPA civil money penalties (tiered up to ~$1.36M/day for knowing violations), restitution, injunctive relief"},{"id":"us-fcc-tcpa-ai-disclosure-nprm-2024","title":"FCC NPRM on AI-Generated Calls and Texts (Robocall AI Disclosure)","short_title":"FCC AI robocall disclosure NPRM","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","deepfakes","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The FCC's August 2024 proposed rule would require callers using AI-generated voices or AI-written texts to disclose that fact at the start of the call or in the text, and would let consumers refuse AI calls even when prerecorded consent was given. The proposal is pending as of June 2026 — track its status before relying on it.","summary_technical":"FCC NPRM in CG Docket No. 23-362 (FCC 24-84, Aug. 8, 2024) proposes new 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(b)/(d) requirements: (1) defining 'AI-generated call'; (2) requiring prerecorded AI disclosures and TCPA-compliant consent; (3) protecting positive uses of AI for accessibility; (4) requiring TRACED Act-compliant AI-call analytics. Comment period closed Oct. 2024; rule pending.","who_is_protected":"Telephone consumers receiving AI-generated calls or texts","who_must_comply":"Callers, texters, telemarketers, and voice service providers","citation":"FCC 24-84, NPRM, CG Docket 23-362 (Aug. 8, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-first-ai-generated-robocall-robotext-rules-0","source_title":"FCC NPRM, CG Docket No. 23-362 (FCC 24-84) — AI-Generated Calls and Texts","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal Communications Commission","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"TCPA statutory damages and FCC forfeitures (if adopted)"},{"id":"il-pa103-1014-electronic-impersonation-2024","title":"Illinois Digital Voice and Likeness Impersonation Act (HB 4762 / P.A. 103-1014)","short_title":"IL Digital Voice/Likeness Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"IL","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["consumer-protection","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-08-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Illinois created a private right of action against anyone who distributes an unauthorized AI 'digital replica' of a person's voice or likeness, with damages up to $150,000 plus attorneys' fees. Aimed at AI voice-clone fraud, fake celebrity endorsements, and unauthorized digital replicas of performers.","summary_technical":"Public Act 103-1014, codified as the Digital Voice and Likeness Protection Act, 765 ILCS 1075/30 amendments. Creates a private right of action for the unauthorized commercial distribution of an AI-generated digital replica. Damages: actual + profits, or statutory $1,000 per work or per day with caps up to $150,000 for willful violations. Eff. Jan. 1, 2025.","who_is_protected":"Illinois individuals (living or deceased) whose voice or likeness is replicated","who_must_comply":"Anyone producing or distributing unauthorized digital replicas commercially","citation":"765 ILCS 1075/; P.A. 103-1014","source_url":"https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/PublicActs/View/103-1014","source_title":"Public Act 103-1014 — Digital Voice and Likeness Protection Act","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Illinois Attorney General; private plaintiffs","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Statutory damages up to $150,000; actual damages + profits; attorneys' fees"},{"id":"ny-s8443a-elvis-companion-2024","title":"New York S.B. 8430-A — AI Likeness / Right-of-Publicity Update (Civil Rights Law §§ 50-f, 50-g)","short_title":"NY AI digital replica law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NY","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["consumer-protection","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-08-13","enacted_date":"2024-08-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"New York governor signed laws making vague AI digital-replica clauses in personal-services contracts unenforceable and reinforcing the state's right-of-publicity protections for AI-generated voice and likeness fraud. Builds on NY's existing Civil Rights Law §§ 50-f and 50-g.","summary_technical":"Ch. 220 of 2024 (S.B. 7676-B / A. 8882-B) and Ch. 219 of 2024 narrow enforceability of contractual digital-replica clauses and strengthen Civil Rights Law §§ 50-f (deceased performer digital replicas) and §§ 50/51 (right of privacy/publicity) for unauthorized AI voice and likeness use.","who_is_protected":"New York individuals and performers, including deceased performers' estates","who_must_comply":"Producers and distributors of unauthorized AI digital replicas; employers using AI replicas of workers","citation":"N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§ 50-f, 50-g; Ch. 219 and 220 of 2024","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S7676/amendment/B","source_title":"New York S.B. 7676-B — Digital replicas in personal services contracts","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Private plaintiffs; NY AG concurrent authority","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Compensatory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages for knowing violations, attorneys' fees"},{"id":"ca-cppa-honda-admt-settlement-2025","title":"California Privacy Protection Agency — Honda $632,500 ADMT/CCPA Settlement","short_title":"CPPA Honda ADMT settlement","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CA","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["consumer-protection","privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-03-12","enacted_date":"2025-03-12","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"California's privacy agency fined American Honda $632,500 — its first public enforcement action — for making consumers go through hoops to exercise opt-out and access rights, including against automated decision-making and data-broker sharing. The agency signaled that ADMT (automated decision-making technology) compliance is now a top enforcement priority for AI-driven consumer profiling.","summary_technical":"CPPA Order, In the Matter of American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (March 12, 2025). Honda violated CCPA opt-out symmetry, authorized-agent acceptance, and consumer-rights verification rules under Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 and 11 CCR § 7026. $632,500 penalty + injunctive relief. CPPA's pending ADMT regulations (effective Jan. 2027) make this a precedent for AI-profiling enforcement.","who_is_protected":"California consumers subject to ADMT/AI profiling and data-broker sales","who_must_comply":"Businesses subject to the CCPA using ADMT for consumer decisions","citation":"CPPA, In re American Honda Motor Co. (Mar. 12, 2025)","source_url":"https://cppa.ca.gov/announcements/2025/20250312.html","source_title":"CPPA Settles Investigation into American Honda Motor Co.","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Privacy Protection Agency","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Administrative fines up to $2,500/violation; $7,500/intentional or minor-related violation"},{"id":"il-wopr-hb1806-ai-therapy-2025","title":"Illinois Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act (HB 1806, 2025)","short_title":"IL WOPR (AI therapy ban)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"IL","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["consumer-protection","healthcare","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-08-01","enacted_date":"2025-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Illinois banned AI-only therapy and made it unlawful for AI products to claim or imply they can provide mental-health treatment without a licensed clinician supervising. Aimed at consumer-protection harms from companion/therapy chatbots that misrepresent clinical credentials.","summary_technical":"P.A. 104-0054 (HB 1806), eff. Aug. 1, 2025 — prohibits the provision of mental-health or therapeutic services by AI without licensed clinician oversight; bans advertising AI as a therapist or counselor; enforced by IDFPR Division of Professional Regulation with civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation.","who_is_protected":"Illinois residents using mental-health AI products","who_must_comply":"Developers and deployers of AI products providing or advertising mental-health services","citation":"P.A. 104-0054; 225 ILCS 8/","source_url":"https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/PublicActs/View/104-0054","source_title":"Public Act 104-0054 — Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation; injunctive relief"},{"id":"ca-ab1008-ccpa-ai-extends-2024","title":"California AB 1008 (2024) — CCPA Applies to AI-Embedded Personal Information","short_title":"CA AB 1008 (CCPA + AI)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CA","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["privacy","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-09-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"California clarified that personal information remains protected by the CCPA even when it is embedded in or generated by AI systems — including model weights and AI-generated synthetic content about a person. Closes a loophole AI developers had used to argue training data and model outputs fell outside privacy law.","summary_technical":"Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.140 amendments (AB 1008, ch. 853, Stats. 2024) — clarifies that 'personal information' under CCPA includes information embedded in artificial intelligence systems and may exist in 'physical or digital formats including but not limited to AI systems capable of outputting personal information.' Eff. Jan. 1, 2025.","who_is_protected":"California consumers whose personal information is embedded in or output by AI systems","who_must_comply":"Businesses subject to the CCPA developing or deploying AI","citation":"Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.140; AB 1008 (Stats. 2024, ch. 853)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1008","source_title":"California AB 1008 — Consumer Privacy Act Clarification (AI)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Privacy Protection Agency; California Attorney General","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"CCPA fines up to $2,500/$7,500 per violation; private right limited to data-breach claims"},{"id":"ca-ag-bonta-ai-legal-advisory-2025","title":"CA AG Bonta — Legal Advisory on Applying California Consumer Protection, Civil Rights, and Privacy Laws to AI","short_title":"CA AG Bonta AI legal advisory","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CA","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions","privacy","deepfakes"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-13","enacted_date":"2025-01-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"California's Attorney General issued a legal advisory making clear that existing California consumer-protection, civil-rights, and privacy laws fully apply to AI — including the False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, CCPA, and FEHA. The advisory targets AI-washing, AI-driven discrimination, hallucination-driven misrepresentations, and AI scam impersonation.","summary_technical":"CA DOJ Legal Advisory dated Jan. 13, 2025 from AG Rob Bonta: California's UCL (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), FAL (§ 17500), CLRA (Civ. Code § 1750), FEHA, Unruh, and CCPA apply to AI; cites AB 2013, AB 2655, AB 2905, AB 2655, SB 942, SB 1120, and announces enforcement focus on AI deepfake scams, AI-washing, and discriminatory algorithms.","who_is_protected":"California consumers and protected-class members affected by AI","who_must_comply":"Businesses developing or deploying AI in California commerce","citation":"CA DOJ Legal Advisory (Jan. 13, 2025)","source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Legal%20Advisory%20-%20Application%20of%20Existing%20CA%20Laws%20to%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf","source_title":"California Attorney General Legal Advisory — Application of Existing California Laws to AI","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Attorney General; private plaintiffs (UCL/CLRA)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil penalties under California UDAP statutes; statutory damages under CLRA; CCPA penalties"},{"id":"ny-ag-james-ai-consumer-alert-2024","title":"NY AG James — Consumer Alert on AI Voice-Clone Scams and Romance Schemes","short_title":"NY AG James AI scam consumer alert","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NY","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["consumer-protection","deepfakes","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-10-17","enacted_date":"2024-10-17","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"New York Attorney General Letitia James issued consumer alerts warning New Yorkers about AI voice-cloning grandparent scams, AI romance and pig-butchering schemes, and AI investment fraud — and pledged enforcement under New York's GBL § 349 against deceptive AI uses.","summary_technical":"NY OAG consumer alert series (Oct. 17, 2024 'Next Decade of AI' symposium report and Dec. 13, 2024 holiday-scam alert): identifies AI voice-clone family-emergency scams, AI romance/pig-butchering scams, and AI investment-platform fraud; announces enforcement priorities under N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. §§ 349 (deceptive practices), 350 (false advertising), and the NY SHIELD Act.","who_is_protected":"New York consumers, especially seniors targeted by AI voice-clone fraud","who_must_comply":"Businesses and individuals engaging in AI-enabled deceptive practices in NY","citation":"NY OAG Press Release (Oct. 17, 2024)","source_url":"https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2024/attorney-general-james-works-protect-new-yorkers-artificial-intelligence","source_title":"Attorney General James Works to Protect New Yorkers From Artificial Intelligence","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New York Attorney General","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil penalties up to $5,000 per GBL § 349 violation; restitution; injunctive relief"},{"id":"dc-ag-schwalb-elder-ai-fraud-2025","title":"DC AG Schwalb — Consumer Alert: Deepfake Telemarketing Scams Targeting DC Residents (April 2025)","short_title":"DC AG Schwalb senior AI-fraud unit","level":"state","jurisdiction":"DC","state_abbr":"DC","topics":["consumer-protection","deepfakes"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-04-18","enacted_date":"2025-04-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"DC OAG Elder Justice priorities (May 15, 2025) leveraging the District Consumer Protection Procedures Act (D.C. Code § 28-3904), the Elder Financial Exploitation Act, and CFPB partnership data. Targets AI voice-clone scams, AI-driven tech support fraud, and deepfake celebrity-endorsement schemes targeting seniors.","who_is_protected":"DC seniors and consumers targeted by AI-enabled fraud","who_must_comply":"Persons engaged in deceptive AI practices in or affecting DC commerce","citation":"D.C. Code § 28-3904; DC OAG Consumer Alert (Apr. 18, 2025)","source_url":"https://oag.dc.gov/release/attorney-general-schwalb-issues-consumer-alert-3","source_title":"AG Schwalb Launches Senior Citizen Counts Campaign","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"District of Columbia Attorney General","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"CPPA civil penalties up to $5,000/violation; treble damages; injunctive relief"},{"id":"mi-ag-nessel-ai-deepfake-scam-alert-2024","title":"MI AG Nessel — Consumer Alert on AI-Generated Deepfake Scams","short_title":"MI AG AI scam alert","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MI","state_abbr":"MI","topics":["consumer-protection","deepfakes"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-15","enacted_date":"2024-08-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel issued an alert warning consumers about AI deepfake video scams, voice clones, and synthetic image fraud — including AI-generated investment ads using fake celebrity endorsements — and pledged enforcement under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.","summary_technical":"MI OAG Consumer Alert (Aug. 15, 2024) and related advisories: applies Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.903 (MCPA) to AI deepfake scams; coordinates with Michigan Public Acts 263–266 of 2023 (election deepfakes) for enforcement against AI political/commercial impersonation.","who_is_protected":"Michigan consumers and election voters","who_must_comply":"Persons engaged in AI-enabled deceptive practices affecting Michigan commerce","citation":"Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.903; MI OAG Press Release (Dec. 11, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.michigan.gov/ag/news/press-releases/2024/12/11/attorney-general-nessel-warns-consumers-about-holiday-scams-using-artificial-intelligence","source_title":"AG Nessel: Attorney General Nessel Warns Consumers About Holiday Scams Using Artificial Intelligence (Dec. 11, 2024)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Michigan Attorney General","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"MCPA civil penalties up to $25,000 for persistent violations; injunctive relief"},{"id":"us-fbi-elder-fraud-report-2024","title":"FBI 2024 Elder Fraud Report — AI-Enabled Senior Scam Trends","short_title":"FBI 2024 Elder Fraud Report","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","deepfakes","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-04-29","enacted_date":"2025-04-29","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The FBI's annual Elder Fraud Report — published April 2025 for calendar year 2024 — documented $4.885 billion in losses by Americans 60+, with AI voice cloning, AI-driven romance and pig-butchering scams, and tech-support fraud identified as fastest-growing vectors. The report is the principal federal basis for AI elder-fraud policy and enforcement priorities.","summary_technical":"FBI IC3 2024 Elder Fraud Report (Apr. 29, 2025): 147,127 complaints by victims 60+, $4.885B in reported losses. Identifies AI voice cloning ('grandparent' scams), deepfake celebrity investment promos, AI-driven romance scams, and AI tech-support fraud as growing categories. Feeds federal/state AG charging and FCC/FTC enforcement priorities.","who_is_protected":"Americans 60 and older targeted by AI-enabled fraud","who_must_comply":"N/A (informational); informs federal charging, FCC/FTC rulemaking, and state AG enforcement","citation":"FBI IC3 2024 Elder Fraud Report (Apr. 29, 2025)","source_url":"https://www.ic3.gov/AnnualReport/Reports/2024_IC3ElderFraudReport.pdf","source_title":"FBI 2024 Internet Crime Report — Elder Fraud (April 2025)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"FBI; DOJ; FTC; FCC; state AGs","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Underlying statutes (wire/mail fraud, TCPA, FTC Act, state UDAP) supply penalties"},{"id":"ak-sb177-deepfake-cyber-privacy-2024-dead","title":"Alaska SB 177 (33rd Legislature) — AI / deepfake campaign disclosure, cybersecurity & data privacy [DIED]","short_title":"AK SB 177 — AI deepfakes / cybersecurity / data privacy (dead, 2024)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Alaska","state_abbr":"AK","topics":["elections","transparency","privacy","deepfakes"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-19","summary_plain":"A 2023-2024 Alaska Senate bill that would have required disclosure of AI-generated deepfakes in campaign communications and addressed state cybersecurity and data privacy. It died without passing: the 33rd Alaska Legislature adjourned on May 15, 2024 with the bill still stuck in Senate committee referrals (Judiciary, then Finance). This entry is kept only as a historical record of a dead bill — it is NOT a law in effect and does not protect anyone today. The same subject matter is being pursued in the current 34th Legislature as AK SB 2.","summary_technical":"CSSB 177(STA): An Act relating to artificial intelligence; requiring disclosure of deepfakes in campaign communications; relating to cybersecurity; and relating to data privacy. Reported out of Senate State Affairs with a new title on 2024-04-24 and referred to Judiciary with a Finance referral added; never received a final floor vote in either chamber. Died at sine die adjournment of the 33rd Legislature's second regular session (2024-05-15).","who_is_protected":"Would have protected Alaska voters/recipients of campaign communications and individuals' data — but the bill never became law, so no protection exists.","who_must_comply":"Would have applied to campaign communicators and state agencies handling AI/data — but the bill never became law, so no obligations exist.","citation":"AK SB 177 (33rd Alaska Legislature, 2023-2024)","source_url":"https://www.akleg.gov/basis/Bill/Detail/33?Root=SB177","source_title":"Alaska State Legislature — SB 177 Bill Detail (33rd Legislature, 2023-2024)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ak-hb358-deepfake-defamation-elections-2024-dead","title":"Alaska HB 358 (33rd Legislature) — deepfake defamation claims & deepfakes in electioneering [DIED]","short_title":"AK HB 358 — deepfake defamation / electioneering (dead, 2024)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Alaska","state_abbr":"AK","topics":["deepfakes","elections","automated-decisions"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-19","summary_plain":"A 2023-2024 Alaska House bill that would have created defamation claims based on the use of deepfakes and regulated the use of deepfakes in electioneering communications. It passed the House but died without becoming law: the 33rd Alaska Legislature adjourned on May 15, 2024 with the bill stalled in the Senate Rules Committee. This entry is kept only as a historical record of a dead bill — it is NOT a law in effect and does not protect anyone today. The same subject matter is being pursued in the current 34th Legislature as AK SB 33.","summary_technical":"SCS CSHB 358(JUD): An Act relating to defamation claims based on the use of deepfakes; and relating to the use of deepfakes in electioneering communications. Passed the House; moved out of Senate Judiciary with a new title and referred to Senate Rules on 2024-05-13. Never received a Senate floor vote. Died at sine die adjournment of the 33rd Legislature's second regular session (2024-05-15).","who_is_protected":"Would have protected Alaskans depicted in deepfakes (defamation remedy) and voters exposed to deepfake electioneering — but the bill never became law, so no protection exists.","who_must_comply":"Would have applied to people who create or distribute deepfakes in defamatory or electioneering contexts — but the bill never became law, so no obligations exist.","citation":"AK HB 358 (33rd Alaska Legislature, 2023-2024)","source_url":"https://www.akleg.gov/basis/Bill/Detail/33?Root=HB358","source_title":"Alaska State Legislature — HB 358 Bill Detail (33rd Legislature, 2023-2024)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"nm-santa-fe-county-data-center-moratorium-ord-2026-06","title":"Santa Fe County, NM — Ordinance No. 2026-06, Eighteen-Month Data Center Development Moratorium","short_title":"Santa Fe County NM data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Santa Fe County, NM","state_abbr":"NM","county":"Santa Fe County, NM","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-07-09","enacted_date":"2026-06-30","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Section 5 bars the County from accepting any new application for a Development Approval or Development Permit for a Data Center, bars the Board and any County body from further processing or acting on such applications, and bars issuance of any such approval or permit. 'Data Center' means a facility, or proposed expansion, designed or used primarily for housing, managing, operating or transmitting data with a proposed aggregate IT Load Capacity of 1 megawatt or greater, expressly including hyperscale, artificial-intelligence computing, cloud, colocation and cryptocurrency mining facilities, and excluding ordinary computer rooms, server closets and IT equipment incidental to a principal lawful use. Exemptions cover sub-threshold facilities, County-owned or County-operated governmental data processing, applications deemed complete before the effective date, and facilities with vested rights as determined by the County Land Use Administrator.","summary_technical":"Adopted 2026-06-30; effective on recordation 2026-07-09 (Instrument #2087239, Santa Fe County Clerk Katharine E. Clark), so the eighteen months runs to approximately 2028-01-09. Self-repealing and extendable by the Board. Section 7 directs the County Manager to develop Data Center regulations and SLDC/SGMP amendments during the pause. Cites NMSA 1978 §3-21-1 and §4-37-1 and Brazos Land, Inc. v. Board of County Comm'rs of Rio Arriba County, 1993-NMCA-013.","who_is_protected":"Santa Fe County residents, through a pause on data center approvals while the County develops water, energy, siting, noise, heat, cumulative-impact, fiscal, e-waste and light/glare standards.","who_must_comply":"The County, the Board of County Commissioners, and every County committee, commission, department and official, none of which may accept, process, act on, or issue a Development Approval or Development Permit for a Data Center; and any applicant seeking one.","citation":"Santa Fe County, N.M. Ordinance No. 2026-06","source_url":"https://www.santafecountynm.gov/documents/ordinances/Ordinance_2026-06.pdf","source_title":"Santa Fe County Ordinance No. 2026-06 (recorded)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ia-linn-county-eu3-rezoning-moratorium-2026","title":"Linn County, IA — Temporary Moratorium on New EU-3 Large-Scale Data Center District Rezoning Applications","short_title":"Linn County IA EU-3 rezoning moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Linn County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Linn County, IA","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-07-01","expires_date":"2028-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The resolution establishes a moratorium on the acceptance for filing and processing of new applications to rezone property into the EU-3 Large-Scale Data Center District. It does NOT ban data center construction and does not repeal or suspend the county's existing data center zoning ordinance (PA26-0001, adopted 2026-02-18) — it freezes the rezoning pathway into EU-3 while the county completes technical studies, coordinates with municipalities, utility providers, regional planning organizations, emergency management and state and federal agencies, gathers public input, and evaluates amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. It expressly preserves the Board's ability to later consider amendments allowing data centers as accessory or supportive uses to nuclear energy generating facilities in the EU-2 district.","summary_technical":"Effective immediately upon adoption 2026-07-01 until 11:59 p.m. Central Time on 2028-01-01; extendable by further Board action and terminable early. Binds unincorporated Linn County only — the Board has no zoning jurisdiction in incorporated cities. Note the City of Palo, inside Linn County, separately adopted its own EU-1 Data Center Exclusive Use District (Ordinance 93-2026); the two are distinct instruments at different levels of government.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Linn County, while the county completes technical studies and evaluates amendments to its Unified Development Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.","who_must_comply":"The Linn County Board of Supervisors and county zoning intake staff, who may not accept for filing or process new EU-3 rezoning applications; and any applicant seeking to rezone into that district.","citation":"Linn County, Iowa resolution (adopted 2026-07-01); number not assigned in the posted copy","source_url":"https://www.linncountyiowa.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/455","source_title":"Linn County, Iowa — Resolution Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on the Acceptance of New Applications to Rezone Property to the EU-3 Large-Scale Data Center District","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"wi-monroe-county-data-center-battery-storage-moratorium-2026","title":"Monroe County, WI — Eighteen-Month Moratorium on Data Center and Battery Storage Zoning Permits","short_title":"Monroe County WI data center + battery storage moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Monroe County, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Monroe County, WI","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-21","enacted_date":"2026-07-21","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Acting under Wis. Stat. § 59.69(4), the Monroe County Board of Supervisors enacted a moratorium on the receipt of applications for, and the granting of, all zoning-related permits for the placement or construction of Battery Storage Facilities and Medium and Large Scale Data Centers and related land use. Medium Scale Data Centers are defined as up to 3,000 square feet with power demand of 10 MW or less, including colocation facilities and potentially bitcoin or cryptocurrency mining; Large Scale as over 3,000 square feet with more than 10 MW. Small Scale Data Centers — single-organization onsite facilities under 500 kW with no crypto mining — are defined separately and fall outside the operative scope. A Battery Storage Facility is any site housing a collection of interconnected batteries designed to accumulate electrical energy from various sources for later use, so the measure is materially broader than data centers alone.","summary_technical":"Up to eighteen months from the date of the resolution (approximately 2027-01-21 at the outer bound; no explicit expiration date is stated in the text), with the Board reserving the right to extend by separate action. The resolution expressly states it is not a 'development moratorium' as defined in Wis. Stat. § 66.1002(1)(b). Monroe County would otherwise permit these uses only under an Unclassified Use Permit.","who_is_protected":"Monroe County residents, while the Zoning & Sanitation Committee studies impacts and develops zoning regulations for these uses.","who_must_comply":"Monroe County zoning permitting bodies, which may not receive applications for or grant zoning permits for the covered uses; and any applicant seeking to site such a facility under county zoning.","citation":"Monroe County, Wis. Board of Supervisors resolution (2026-07-21); packet designation 07-26-04","source_url":"https://www.co.monroe.wi.us/home/showpublisheddocument/37201/639197812194500000","source_title":"Monroe County WI Board of Supervisors, 2026-07-21 agenda packet — full resolution text (pp. 22-23)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ga-chamblee-data-center-moratorium-2026","title":"Chamblee, GA — Temporary Moratorium Suspending Acceptance of New Data Center Applications","short_title":"Chamblee GA data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chamblee, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"DeKalb County, GA","city":"Chamblee","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-21","enacted_date":"2026-07-21","expires_date":"2027-01-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Mayor and Council adopted a resolution imposing a complete suspension on the City's acceptance of any applications relating to the establishment of new data centers. The suspension expressly covers applications for special land use permits, rezonings, land disturbance permits, building permits, business licenses, and certificates of occupancy. The resolution defines a data center as a physical room, building or facility housing infrastructure for building, running, delivering or transmitting applications and services, or for storing and managing associated data. The City Manager must notify staff, and during the period the Mayor and Council with staff will research data center impacts and consider Code revisions.","summary_technical":"180 days, expiring 11:59 p.m. 2027-01-16 unless shortened or extended by official action of the Mayor and Council. Note the text fixes 2027-01-16 even though 180 days from 2026-07-21 would fall on 2027-01-17; the stated date governs. Adopted at the Regular Meeting of 2026-07-21, agenda item 5.2.h.","who_is_protected":"Chamblee residents, while the Mayor and Council research data center impacts and consider Code revisions.","who_must_comply":"City of Chamblee staff citywide, who may not accept any application relating to establishment of a new data center; and any applicant seeking such approvals.","citation":"City of Chamblee, Ga. resolution (adopted 2026-07-21); number blank in the packet copy","source_url":"https://www.chambleega.com/news_detail_T2_R276.php","source_title":"City of Chamblee — data center moratorium announcement; full resolution text in the 2026-07-21 council packet (PrimeGov)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"pa-foster-township-luzerne-data-center-zoning-2026","title":"Foster Township (Luzerne County), PA — Zoning Amendment Restricting Data Centers to Conditional Use in the AEO Overlay","short_title":"Foster Twp PA data center zoning restriction (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Foster Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Luzerne County, PA","city":"Foster Township","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-07-08","enacted_date":"2026-07-08","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The amendment defines 'Data Center' — expressly including cryptocurrency mining, blockchain transaction processing and server farms — and 'Data Center Accessory Use', then sets the use table so data centers are NOT permitted in the B-2, B-3, A-1, C-1, I-1, I-2 and S-1 districts, and are allowed only as a conditional use in the AEO energy overlay district. New supplemental regulations impose a 2,000-foot setback from all property lines and from sensitive uses, a 40-foot height cap inclusive of roof-mounted equipment, a mandatory enclosing buffer, preliminary, interim and as-built acoustical studies enforcing a 65 dB(A) daytime limit, a vibration study, a water feasibility study with drawdown testing of wells within 3,000 feet and DRBC approval where thresholds are met, DEP/SEO wastewater approval, electric-provider capacity certification, NFPA 30/70/75/76/110/855 compliance, a fire-department-accepted Emergency Response Plan with applicant-funded municipal cost mitigation, and a decommissioning plan backed by bond or escrow reviewed bi-annually.","summary_technical":"Amends Art. II §203 definitions, the §502 Residential and Nonresidential Use Table, and Art. VIII §801 supplemental regulations of the Foster Township Zoning Ordinance; new §801.52 carries the siting standards. Adopted and effective 2026-07-08 per the executed ordinance. Pennsylvania case law requires a municipality to allow a use somewhere, which the AEO overlay nominally satisfies; press reports the overlay covers only two small areas, one including state game lands.","who_is_protected":"Township residents and neighbouring landowners, through 2,000-foot setbacks from homes, childcare, schools, dormitories, personal care and nursing homes, community centers, places of worship, outdoor recreation and correctional facilities, plus acoustical, vibration, water-drawdown, wastewater, fire-safety and decommissioning requirements.","who_must_comply":"All applicants and landowners in Foster Township seeking to establish a data center or data center accessory use, and all township review bodies.","citation":"Foster Township, Luzerne County, Pa. zoning ordinance amendment (adopted 2026-07-08); no ordinance number on the document","source_url":"https://fostertownship.org/cms/assets/_core/file/doc00608320260709092743.pdf","source_title":"Foster Township (Luzerne County, PA) — executed zoning ordinance amendment providing for Data Centers and Data Center Accessory Uses","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ny-village-horseheads-data-processing-center-moratorium-ll6-2026","title":"Village of Horseheads, NY — Local Law No. 6 of 2026, One-Year Moratorium on Data Processing Centers","short_title":"Village of Horseheads NY data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Village of Horseheads, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"Chemung County, NY","city":"Horseheads","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","enacted_date":"2026-07-02","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The local law imposes a village-wide one-year moratorium barring the Board of Trustees, Planning Board, Code Enforcement Officer and any other village body or officer from beginning or continuing review of, or granting any approval for, a Data Processing Center, and bars issuance of building permits for such use while it is in effect. 'Data Processing Center' is defined broadly as a facility housing multiple banks of computers, modular container-based processor facilities, or server clusters, including uses related to AI processing and cryptocurrency mining. The Board may direct the Building Inspector or Code Enforcement Officer to revoke permits or certificates of occupancy issued in violation, and violations carry a civil penalty of $2,500 per day plus injunctive relief. A hardship-variance procedure runs through the Board of Trustees.","summary_technical":"One year from the effective date, with the Board reserving the right to enact subsequent short-term moratoria or to terminate early if replacement land-use laws are enacted. The law expressly supersedes Village Law Article 7 provisions including §7-728(8) default approvals. Section 9 makes it effective on filing with the NYS Secretary of State; no filing date is published, so effective_date is null.","who_is_protected":"Village residents, through a village-wide pause on data processing center review and approval while replacement land-use laws are considered.","who_must_comply":"The Board of Trustees, Planning Board, Code Enforcement Officer and any other village body or officer, none of which may begin or continue review of or grant approval for a Data Processing Center; and any applicant or permit holder.","citation":"Village of Horseheads, N.Y. Local Law No. 6 of 2026","source_url":"https://www.villageofhorseheads.gov/media/4521","source_title":"Village of Horseheads Board of Trustees, 2026-07-02 resolutions packet — Local Law No. 6 of 2026","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"md-worcester-county-data-center-cable-landing-moratorium-2026","title":"Worcester County, MD — Twelve-Month Moratorium on Data Centers and Cable Landing Stations","short_title":"Worcester County MD data center + cable landing moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Worcester County, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Worcester County, MD","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-07-07","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The resolution imposes a moratorium on the application for or issuance of permits for data centers and cable landing stations in Worcester County, and separately imposes a moratorium on all Board of Zoning Appeals proceedings related to those uses, each for twelve months or until the Commissioners rescind it. It defines a DATA CENTER as one or more buildings used primarily for the storage, management, processing and transmission of digital data. Critically, it separately defines a CABLE LANDING STATION as a facility where subsea cable systems terminate and digital data is transmitted to land-based telecommunications networks, and expressly provides that 'A cable landing station shall not include data storage, management, processing or computation' — a distinct legal category, not a subset of data centers.","summary_technical":"Authority cited is Section 1-118(b)(6) of the Worcester County Zoning Ordinance, empowering the Commissioners to impose moratoria by resolution. The dual definition was drafted in response to a Globalinx proposal for a roughly 25,000 sq ft cable landing station near Snug Harbor Road by the Ocean City Municipal Airport, where the applicant argued the facility is not a data center because it transmits rather than stores or processes data.","who_is_protected":"Worcester County residents, while the Commissioners consider energy demands, water and wastewater impacts, environmental harm and visual impact on surrounding properties.","who_must_comply":"Worcester County permitting bodies, which may not accept applications for or issue permits for data centers or cable landing stations, and the Board of Zoning Appeals, whose proceedings on those uses are halted; and any applicant.","citation":"Worcester County, Md. resolution (2026); number blank in the official draft","source_url":"https://worcestermd.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/2026.07.21%20OPEN%20Public.pdf","source_title":"Worcester County Commissioners, 2026-07-21 open meeting packet, item 13 — draft resolution text (pp. 152-154)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-ostergaard-v-microsoft-data-center-noise-2026","title":"Ostergaard v. Microsoft Corporation — Putative Class Action over AI Data Center Noise (E.D. Wis.)","short_title":"Ostergaard v. Microsoft — data center noise class action (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Wisconsin","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Racine County, WI","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Three homeowners — Garret Ostergaard, David Wade and Joy Wade — filed a putative class action against Microsoft Corporation on 2026-07-01 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin over noise from Microsoft's 'Fairwater' AI data center on Braun Road in the Village of Mount Pleasant. The complaint alleges the facility, a multi-building campus of roughly 1.2 million square feet requiring hundreds of megawatts, emits unreasonable and excessive noise onto surrounding residential properties through its cooling systems and backup generators, causing loss of use and enjoyment and diminished property value. The pleaded counts are Count I private nuisance — substantial and unreasonable interference alleged to be intentional, knowing, reckless and/or negligent, recurring, ongoing and abatable with ordinary care — and Count II negligence, for negligently constructing, maintaining and operating the facility including inadequate soundproofing.","summary_technical":"Docket 2:26-cv-01169-JPS, Judge J.P. Stadtmueller. Diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §1332; venue under §1391(b). Relief sought: Rule 23 class certification, appointment of class counsel, compensatory and exemplary damages with interest, attorneys' fees and costs, an order holding the noise constitutes a nuisance, an order holding defendant negligent, and injunctive relief. Jury demanded. Plaintiffs represented by Hansen Reynolds LLC and Liddle Sheets PC.","who_is_protected":"The proposed class: all owner-occupants and renters of residential property within one and one-half miles of the data center, which plaintiffs say covers over a thousand households.","who_must_comply":"Microsoft Corporation, as owner and operator of the Fairwater data center campus, if liability is established.","citation":"Ostergaard v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:26-cv-01169-JPS (E.D. Wis. filed July 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73566375/ostergaard-v-microsoft-corporation/","source_title":"Ostergaard v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 2:26-cv-01169-JPS (E.D. Wis.) — docket and complaint","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-lorenzano-nunez-v-roestenberg-facial-recognition-2026","title":"Lorenzano-Nunez v. Roestenberg — §1983 Suit over Facial-Recognition Wrongful Arrest (D. Ariz.)","short_title":"Lorenzano-Nunez v. Roestenberg — FR wrongful arrest (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arizona","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Maricopa County, AZ","city":"Phoenix","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Javier Lorenzano-Nunez sued Phoenix cold-case detective Dominick Roestenberg, the City of Phoenix, and two further individual defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on 2026-06-11 in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Press accounts state he was arrested in 2024 for a 1998 Phoenix killing after investigators used facial recognition to identify him, spent roughly a year in jail, and had all charges dismissed on 2025-08-05 after DNA and fingerprint evidence excluded him, and that the suit alleges police knew his fingerprints did not match and that a detective misled the grand jury. The docket records the cause as 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, Nature of Suit 550.","summary_technical":"Docket 2:26-cv-04153, Senior Judge Roslyn O. Silver, referred to Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine; plaintiff represented by Daniel R. Ortega Jr. Two individual defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on 2026-07-14; the City of Phoenix defendants' response deadline was extended to 2026-08-13.","who_is_protected":"Individuals subjected to arrest based on facial-recognition identification, if the suit establishes liability.","who_must_comply":"The City of Phoenix and the individual defendants, if liability is established.","citation":"Lorenzano-Nunez v. Roestenberg, No. 2:26-cv-04153 (D. Ariz. filed June 11, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73479805/lorenzano-nunez-v-roestenberg/","source_title":"Lorenzano-Nunez v. Roestenberg, No. 2:26-cv-04153 (D. Ariz.) — docket","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"or-hillsboro-dc-battery-moratorium-2026","title":"Hillsboro, OR — 120-Day Moratorium on New and Expanded Data Centers and Battery Storage","short_title":"Hillsboro OR data center/battery storage moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Hillsboro, OR","state_abbr":"OR","county":"Washington","city":"Hillsboro","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-07-27","enacted_date":"2026-07-27","expires_date":"2026-11-24","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Hillsboro City Council voted at a special meeting Monday, July 27, 2026 to enact a 120-day moratorium blocking new or expanded data center and battery energy storage projects, running until at least November 24, 2026. The move follows concern over high electricity and water use, noise, tax incentives, and the limited number of jobs data centers create — and comes the same week local leaders, businesses, and farmers joined a separate lawsuit against the city and county over a series of enterprise-zone tax-break approvals for 17 proposed data-center projects.","summary_technical":"Enacted by Hillsboro City Council vote at a special meeting July 27, 2026 (exact vote count/unanimity and ordinance/resolution number not given in available press). 120-day moratorium on acceptance, processing, and approval of new/expanded data center and battery energy storage system development, running through approximately November 24, 2026. Distinct from, but contemporaneous with, a private lawsuit (filed in Washington County Circuit Court) alleging the city and county improperly issued 25-year enterprise-zone property-tax waivers to 17 proposed data-center projects.","who_is_protected":"Hillsboro residents, through a pause on new or expanded data center and battery energy storage development while the city studies electricity/water use, noise, tax-incentive, and job-count impacts.","who_must_comply":"The City of Hillsboro, which will not accept, process, or approve new data-center or battery-storage proposals through the moratorium period; and any applicant seeking one.","citation":"City of Hillsboro, Ore. — City Council special meeting action, 2026-07-27 (120-day moratorium)","source_url":"https://katu.com/news/local/hillsboro-pauses-new-data-centers-issuing-120-day-temporary-moratorium","source_title":"Hillsboro pauses new data centers, issuing 120-day temporary moratorium - KATU","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"fl-gulf-county-ai-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Gulf County, FL — One-Year Moratorium on AI Data Centers","short_title":"Gulf County FL AI data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Gulf County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Gulf","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-07-27","enacted_date":"2026-07-27","expires_date":"2027-07-27","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Gulf County Board of County Commissioners voted 4-1 on Monday, July 27, 2026 to approve a one-year moratorium on new AI data centers, to allow time to study potential impacts and develop a policy before any future projects are considered. Commissioner Phil McCroan moved the measure with Commissioner Randy Pridgeon's support; Commissioner Jack Husband cast the dissenting vote.","summary_technical":"Approved by 4-1 vote of the Gulf County Board of County Commissioners, July 27, 2026 (movant Phil McCroan, second Randy Pridgeon, dissent Jack Husband). One-year term, running to approximately July 27, 2027, pending study and policy development.","who_is_protected":"Gulf County residents, through a one-year pause on new AI data center development while impacts are studied and a policy is developed.","who_must_comply":"Gulf County and any applicant seeking to build an AI data center during the one-year moratorium.","citation":"Gulf County, Fla. — Board of County Commissioners, 4-1 vote, 2026-07-27","source_url":"https://www.wjhg.com/2026/07/27/gulf-county-bocc-approves-temporary-moratorium-ai-data-centers/","source_title":"Gulf County BOCC approves temporary moratorium on AI data centers - WJHG","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ga-toccoa-dc-ordinance-moratorium-2026","title":"Toccoa, GA — Data Center Ordinance Moratorium","short_title":"Toccoa GA data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Toccoa, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Stephens","city":"Toccoa","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-27","enacted_date":"2026-07-27","expires_date":"2027-01-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Toccoa City Commission unanimously approved a data center moratorium at its meeting Monday, July 27, 2026, running through January 11, 2027, to give the city more time to research data centers' size, lighting, traffic, noise, and water-consumption impacts before adopting permanent rules. Neither the city nor surrounding Stephens County has received any data center applications yet.","summary_technical":"Unanimous vote of the Toccoa City Commission, July 27, 2026, per City Attorney Greg Sowell. Moratorium runs through January 11, 2027. Stephens County (in which Toccoa sits) separately extended its own county-level data-center permitting moratorium from July through October 2026 on May 26 — a distinct county action, not part of this entry.","who_is_protected":"Toccoa residents, through a pause on data center development while the city researches impacts and drafts an ordinance.","who_must_comply":"The City of Toccoa and any applicant seeking to build a data center through January 11, 2027.","citation":"City of Toccoa, Ga. — City Commission, unanimous vote, 2026-07-27","source_url":"https://wnegradio.com/toccoa-city-commission-approves-data-center-ordinance-moratorium/","source_title":"Toccoa City Commission approves Data Center Ordinance Moratorium - WNEG","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"oh-akron-dc-review-process-2026","title":"Akron, OH — Data Center Conditional-Use Review Process","short_title":"Akron OH data center review process (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Akron, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Summit","city":"Akron","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-07-27","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Akron City Council unanimously passed a new zoning process for data centers on July 27, 2026, after two public hearings the same day. Data centers are now a defined land use requiring conditional-use approval from both the Planning Commission and City Council, and developers must disclose the project's impact on the electric grid, water consumption, the sanitary sewer system, and noise. Mayor Shammas Malik's administration crafted the proposal in response to resident concerns.","summary_technical":"Planning Commission unanimously approved the zoning-code change July 10, 2026; City Council held two public hearings July 27, 2026 (1pm Planning and Economic Development Committee, 5pm special Council meeting) before unanimous final passage. Adds 'data center' as a defined land use requiring conditional-use approval from both Planning Commission and Council; requires developer disclosure of grid-demand, water-consumption, sanitary-sewer, and noise impacts.","who_is_protected":"Akron residents, through mandatory dual-body review and impact-disclosure requirements before any new data center can be built.","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Akron, who must now obtain conditional-use approval from both the Planning Commission and City Council, and disclose electric-grid, water-consumption, sanitary-sewer, and noise impacts.","citation":"City of Akron, Ohio — City Council, unanimous vote, 2026-07-27","source_url":"https://www.ideastream.org/government-politics/2026-07-27/akron-approves-new-process-for-data-centers-with-requirements-tied-to-utility-demand","source_title":"Akron approves new process for data centers with requirements tied to utility demand - Ideastream Public Media","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-newsom-v-ads-amazon-louisa-va-2026","title":"Newsom v. ADS (Amazon Web Services affiliate) — Data Center Construction Nuisance Suit (W.D. Va.)","short_title":"Newsom v. ADS/Amazon (Louisa County VA data center nuisance)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"A Louisa County, Virginia homeowner sued an Amazon Web Services affiliate (ADS) over a nearby data center construction project, alleging brown tap water, dust, and loud noise since construction began in March 2025. A federal judge denied Amazon's motion to dismiss in early July 2026, letting the private nuisance claim proceed. The plaintiff is seeking a preliminary injunction to force changes to construction practices, not to halt construction entirely; a hearing is set for August 19, 2026.","summary_technical":"Austin Newsom v. ADS (AWS affiliate), U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia (Charlottesville Division). Judge Jasmine Yoon denied defendant's motion to dismiss in early July 2026, holding the private nuisance claim (brown water, noise, diminished air quality, light pollution) may proceed, rejecting defendant's argument that the alleged harms are individually insubstantial. Preliminary-injunction hearing set for 2026-08-19; plaintiff seeks operational changes during construction, not a construction halt.","who_is_protected":"Austin Newsom, a Louisa County, VA property/business owner (Central VA Marine) living adjacent to an Amazon Web Services data center construction site.","who_must_comply":"ADS (an AWS affiliate), the data-center construction project defendant.","citation":"Newsom v. ADS, W.D. Va. (Charlottesville Div.) — motion to dismiss denied early July 2026; preliminary-injunction hearing 2026-08-19","source_url":"https://virginiamercury.com/2026/07/28/brown-water-dust-and-loud-noises-louisa-homeowner-sues-amazon-over-data-center-construction/","source_title":"Brown water, dust and loud noises: Louisa homeowner sues Amazon over data center construction - Virginia Mercury","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-frederick-county-md-referendum-block-2026","title":"Frederick County, MD Data Center Zoning — Maryland Supreme Court Blocks Referendum","short_title":"MD Supreme Court blocks Frederick County DC zoning referendum","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Frederick County, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Frederick","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Maryland Supreme Court ruled June 30, 2026 that Frederick County's December 2025 approval of a 2,600-acre 'critical digital infrastructure overlay zone' for data centers is not subject to a citizen referendum under the county charter, upholding a lower court and blocking a ballot question more than 21,000 residents had petitioned for. The court also found the proposed ballot question itself legally deficient (unclear map depiction, incomplete ordinance text).","summary_technical":"Maryland Supreme Court decision, 2026-06-30, affirming a Frederick County Circuit Court ruling that the county's December 2025 zoning ordinance creating a critical digital infrastructure overlay zone (CDI-OZ, ~2,600 acres, concentrating data centers north of Adamstown) is not referendum-eligible under the county charter. Written opinion was pending at publication. Justice Joseph Getty: public-hearing referendum efforts run 'like 500 steps behind' once land is secured and zoning negotiated. Distinct from the separately-tracked (placeholder) Frederick County 'Data Center Conditions Ordinance' (noise/water/generator conditions, introduced May 2026) — this entry concerns only the December 2025 zoning map's referendum-immunity ruling.","who_is_protected":"N/A — this entry tracks a court ruling on referendum procedure, not a protection for residents.","who_must_comply":"N/A — procedural ruling on Frederick County's own zoning process.","citation":"Frederick County, Md. data center zoning referendum litigation — Md. Supreme Court, decided 2026-06-30 (written opinion pending at time of coverage)","source_url":"https://technical.ly/civics/maryland-supreme-court-frederick-data-center-referendum/","source_title":"Maryland Supreme Court blocks voter referendum on Frederick County data center zoning - technical.ly","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"nj-berkeley-heights-data-center-ban-ord-2026-13","title":"Berkeley Heights, NJ — Ordinance 2026-13, Data Centers Prohibited in All Zones","short_title":"Berkeley Heights NJ data center ban (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Berkeley Heights, NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","county":"Union","city":"Berkeley Heights","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"strong","enacted_date":"2026-07-21","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Township Council voted unanimously to adopt Ordinance 2026-13, which designates data centers as a prohibited use in every zoning district townwide. The council closed a public hearing that drew more than a dozen speakers before the final roll-call vote. Debate followed weeks of resident concern after rumblings of developer interest in the former Nokia property, though no specific data-center redevelopment application at that site was reported.","summary_technical":"Ordinance 2026-13, formally titled an ordinance designating data centers as a prohibited use in all zones within the Township, passed on a roll-call vote July 21, 2026 following the standard NJ municipal process (conference session, then introduction, then a noticed public hearing and adoption). No effective-date delay beyond standard ordinance effectiveness is reported.","who_is_protected":"Berkeley Heights Township residents, through a townwide ban on new data center development in every zoning district.","who_must_comply":"The Township of Berkeley Heights and any applicant seeking to build or operate a data center, which is now a prohibited use in all zones.","citation":"Berkeley Heights Township, N.J. Ordinance 2026-13 (adopted 2026-07-21)","source_url":"https://www.tapinto.net/towns/berkeley-heights/sections/business-and-finance/articles/berkeley-heights-bans-data-centers-townwide-capping-weeks-of-debate-over-nokia-site","source_title":"Berkeley Heights Bans Data Centers Townwide, Capping Weeks of Debate Over Nokia Site - TAPinto","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"tn-paris-data-center-moratorium-2026","title":"Paris, TN — Temporary Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Paris TN temporary data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Paris, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Henry","city":"Paris","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-30","enacted_date":"2026-06-30","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Paris Commission voted (voice vote, all present in favor, one commissioner absent) on June 30, 2026 to enact a temporary moratorium on data centers. It has no fixed end date — it remains in effect until an outside consultant finishes reworking the city's zoning ordinances, which the city attorney estimated could take almost a year.","summary_technical":"Enacted by voice vote of the Paris Commission (the city's governing body per local press usage) June 30, 2026; not a fixed-term moratorium — tied to completion of a zoning-ordinance rewrite in progress with an outside consultant, estimated by the city attorney at up to ~1 year.","who_is_protected":"Paris, TN residents, through a pause on new data center approvals while the city completes a zoning ordinance rewrite.","who_must_comply":"The City of Paris and any applicant seeking to build a data center, until the moratorium is lifted.","citation":"City of Paris, Tenn. — Paris Commission action, June 30, 2026 (voice vote)","source_url":"https://www.parispi.net/stories/paris-enacts-temporary-moratorium-on-data-centers,313270","source_title":"Paris enacts temporary moratorium on data centers - Paris Post-Intelligencer","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"in-miami-county-dc-moratorium-ord-05-04-2026","title":"Miami County, IN — Ordinance No. 05-04-2026, Temporary Moratorium on Data Center Development","short_title":"Miami County IN data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Miami County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Miami","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-05-04","enacted_date":"2026-05-04","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Board of Commissioners imposed a temporary moratorium on the acceptance, processing, and approval of all applications and permits for data center construction or operation anywhere in unincorporated Miami County, effective immediately on adoption. It stays in effect until the county's Zoning Ordinance is amended to add rules specifically covering data centers — the Zoning Ordinance currently has none.","summary_technical":"Ordinance No. 05-04-2026, adopted by the Miami County Board of Commissioners (Fred Musselman, Chairman; Brenda Weaver; Mark Horner) on May 4, 2026, per a signed and recorded copy (Miami County Recorder instrument #20260521646). Follows a Plan Commission public hearing and certified recommendation under I.C. 36-7-4-604/605. Defines 'data center' broadly (storage/management/processing/transmission of digital data, incl. AI training or processing, cloud computing, server farms). Bars acceptance, processing, and approval of ALL applications/permits (incl. improvement location permits) for any data-center-related structure in ALL zoning districts of unincorporated Miami County. No fixed term — Sec. 4: remains in effect until the Zoning Ordinance is amended to regulate data centers. Applies only to unincorporated areas; does not bind the City of Peru (see separate entry). Severability clause (Sec. 5).","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Miami County, while the County amends its Zoning Ordinance to add data-center-specific regulations.","who_must_comply":"The Miami County Plan Commission and Board of Commissioners, which may not accept, process, or approve any application or permit — including improvement location permits — for a data center in any zoning district in the unincorporated county; and any applicant seeking one.","citation":"Miami County, Ind., Ordinance No. 05-04-2026 (Bd. of Comm'rs, adopted May 4, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.miamicountyin.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2446/5426_RECORDED_SIGNED_BOCOrdinance_DataCenterMoratorium","source_title":"Miami County, Indiana — Recorded, Signed Board of Commissioners Ordinance No. 05-04-2026 (Data Center Moratorium)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"in-peru-in-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"City of Peru, IN — Temporary Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Peru IN temporary data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Peru, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Miami","city":"Peru","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The City of Peru put a temporary hold on new data centers within city limits while it works out a permanent ordinance, which it plans to model on neighboring Miami County's approach. City Council President Tim Fischer described it as a placeholder: 'until we can get an ordinance in place where we can have some rules and guidelines for bringing data centers into the city limits.'","summary_technical":"Press-reported as approved by the Peru Planning Commission (unanimous), with the City Council discussing next steps (the permanent ordinance) at a meeting the article places around July 8, 2026. Exact adoption date, vote count, and ordinance/resolution number are not given in coverage and were not independently locatable (City of Peru's document center returned 403 to automated fetches). Distinct from Miami County's own ordinance (in-miami-county-dc-moratorium-ord-05-04-2026), which covers only unincorporated county land, not the city.","who_is_protected":"City of Peru residents, through a pause on new data centers within city limits while the city drafts a permanent ordinance.","who_must_comply":"The City of Peru and any applicant seeking to bring a data center into city limits.","citation":"City of Peru, Ind. — Planning Commission action (date not specified in coverage, reported 2026-07-03)","source_url":"https://www.pharostribune.com/news/article_566a5903-0313-4334-8183-9f02258da92f.html","source_title":"City of Peru establishes moratorium on data centers - Pharos-Tribune","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"nj-hardyston-data-center-ban-ord-2026-12","title":"Hardyston, NJ — Ordinance 2026-12, Data Centers Prohibited in All Zones","short_title":"Hardyston NJ data center ban (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Hardyston Township, NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","county":"Sussex","city":"Hardyston Township","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"strong","enacted_date":"2026-06-24","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Township Council unanimously passed Ordinance 2026-12, banning data centers from being built anywhere in Hardyston Township, in every zoning district. Officials noted no developer had actually proposed a data center in the township — this is a proactive, preemptive ban.","summary_technical":"Ordinance 2026-12, adopted by unanimous vote of the Hardyston Township Council, June 24, 2026, designating data centers a prohibited use in all zoning districts townwide. Defines 'data center' as a facility used primarily for storage, management, and processing of digital/electronic data housing computer and network systems. Adopted preemptively — no pending application.","who_is_protected":"Hardyston Township residents, through a townwide ban on new data center development in every zoning district.","who_must_comply":"Hardyston Township and any applicant seeking to build or operate a data center, now a prohibited use townwide.","citation":"Hardyston Township, N.J. Ordinance 2026-12 (adopted 2026-06-24)","source_url":"https://www.advertisernewssouth.com/news/local-news/hardyston-bans-data-centers-CE6006703","source_title":"Hardyston bans data centers - Advertiser News South","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"id-elmore-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Elmore County, ID — 182-Day Data Center Permit Moratorium","short_title":"Elmore County ID data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Elmore County, ID","state_abbr":"ID","county":"Elmore","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Elmore County Commissioners unanimously approved a 182-day moratorium on new data center permits, citing concerns over water use, noise, land impacts, and the absence of existing regulation for the industry.","summary_technical":"182-day moratorium on new data-center permits, unanimous vote of the Elmore County Board of Commissioners. Exact meeting date and resolution number are not given in the available coverage (subscription-gated beyond the summary).","who_is_protected":"Elmore County residents, through a 182-day pause on new data center permits over concerns about water use, noise, land impacts, and the lack of existing regulation.","who_must_comply":"Elmore County and any applicant seeking a data center permit during the 182-day moratorium period.","citation":"Elmore County, Idaho — Board of Commissioners resolution (date not specified in coverage, reported 2026-07-02)","source_url":"https://www.mountainhomenews.com/opinion/elmore-county-commission-issues-moratorium-on-data-center-permits-ac5302d2","source_title":"Elmore County Commission issues moratorium on data center permits - Mountain Home News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"wi-ellsworth-dc-ordinance-2026","title":"Ellsworth, WI — Temporary Two-Year Data Center Ordinance","short_title":"Ellsworth WI temporary data center ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Ellsworth, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Pierce","city":"Ellsworth","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-21","enacted_date":"2026-07-21","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The village's Plan Commission unanimously approved a temporary, two-year ordinance blocking data center development, adopted July 21, 2026.","summary_technical":"Two-year temporary ordinance approved by unanimous vote of the Ellsworth Plan Commission, July 21, 2026 (reported same night as an unrelated Village Board special session on a trustee legal-defense matter — the two items are unconnected). Ordinance/resolution number not given in coverage; whether Plan Commission approval alone is legally final or requires separate Village Board ratification was not confirmed.","who_is_protected":"Ellsworth (Village) residents, through a two-year temporary ordinance blocking data center development while the village studies the issue.","who_must_comply":"The Village of Ellsworth and any applicant seeking to build a data center during the two-year term.","citation":"Village of Ellsworth, Wis. — Plan Commission action, July 21, 2026 (2-year temporary ordinance)","source_url":"https://www.piercecountyjournal.news/stories/temporary-ordinance-blocking-data-centers-in-ellsworth-approved-village-board-votes-to-defend,199165","source_title":"Temporary ordinance blocking data centers in Ellsworth approved - Pierce County Journal","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ky-woodford-county-dc-permanent-ban-2026","title":"Woodford County, KY — Fiscal Court Ordinance Permanently Banning Data Centers, Landfills and Large Battery Storage Countywide (September 8, 2026)","short_title":"Woodford County KY permanent data center ban (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Woodford County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Woodford","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-08","enacted_date":"2026-09-08","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"On September 8, 2026 the Woodford County Fiscal Court unanimously passed an ordinance permanently banning the construction of data centers, landfills, and large battery storage systems anywhere in the county. This is a permanent prohibition, not a temporary moratorium — the Kentucky Association of Counties told the Kentucky Lantern that Woodford is the first Kentucky county it is aware of to enact a permanent data center ban, and it places the county among only a handful of local governments nationwide to go that far. Judge-Executive James Kay said the Fiscal Court chose a permanent ban over a temporary pause because residents were universally opposed, framing the ordinance as farmland preservation: 'We are a tight-knit community with a finite, irreplaceable amount of land. Every single acre matters here. Our rolling pastures, our historic farms, our agriculture, are not just scenic views. They are the backbone of our economy.' Large battery storage was included because such systems are frequently paired with hyperscale data centers. Woodford County sits in the Bluegrass region between Lexington and Frankfort; the Fiscal Court had signalled the move in June 2026 when it first voted to block future data centers.","summary_technical":"Woodford County, Ky. Fiscal Court ordinance, adopted unanimously September 8, 2026. Prohibits construction of three categories countywide: landfills, data centers, and large battery energy storage systems. No sunset provision and no stated exceptions or size thresholds in the reporting — the measure is a permanent land-use prohibition rather than an application moratorium of the kind adopted across central and eastern Kentucky through 2026 (Lexington-Fayette, Allen County, Cave City, Winchester, Mercer County, Ludlow, Jessamine County). Distinguishing feature versus those: a moratorium pauses acceptance of applications pending a zoning framework, whereas this ordinance forecloses the use outright. Ordinance number not reported. Judge-Executive James Kay (D) framed the rationale as protection of productive farmland and resistance to sprawl.","who_is_protected":"Woodford County residents and landowners, through a permanent countywide prohibition on data center, landfill, and large battery storage construction — protecting farmland, rural land use, and local utility load from hyperscale development pressure.","who_must_comply":"Any person or entity seeking to construct a data center, landfill, or large battery storage system in Woodford County; Woodford County planning and permitting officials.","citation":"Woodford County, Ky. — Fiscal Court Ordinance (Sept. 8, 2026)","source_url":"https://kentuckylantern.com/2026/09/10/a-kentucky-county-becomes-first-in-state-to-permanently-ban-data-center-construction/","source_title":"A Kentucky county becomes first in state to permanently ban data center construction — Kentucky Lantern","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Woodford County Fiscal Court / Woodford County planning and zoning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Construction of the prohibited uses is not permitted; applications cannot be approved"},{"id":"ky-winchester-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Winchester, KY — Board of Commissioners One-Year Moratorium on Data Center Development (September 2, 2026)","short_title":"Winchester KY one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Winchester, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Clark","city":"Winchester","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-02","enacted_date":"2026-09-02","expires_date":"2027-09-02","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Winchester Board of Commissioners voted unanimously (3-0) on September 2, 2026 to impose a one-year moratorium on data center development. Commissioners Chenault, Strode and Toole voted yes. The city acted because its zoning ordinance contains no rules specific to data centers, and because questions about impacts on utilities, electricity rates and the environment remain unresolved. Planning and Development Director Rob Jeffries warned that Winchester risked becoming a target for developers turned away by neighbouring jurisdictions that had already paused: 'These people have a moratorium. These people don't, let's check this place out. And unfortunately, we're not ready.' The pause gives the Planning Commission and staff a year to review the zoning ordinance, gather information on adverse effects, and draft appropriate regulations. City staff presented a survey of similar pauses already in place across central and eastern Kentucky, from Lexington to London. Mayor Reed noted that the Kentucky General Assembly is expected to take up data-center issues in January 2027.","summary_technical":"City of Winchester, Ky. Board of Commissioners moratorium, adopted 3-0 on September 2, 2026, effective immediately for one year (through approximately September 2, 2027). Halts data center development while the Planning Commission reviews zoning and drafts regulations. Stated rationale: absence of data-center-specific zoning provisions; unresolved utility load, ratepayer and environmental impacts; and displacement risk from neighbouring jurisdictions' moratoriums. Part of the central/eastern Kentucky municipal wave of 2026 — Lexington-Fayette Urban County (June 9), Allen County (24 months, June), Cave City (one year, May), Jessamine County, Mercer County (Aug 11), Ludlow (July), with Woodford County going further to a permanent ban on Sept 8. Ordinance number not reported.","who_is_protected":"Winchester and Clark County residents and ratepayers, through a one-year pause on data center development while the city writes zoning rules covering utility load, rates and environmental impact.","who_must_comply":"Applicants seeking data center development approvals in Winchester; the City of Winchester planning and permitting staff.","citation":"City of Winchester, Ky. — Board of Commissioners Moratorium (Sept. 2, 2026)","source_url":"https://winchestersun.com/2026/09/02/winchester-enacts-one-year-data-center-moratorium-amid-regional-wave-ofrestrictions/","source_title":"Winchester enacts one-year data center moratorium amid regional wave of restrictions — Winchester Sun","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Winchester Planning and Development Department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center development applications not processed during the moratorium"},{"id":"ky-mercer-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Mercer County, KY — Fiscal Court One-Year Data Center Moratorium in Unincorporated County (August 11, 2026)","short_title":"Mercer County KY one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Mercer County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Mercer","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-11","enacted_date":"2026-08-11","expires_date":"2027-08-11","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"The Mercer County Fiscal Court passed a one-year moratorium on applications to construct new data centers, by unanimous vote on second reading, on August 11, 2026. The Fiscal Court had voted to draft the moratorium on July 16 and gave it first reading on July 29. The moratorium applies only to the unincorporated areas of the county — a limit that matters here more than usual, because the small city of Burgin was simultaneously weighing annexation of land for a roughly $1 billion data center project. If Burgin annexes, that project would sit inside city limits and outside the county's pause, which is why regional coverage described the measure as 'a data center moratorium with a city-sized hole.' Burgin delayed its annexation vote. A separate ordinance creating an IT zone governing where data centers could be sited was still moving through the Fiscal Court as of September 9, 2026. UPDATE 2026-10-01: On September 28, 2026 the Fiscal Court unanimously rejected the proposed IT-zone regulations that would have allowed hyperscale data centers beside the E.W. Brown power plant. The moratorium, which would have ended automatically if those regulations were adopted, stays in place. Developer Panattoni is still pursuing a 950-acre data center.","summary_technical":"Mercer County, Ky. Fiscal Court ordinance, adopted unanimously on second reading August 11, 2026; one-year term on acceptance of applications to construct new data centers. Jurisdictional scope: unincorporated Mercer County only. Incorporated municipalities within the county — notably Burgin, which was considering annexing land for an approximately $1 billion data center development — are not bound, so annexation is an available route around the pause. Procedural history: motion to draft (July 16, 2026); first reading (July 29, 2026); second reading and adoption (August 11, 2026). A distinct IT-zone siting ordinance was under Fiscal Court consideration as of September 9, 2026 and is not covered by this entry. Ordinance number not reported.","who_is_protected":"Residents and landowners of unincorporated Mercer County, through a one-year pause on new data center applications while siting rules are developed. Residents inside incorporated cities in the county — including Burgin — are NOT covered.","who_must_comply":"Applicants seeking to construct data centers in unincorporated Mercer County; Mercer County planning and permitting officials.","citation":"Mercer County, Ky. — Fiscal Court Ordinance (Aug. 11, 2026)","source_url":"https://kentuckylantern.com/2026/08/13/a-countys-data-center-moratorium-doesnt-include-a-small-city-considering-huge-project/","source_title":"A county's data center moratorium doesn't include a small city considering huge project — Kentucky Lantern","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Mercer County Fiscal Court / Mercer County Planning and Zoning Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"New data center applications not accepted in unincorporated areas during the moratorium"},{"id":"ky-ludlow-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Ludlow, KY — Ordinance No. 2026-13: One-Year Moratorium on Data Center and IT Infrastructure Applications (July 23, 2026)","short_title":"Ludlow KY one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Ludlow, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Kenton","city":"Ludlow","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-23","enacted_date":"2026-07-23","expires_date":"2027-07-23","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Ludlow City Council approved an ordinance imposing a one-year moratorium on accepting applications for IT-related infrastructure facilities, including data centers, on July 23, 2026 as Ordinance No. 2026-13. The city's stated reason is structural rather than reactive: Ludlow's zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan simply do not address data-center development at all, so there is no framework under which an application could be properly evaluated. City attorneys were preparing an application to begin drafting amendments to the zoning regulations during the moratorium period, with the goal of having updated zoning language completed and approved before the pause expires. Officials also expected to meet with PDS (the Northern Kentucky Planning and Development Services agency), and noted that because other Northern Kentucky communities were exploring similar measures there may be opportunities for a coordinated regional approach. Ludlow is a small Ohio River city in Kenton County, across from Cincinnati.","summary_technical":"City of Ludlow, Ky. ordinance imposing a one-year moratorium on acceptance of applications for IT-related infrastructure facilities, including data centers. First reading the week of July 13, 2026; adopted on second reading July 23, 2026 as Ordinance No. 2026-13. Rationale is the absence of any data-center provisions in the city's zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Remedial work during the pause: city attorneys to file an application initiating zoning text amendments, coordination with Northern Kentucky Planning and Development Services (PDS), and possible regional alignment with other Northern Kentucky jurisdictions weighing comparable measures. Adoption date and ordinance number established from LINK nky's two-part coverage of the first and second readings.","who_is_protected":"Ludlow residents, through a one-year pause on IT-infrastructure and data center applications while the city writes zoning rules that currently do not exist for this use.","who_must_comply":"Applicants seeking approvals for data centers or other IT-related infrastructure facilities in Ludlow; City of Ludlow planning and permitting staff.","citation":"City of Ludlow, Ky. — Ordinance No. 2026-13 (July 23, 2026)","source_url":"https://linknky.com/top-3/2026/07/28/ludlow-moratorium-data-centers-it-infrastructure-projects/","source_title":"Ludlow approves moratorium on data centers, other IT infrastructure projects — LINK nky","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Ludlow / Northern Kentucky Planning and Development Services (PDS)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications for IT infrastructure facilities not accepted during the moratorium"},{"id":"sd-yankton-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Yankton County, SD — County Commission Six-Month Moratorium on Data Center and Bitcoin Mining Permits (July 21, 2026)","short_title":"Yankton County SD six-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Yankton County, SD","state_abbr":"SD","county":"Yankton","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-21","enacted_date":"2026-07-21","expires_date":"2027-01-21","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"After nearly an hour of public comment, the Yankton County Commission voted unanimously on July 21, 2026 to impose a six-month moratorium halting any permits to build data centers or bitcoin mining facilities. The commission had declined to pass a moratorium at its July 9 meeting; the measure noticed for the July 21 agenda was for twelve months, and commissioners shortened it to six. The moratorium can be extended by another six months if an ordinance regulating data centers has not been drafted by the time it lapses. In the same meeting the commission voted unanimously to assign the drafting work to the existing Yankton County Planning and Zoning Board rather than appoint a separate task force. The stated purpose is to let the county study the economic and environmental effects of data centers before adopting siting and operating regulations. Yankton County is in southeastern South Dakota on the Nebraska border, and the measure made it the latest Siouxland-area county to pause data center development.","summary_technical":"Yankton County, S.D. Commission moratorium, adopted unanimously July 21, 2026; six-month term suspending issuance of permits for data centers and bitcoin/cryptocurrency mining facilities, with a discretionary six-month extension available if a regulating ordinance is not completed. Notable procedural history: the commission declined to pass a moratorium on July 9, 2026, and reduced the July 21 agenda item from 12 months to 6 before adopting it. Drafting of the permanent ordinance assigned to the county Planning and Zoning Board by separate unanimous vote, rather than to a purpose-built task force. Scope explicitly covers bitcoin mining alongside data centers, which distinguishes it from moratoriums limited to hyperscale compute. Ordinance number not reported.","who_is_protected":"Yankton County residents and landowners, through a six-month pause on data center and cryptocurrency mining permits while the county studies economic and environmental effects and drafts regulations.","who_must_comply":"Applicants seeking permits to build data centers or bitcoin mining facilities in Yankton County; Yankton County permitting officials.","citation":"Yankton County, S.D. — County Commission Moratorium (July 21, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.yankton.net/community/article_77f0cd48-dbbc-4f5d-9f5b-56b709da8a36.html","source_title":"County Passes 6-Month Data Center Moratorium — Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Yankton County Planning and Zoning Board / Yankton County Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Permits for data centers and bitcoin mining facilities not issued during the moratorium"},{"id":"il-woodford-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Woodford County, IL — County Board Six-Month Moratorium on Data Center Applications (August 2026)","short_title":"Woodford County IL six-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Woodford County, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Woodford","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Woodford County Board approved a six-month moratorium on data center applications in August 2026, with an option to extend it a further six months. The initial period runs through approximately February 2027, giving the county time to hold public hearings and develop a data center ordinance. District 3 board member Blake Parsons was among the original proponents of taking up data center regulation. Woodford County sits in central Illinois, north-east of Peoria, in a cluster of local governments that moved on data centers through 2026 — neighbouring Tazewell County directed its zoning department to stop accepting data center petitions in May 2026 while it drafts an ordinance, and Bloomington and Normal both adopted moratoriums in May 2026.","summary_technical":"Woodford County, Ill. County Board moratorium on acceptance of data center applications; six-month initial term with a six-month extension option, reported August 20-21, 2026 and running through approximately February 2027. Purpose is to allow public hearings and drafting of a county data center ordinance. IMPORTANT DISAMBIGUATION: this is Woodford County, ILLINOIS (county seat Eureka, Peoria metro) and is a different jurisdiction and a different instrument from ky-woodford-county-dc-permanent-ban-2026, which is a permanent countywide ban adopted by the Woodford County, KENTUCKY Fiscal Court on September 8, 2026. The two share a county name only. Ordinance/resolution number not reported.","who_is_protected":"Woodford County, Illinois residents and landowners, through a six-month pause on data center applications while the county holds public hearings and drafts an ordinance.","who_must_comply":"Applicants seeking data center approvals in Woodford County, Illinois; county zoning and permitting staff.","citation":"Woodford County, Ill. — County Board Moratorium (Aug. 2026)","source_url":"https://wmbdradio.com/2026/08/21/tazewell-county-revisits-data-center-ordinance-woodford-county-passes-moratorium/","source_title":"Tazewell County revisits data center ordinance; Woodford County passes moratorium — 1470 & 100.3 WMBD","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Woodford County (IL) Board / county zoning department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center applications not accepted during the moratorium"},{"id":"il-tazewell-county-dc-petition-freeze-2026","title":"Tazewell County, IL — Zoning Code Amendment and Board Direction Barring Data Center Petitions Pending an Ordinance (May 2026)","short_title":"Tazewell County IL data center petition freeze (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Tazewell County, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Tazewell","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"In May 2026 the Tazewell County Board took two linked actions instead of adopting a formal moratorium. It amended the county zoning code to prohibit land uses that are not explicitly allowed, and it directed the county zoning department not to accept petitions from developers for data center projects until the board finishes drafting a data center ordinance. Nearly all board members voted in favour. The practical effect is that data center proposals cannot advance, but because it is a resolution and a zoning-code amendment rather than a declared moratorium, residents have pressed the board for a formal moratorium that would give clearer assurance development cannot proceed while the ordinance is written. As of late August 2026 the draft ordinance still had several steps to go: review by the State's Attorney's Office, a public hearing before the county Zoning Board of Appeals, and a final County Board vote. The board had hoped to complete it within two to three months.","summary_technical":"Tazewell County, Ill. County Board action of May 2026, reported May 7, 2026. Two components: (1) an amendment to the county zoning code adopting a permissive-use framework — land uses not explicitly allowed are prohibited; and (2) a board direction to the county zoning department to refuse acceptance of data center petitions until a data center ordinance is finalised. Adopted by near-unanimous board vote. Legally this is weaker than a declared moratorium: it is an administrative intake bar plus a use-table change, not a time-limited ordinance with a stated term, which is why local residents continued to seek a formal moratorium. Procedural posture as of August 20, 2026: draft ordinance pending State's Attorney review, then a Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing, then a County Board vote. No sunset date — the freeze runs until the ordinance is adopted. Resolution number not reported.","who_is_protected":"Tazewell County, Illinois residents and landowners, through an administrative bar on data center petitions plus a permissive-use zoning framework, in force until the county adopts a data center ordinance.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to petition for data center projects in Tazewell County; the Tazewell County zoning department.","citation":"Tazewell County, Ill. — Board Zoning Amendment and Petition Direction (May 2026)","source_url":"https://www.25newsnow.com/2026/05/07/tazewell-county-board-votes-land-amendment-crafts-data-center-ordinance/","source_title":"Tazewell County Board votes on land amendment, crafts data center ordinance — 25 News Now","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Tazewell County (IL) Zoning Department / County Board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center petitions are not accepted for filing"},{"id":"fl-brevard-schools-ai-policy-2026","title":"Brevard Public Schools, FL — Board Policy 7540.08 on Artificial Intelligence (Adopted July 28, 2026)","short_title":"Brevard Public Schools FL AI policy 7540.08 (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Brevard County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Brevard","topics":["education","children","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-28","enacted_date":"2026-07-28","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Brevard County School Board adopted Policy 7540.08 on artificial intelligence at its July 28, 2026 meeting, setting boundaries for AI use across the district before the new school year. Every AI application or tool has to be vetted for privacy, data security and educational value before it can be used. Students' personal information may not be entered into or submitted to any AI system. Anything an AI generates must support Florida's state-mandated curriculum and standards, and teachers and other educators must check AI-generated content for accuracy, bias and appropriateness rather than using it as-is. Teachers need permission from a supervisor before bringing AI into their classrooms or curriculum. The policy was not adopted without friction: at an earlier board workshop, District 1 board chair Megan Wright said she found the AI world 'extremely uncomfortable' and thought parts of the policy were confusing. Brevard is one of Florida's larger districts, covering the Space Coast.","summary_technical":"Brevard Public Schools Board Policy 7540.08, adopted at the July 28, 2026 school board meeting. Core requirements: (1) mandatory vetting of all AI software, applications and tools for privacy, data security and educational value prior to use; (2) prohibition on using or submitting student personally identifiable information with or to AI systems; (3) AI-generated material must align with Florida state-mandated curriculum and standards; (4) affirmative human-verification duty on educators to check AI output for accuracy, bias and appropriateness; (5) supervisor authorisation required before classroom or curriculum use by teachers. Procedural history matters for dating this entry: a July 21, 2026 session was a Rule Development Workshop, not an adoption, and at least one outlet reported the policy as adopted at that point — it was not. Adoption occurred at the July 28 meeting following the noticed public hearing. Context: the DeSantis administration was separately moving to regulate AI across Florida education from pre-K through doctoral programmes during the same period.","who_is_protected":"Brevard County public school students — particularly through the bar on submitting student personal information to AI systems — and, indirectly, families relying on curriculum-aligned and human-verified instructional material.","who_must_comply":"Brevard Public Schools teachers, administrators and staff; vendors supplying AI software or tools to the district.","citation":"Brevard Cnty. Sch. Bd. Policy 7540.08 (adopted July 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2026/08/13/ai-in-central-florida-classrooms-a-district-by-district-policy-breakdown/","source_title":"AI in Central Florida classrooms: A district-by-district policy breakdown — News 6 ClickOrlando","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Brevard Public Schools / Brevard County School Board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Unvetted AI tools may not be used; classroom use without supervisor permission is not authorised"},{"id":"wa-la-conner-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"La Conner, WA — Town Council Temporary Moratorium on Data Center Permit Applications (July 29, 2026)","short_title":"La Conner WA data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"La Conner, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"Skagit","city":"La Conner","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-29","enacted_date":"2026-07-29","expires_date":"2027-01-29","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The La Conner Town Council approved a temporary moratorium on data center permit applications on July 29, 2026, running at least six months. La Conner had received no data center permit applications and nobody had even asked about submitting one — the pause is preemptive. Planning Director Ajah Eills said the moratorium 'allows the town to take a beat and really look at those regulations and whether or not any form of data center would ever be appropriate here, or if we should handle data centers in a more prohibitive way,' and pointed to the water demands of data centers and to impacts seen in other communities, which matter here because La Conner sits very close to a large water source. Town staff planned to draft an ordinance revising La Conner's land use regulations to address data centers during the pause. The town borrowed Skagit County's definition of a data center and modelled its moratorium language on the county's, which had taken effect for unincorporated Skagit County on June 1, 2026. A public hearing on the moratorium was scheduled for the August 25 council meeting.","summary_technical":"Town of La Conner, Wash. temporary moratorium on acceptance of data center permit applications within town limits, approved by Town Council July 29, 2026 for a term of at least six months. Adopted as an interim control in the pattern Washington's RCW 36.70A.390 prescribes — immediate effect on adoption with a public hearing to follow, here noticed for the August 25, 2026 council meeting. Definitional scope is borrowed from Skagit County's data center definition, and the operative language tracks the county moratorium covering unincorporated Skagit County effective June 1, 2026. No pending applications or pre-application inquiries existed at adoption, so the measure is preemptive rather than responsive. Remedial work during the term: staff to draft revisions to the town's land use regulations addressing data centers, with the stated options ranging from conditional allowance to outright prohibition. Ordinance number not obtained — the town website exposes no searchable ordinance index and council packets are not indexed for retrieval.","who_is_protected":"La Conner residents and the surrounding Skagit Valley, through a preemptive pause on data center permitting while the town decides whether data centers are appropriate at all — with local water supply the explicit concern.","who_must_comply":"Anyone seeking a data center permit within La Conner town limits; Town of La Conner planning and permitting staff.","citation":"Town of La Conner, Wash. — Temporary Data Center Moratorium (July 29, 2026)","source_url":"http://www.goskagit.com/news/local_news/la-conner-town-council-approves-temporary-moratorium-on-data-centers/article_0ba68af7-5ea4-43c0-bfe7-245756b5993c.html","source_title":"La Conner Town Council approves temporary moratorium on data centers — Skagit Valley Herald (goskagit.com)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of La Conner Planning Department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center permit applications not accepted during the moratorium"},{"id":"me-south-portland-alpr-cessation-2026","title":"South Portland, ME — City Council Direction Ending Flock ALPR Use and Inter-Agency Data Sharing (June 11, 2026)","short_title":"South Portland ME ends Flock ALPR program (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"South Portland, ME","state_abbr":"ME","county":"Cumberland","city":"South Portland","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-11","enacted_date":"2026-06-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"South Portland ended its automated license plate reader program. Acting on City Council direction given at a June 11, 2026 workshop, the city stopped using Flock ALPR cameras and stopped sharing plate-reader data with other agencies, effective immediately after that meeting. By June 22, 2026 Flock had confirmed that every camera was removed and that South Portland no longer had an active account. The city published the decision and maintains a page on its prior ALPR use and the community discussion that led to the reversal. The action matters beyond South Portland because it is one of the few completed municipal shutdowns of a Flock deployment in Maine, at a moment when local and state efforts to restrict the technology were multiplying: state representatives launched a citizen initiative in Auburn to put a local Flock ban on the November 2026 ballot, and separate legislation was filed to prohibit ALPRs statewide except for Maine Turnpike toll collection. Maine already bars private companies from using ALPRs and bans law-enforcement use of facial recognition.","summary_technical":"City of South Portland, Me. — cessation of the municipal Flock Safety automated license plate reader program by City Council direction issued at the June 11, 2026 council workshop. Two operative effects, both immediate on the direction: (1) termination of ALPR use by the South Portland Police Department, and (2) termination of ALPR data sharing with outside agencies. Physical decommissioning completed June 22, 2026, confirmed by the vendor, with no active South Portland account remaining. IMPORTANT CHARACTERISATION: this is council direction and an administrative program termination, NOT an ordinance or a codified prohibition — nothing in the record bars a future council from re-authorising ALPRs, which is why strength is recorded as moderate rather than strong. Distinguish from (a) the Auburn, Me. citizen initiative seeking a local ballot-box Flock ban in November 2026, and (b) Rep. David Boyer's 'De-Flock' bill to prohibit ALPRs statewide outside Maine Turnpike toll collection — neither of which is adopted law. Maine's existing statutory baseline already prohibits private-company ALPR use and law-enforcement facial recognition.","who_is_protected":"South Portland residents and anyone driving through the city, through termination of automated license plate capture and the end of onward sharing of that data with other agencies.","who_must_comply":"The South Portland Police Department and city administration; Flock Safety as vendor.","citation":"City of South Portland, Me. — Council direction of June 11, 2026 (ALPR program termination)","source_url":"https://www.southportland.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/563","source_title":"Update: Flock ALPR Cameras Removed — City of South Portland, Maine","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"South Portland City Council / City Manager","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ky-london-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"London, KY — Ordinance 2026-16: Two-Year Moratorium on New Data Centers Through September 30, 2028 (August 3, 2026)","short_title":"London KY two-year data center moratorium (2026-16)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"London, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Laurel","city":"London","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-03","enacted_date":"2026-08-03","expires_date":"2028-09-30","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The London City Council passed a two-year moratorium on new data centers inside city limits, approving the second reading of Ordinance 2026-16 on August 3, 2026 by a 5-1 vote. Councilman Bruner cast the lone no vote. The ordinance bars new data centers through September 30, 2028, and lets the London Planning Commission extend the pause by up to one additional year if it needs more time. City leaders said the point is to give officials room to study what data centers have actually done to communities across Kentucky and the country, including effects on infrastructure and local resources. At two years, this is one of the longest municipal data center moratoriums in Kentucky — most of the state's 2026 wave ran six months to a year. London is the seat of Laurel County in southeastern Kentucky.","summary_technical":"City of London, Ky. Ordinance 2026-16, adopted on second reading August 3, 2026 by a 5-1 council vote (Councilman Bruner dissenting). Prohibits new data centers within London city limits through September 30, 2028 — a term of roughly 26 months. Extension mechanism: the London Planning Commission may extend the moratorium by up to one additional year, which would carry it to approximately September 30, 2029. Stated purpose is study of infrastructure and resource impacts observed in other Kentucky and national jurisdictions. Term length distinguishes this from the rest of the 2026 Kentucky municipal wave (Winchester and Mercer County one year, Ludlow one year, Yankton-style six-month pauses elsewhere); only Woodford County's permanent ban goes further.","who_is_protected":"London and Laurel County residents, through a two-year prohibition on new data centers while the city studies infrastructure and resource impacts.","who_must_comply":"Anyone seeking to develop a data center within London city limits; City of London permitting officials and the London Planning Commission.","citation":"City of London, Ky. — Ordinance 2026-16 (Aug. 3, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wkyt.com/2026/08/04/london-city-council-passes-2-year-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"London City Council passes 2-year data center moratorium — WKYT","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of London / London Planning Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"New data centers are not permitted within city limits during the moratorium"},{"id":"ky-louisville-metro-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Louisville Metro, KY — Ordinance O-135-26: Six-Month Moratorium on Data Center Rezonings, Conditional Use Permits and Development Plans (August 13, 2026)","short_title":"Louisville Metro six-month data center moratorium (O-135-26)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Louisville, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Jefferson","city":"Louisville","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-13","enacted_date":"2026-08-13","expires_date":"2027-02-13","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Louisville Metro Council voted 24-1 on August 13, 2026 to pause new data center development across Louisville-Jefferson County for six months, or until the Council adopts comprehensive data center zoning rules — whichever comes first. Ordinance O-135-26 was sponsored by District 15 Democrat Jennifer Chappell, who had reintroduced it after an earlier attempt stalled amid council wariness in June. It suspends rezonings, conditional use permits, and Category 2B and 3 development plan applications tied to data centers and telecommunication hotels. During the meeting the council amended the ordinance so the pause also catches anyone trying to convert an existing building into a data center without new construction — closing the most obvious way around it. Council members kept the pause at six months rather than the full year some residents had asked for. The Planning and Zoning Committee had advanced it 7-1 on August 5, after a public comment meeting the following day was dominated by the issue. Officials said six months gives the council time to work through the energy and water demands of hyperscale facilities, infrastructure needs, tax implications, and noise impacts on nearby neighborhoods.","summary_technical":"Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Ordinance O-135-26, passed 24-1 by the 26-member Metro Council on August 13, 2026. Temporary moratorium on approval of rezonings, conditional use permits, and Category 2B and Category 3 development plan applications relating to telecommunication hotels and data centers. Term: six months, or until Metro Council adopts comprehensive data center zoning regulations, whichever occurs first. Floor amendment extended scope to adaptive reuse — conversion of an existing building to data center use that requires no new construction — which would otherwise have fallen outside the listed application categories. Procedural history: originally introduced and stalled (council wariness reported June 1, 2026); reintroduced by Councilwoman Jennifer Chappell (D-15); Planning and Zoning Committee recommendation 7-1 (August 5, 2026); public comment meeting August 6; final passage August 13. Council declined to extend the term to one year as some residents requested. expires_date is computed as six months from passage and is the outer bound — adoption of permanent zoning rules would end it sooner.","who_is_protected":"Louisville-Jefferson County residents, particularly neighborhoods near candidate sites, through a pause on data center land-use approvals while the Metro Council writes permanent zoning rules addressing energy and water demand, infrastructure, taxes and noise.","who_must_comply":"Applicants for rezonings, conditional use permits, or Category 2B/3 development plans for data centers or telecommunication hotels in Louisville Metro, including anyone seeking to convert an existing building to data center use; Louisville Metro planning staff.","citation":"Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't Ordinance O-135-26 (Aug. 13, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.lpm.org/news/2026-08-13/louisville-metro-council-approves-data-center-moratorium-as-new-proposal-sparks-controversy","source_title":"Louisville Metro Council approves data center moratorium as new proposal sparks controversy — Louisville Public Media","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Louisville Metro Planning & Design Services / Louisville Metro Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Covered applications are not approved during the moratorium"},{"id":"md-howard-county-smart-siting-act-2026","title":"Howard County, MD — Council Bill 31-2026, the S.M.A.R.T. Siting Act: Data Center Moratorium Through November 2, 2027 (June 1, 2026)","short_title":"Howard County MD S.M.A.R.T. Siting Act data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Howard County, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Howard","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-06-01","enacted_date":"2026-06-01","expires_date":"2027-11-02","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Howard County unanimously passed Council Bill 31-2026 on June 1, 2026 — the S.M.A.R.T. Siting Act, where S.M.A.R.T. stands for Strategic Moratorium for Assessing Responsible Technology. It halts development of new data centers in Howard County through November 2, 2027, roughly a 17-month pause. The Act does not just stop development; it sets up the work that is meant to replace it, creating a SMART Data Center Task Force charged with defining and reviewing best practices for how data centers should be built and operated in the county and issuing a final report recommending siting and location standards. The county began seeking applicants for the task force in July 2026. Howard County sits between Baltimore and Washington along the I-95 corridor, and its action was part of a Maryland county wave through 2026 that also took in Montgomery, Prince George's, Baltimore City, Calvert and Queen Anne's.","summary_technical":"Howard County, Md. Council Bill 31-2026, the Strategic Moratorium for Assessing Responsible Technology (S.M.A.R.T.) Siting Act, passed unanimously June 1, 2026. Imposes a moratorium on development of new data centers in Howard County through November 2, 2027. Institutional component: establishes the SMART Data Center Task Force, mandated to define and review best practices for data center construction and operation in the county and to issue a final report recommending siting and location standards — so the moratorium's end date is tied to a deliverable rather than being a bare pause. Recruitment for task force members opened July 6, 2026. The bill text is published by the County Council at cc.howardcountymd.gov (CB031-2026.pdf) and the task force has a standing page under the Council's commissions and task forces listing.","who_is_protected":"Howard County residents and landowners, through a moratorium on new data center development lasting until November 2027 while a dedicated task force develops siting and operating standards.","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking to build in Howard County; Howard County planning and permitting agencies.","citation":"Howard Cnty., Md. Council Bill 31-2026 (S.M.A.R.T. Siting Act) (June 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://cc.howardcountymd.gov/ongoing-efforts/commissions-task-forces-and-special-reports/smart-strategic-moratorium-assessing","source_title":"SMART (Strategic Moratorium for Assessing Responsible Technology) Data Center Task Force — County Council of Howard County, Maryland","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning / Howard County Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"New data center development is not permitted during the moratorium period"},{"id":"ga-warner-robins-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Warner Robins, GA — City Council Unanimous Six-Month Data Center Moratorium (July 20, 2026)","short_title":"Warner Robins GA six-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Warner Robins, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Houston","city":"Warner Robins","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-20","enacted_date":"2026-07-20","expires_date":"2027-01-20","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Warner Robins City Council unanimously approved a temporary six-month moratorium on data centers on July 20, 2026. The pause stops the city accepting, processing or issuing new applications for zoning, building permits, business licenses or conditional use permits connected to constructing, establishing or expanding a data center, and runs through January 20, 2027 unless the council acts again first. Dozens of residents filled the council chamber in support and several spoke at the meeting. City leaders are using the six months to study what data centers would mean for water, utilities, zoning and property values. Mayor LaRhonda Patrick framed it as getting ahead of the problem rather than reacting to it: 'Let's be proactive and show our community that they can trust us to educate ourselves and educate the community, so they don't have to wonder what's happening.' Warner Robins is in Houston County in middle Georgia and is home to Robins Air Force Base.","summary_technical":"City of Warner Robins, Ga. temporary moratorium adopted by unanimous City Council vote July 20, 2026, running six months through approximately January 20, 2027 unless further council action intervenes. Scope is defined by permit type rather than by facility size: the city may not accept, process or issue new applications for zoning approvals, building permits, business licenses, or conditional use permits relating to the construction, establishment or expansion of a data center. Covering business licences and expansions — not just new construction — makes the reach wider than a typical application pause. Study agenda during the term: water supply, utility capacity, zoning, and property-value effects. Ordinance number not reported.","who_is_protected":"Warner Robins and Houston County residents, through a six-month pause covering every permit channel a data center would need while the city studies water, utility, zoning and property-value impacts.","who_must_comply":"Anyone seeking zoning approval, a building permit, a business licence or a conditional use permit for data center construction, establishment or expansion in Warner Robins; city permitting staff.","citation":"City of Warner Robins, Ga. — Six-Month Data Center Moratorium (July 20, 2026)","source_url":"https://hhjonline.com/warner-robins-approves-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Warner Robins Council approves data center moratorium for six months — Houston Home Journal","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Warner Robins / Community Development","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Covered applications are not accepted, processed or issued during the moratorium"},{"id":"wi-la-crosse-city-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"La Crosse, WI — Common Council 18-Month Moratorium on Data Center Development (August 13, 2026)","short_title":"La Crosse WI city 18-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"La Crosse, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"La Crosse","city":"La Crosse","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-13","enacted_date":"2026-08-13","expires_date":"2028-02-13","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The La Crosse Common Council approved an 18-month moratorium on data center development inside the city on August 13, 2026. Unlike most municipal pauses, this one defines what it covers by capacity rather than by label: the moratorium applies to facilities able to store, process, retrieve or distribute more than 1 petabyte of data, or that would consume more than 2 megawatts of electricity. That threshold matters because it catches large facilities regardless of what a developer calls them, while leaving ordinary server rooms alone. The ordinance lists the concerns driving it — electrical connections and overall power demand, electromagnetic fields, noise pollution, air quality, water resources and water use, and fire hazards. The city action followed its own county: La Crosse County had adopted a parallel 18-month moratorium in June 2026 covering unincorporated areas, and formed an ad hoc committee to study data centers. The measure moved through the Plan Commission on August 3 and a public hearing before the Judiciary and Administration Committee on August 5 before the council vote.","summary_technical":"City of La Crosse, Wis. ordinance imposing an 18-month moratorium on data center development within city limits, approved by Common Council August 13, 2026. DEFINITIONAL THRESHOLD — the distinguishing feature: the moratorium applies to facilities capable of storing, processing, retrieving or distributing more than 1 petabyte of data OR consuming more than 2 megawatts of electricity. This is a capacity test rather than a use-label test, so it captures high-density compute regardless of how a project is characterised and excludes small server installations. Recitals identify electrical interconnection and aggregate power demand, electromagnetic fields, noise pollution, air quality, water resources and consumption, and fire hazard as the studied concerns. Procedural chain: Plan Commission advancement August 3, 2026; Judiciary & Administration Committee public hearing August 5; Common Council adoption August 13. Companion measure: La Crosse County's own 18-month moratorium of June 18, 2026 covering unincorporated county-zoned land (see wi-la-crosse-county-dc-moratorium-2026) — the two together still leave most of the county's 18 municipalities uncovered, since county zoning authority does not reach them. Ordinance number not obtained.","who_is_protected":"City of La Crosse residents, through an 18-month pause on facilities above 1 petabyte of capacity or 2 megawatts of draw, while the city studies power, water, noise, air quality, EMF and fire risk.","who_must_comply":"Developers of data facilities above the 1 PB / 2 MW threshold within La Crosse city limits; city planning and permitting staff.","citation":"City of La Crosse, Wis. — 18-Month Data Center Moratorium (Aug. 13, 2026)","source_url":"https://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/government-politics/article_4aa40a52-2ad2-4b4c-91f9-1e391aaec5af.html","source_title":"La Crosse enacts data center moratorium in city for 18 months — La Crosse Tribune","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of La Crosse Planning Department / Common Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Development of covered data facilities is not approved during the moratorium"},{"id":"wi-la-crosse-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"La Crosse County, WI — Board of Supervisors 18-Month Data Center Moratorium in County-Zoned Areas (June 18, 2026)","short_title":"La Crosse County WI 18-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"La Crosse County, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"La Crosse","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-18","enacted_date":"2026-06-18","expires_date":"2027-12-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The La Crosse County Board of Supervisors voted 26-2 on June 18, 2026 to impose an 18-month moratorium on new data center decisions and development, with supervisors Ken Schlimgen and Jeff Fimreite voting no and two members absent. The pause holds data center actions while a special committee studies the industry's likely environmental and economic effects. That committee was set up the month before, in May 2026, and is deliberately broad: it includes several board members plus a representative from each of the 18 municipalities in La Crosse County, so the towns and villages have a seat even where the county cannot regulate them. The important limit is jurisdictional — the moratorium only reaches land where county zoning has authority, which means most of those 18 municipalities are not covered by it. The City of La Crosse closed part of that gap by adopting its own 18-month moratorium on August 13, 2026.","summary_technical":"La Crosse County, Wis. Board of Supervisors moratorium, adopted 26-2 on June 18, 2026 (two supervisors absent; recorded no votes: Ken Schlimgen, Jeff Fimreite). Eighteen-month pause on county decisions and development relating to data centers. JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT — the material qualification: the moratorium binds only land subject to county zoning authority, so the majority of the county's 18 incorporated municipalities fall outside it and must act for themselves. Institutional component: an ad hoc data center study committee established May 2026, composed of board members plus one representative from each of the 18 municipalities, reporting recommendations to the Executive Committee and the full Board of Supervisors. Companion municipal action: City of La Crosse 18-month moratorium adopted August 13, 2026 with a 1 PB / 2 MW capacity threshold (see wi-la-crosse-city-dc-moratorium-2026). expires_date computed as 18 months from adoption. Resolution number not obtained.","who_is_protected":"Residents of county-zoned (largely unincorporated) La Crosse County, through an 18-month pause while an ad hoc committee including every municipality studies environmental and economic impacts. Residents of the county's incorporated municipalities are NOT covered by this measure.","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals on land under La Crosse County zoning authority; county zoning and planning staff.","citation":"La Crosse Cnty., Wis. — 18-Month Data Center Moratorium (June 18, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wxow.com/news/la-crosse-county-board-approves-data-center-moratorium/article_89162c21-3240-4d86-9e2d-8a6c3489ddc8.html","source_title":"La Crosse County Board approves data center moratorium — WXOW","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"La Crosse County Zoning, Planning & Land Information / County Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"County data center decisions and approvals are paused during the moratorium"},{"id":"nc-waxhaw-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Waxhaw, NC — Ordinance ORD2026014: 12-Month Moratorium on Data Center and Cryptocurrency Mining Development Applications (August 11, 2026)","short_title":"Waxhaw NC 12-month data center moratorium (ORD2026014)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Waxhaw, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Union","city":"Waxhaw","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-11","enacted_date":"2026-08-11","expires_date":"2027-08-10","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Waxhaw Board of Commissioners unanimously adopted Ordinance ORD2026014 on August 11, 2026, imposing a 12-month moratorium on new data center development applications across the town's zoning jurisdiction. The scope is deliberately wide: it covers acceptance, processing and approval of development applications for data centers, cryptocurrency mining facilities, data storage and processing, and related telecommunications equipment and infrastructure used by digital data facilities — so a project cannot slip through by being labelled something other than a data center. Waxhaw acted under North Carolina General Statute § 160D-107, the provision that lets local governments pause development approvals while they study an issue and write appropriate regulations. The moratorium expires no later than August 10, 2027, but ends sooner if the Board adopts new data center regulations first or votes to terminate it early. No data center had applied for approval or even approached the town when it passed — the town describes it as precautionary rather than a response to any specific project, framed as avoiding being caught unprepared. Waxhaw is a fast-growing town in Union County, in the Charlotte metropolitan area.","summary_technical":"Town of Waxhaw, N.C. Ordinance ORD2026014, adopted unanimously by the Board of Commissioners August 11, 2026 under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160D-107 (development approval moratoria). Imposes a 12-month moratorium on the acceptance, processing and approval of development applications for data centers, cryptocurrency mining facilities, data storage and processing facilities, and related telecommunications equipment and infrastructure serving digital data facilities, throughout the Town of Waxhaw's zoning jurisdiction. Enumerating crypto mining and ancillary telecom infrastructure alongside data centers closes the re-labelling route that narrower ordinances leave open. Sunset: expires no later than August 10, 2027, with two early-termination triggers — adoption of new data center regulations by the Board, or a Board vote to terminate. Posture at adoption: no pending application and no pre-application contact from any developer, so the measure is preemptive. § 160D-107 conditions North Carolina moratoria on stated study purposes and definite duration, both satisfied here.","who_is_protected":"Waxhaw residents and the surrounding Union County area, through a 12-month pause covering data centers, crypto mining and supporting telecom infrastructure while the town writes regulations.","who_must_comply":"Applicants for development approvals for data centers, cryptocurrency mining facilities, data storage and processing, or related telecommunications infrastructure within Waxhaw's zoning jurisdiction; town planning staff.","citation":"Town of Waxhaw, N.C. Ordinance ORD2026014 (Aug. 11, 2026); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160D-107","source_url":"https://www.wbtv.com/2026/08/13/town-waxhaw-unanimously-approved-12-month-moratorium-data-centers/","source_title":"Town of Waxhaw unanimously approved 12-month moratorium on data centers — WBTV","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Waxhaw Planning Department / Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Covered development applications are not accepted, processed or approved during the moratorium"},{"id":"nc-jackson-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Jackson County, NC — Ordinance 2026-02: One-Year Data Center Moratorium (August 18, 2026)","short_title":"Jackson County NC one-year data center moratorium (2026-02)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Jackson County, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Jackson","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-18","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","expires_date":"2027-08-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Jackson County Board of Commissioners approved Ordinance 2026-02 at its regular meeting on August 18, 2026, imposing a one-year moratorium on data center development. It took effect immediately and expires on August 18, 2027. During the pause the county will not issue permits for development connected to data centers as the ordinance defines them. The point of the year is definitional as much as protective: commissioners and the Planning Board intend to study what data centers would mean for the county, write a definition of 'data center' into the Unified Development Ordinance — which currently has none — and decide what regulations, if any, should follow. The ordinance is unusually even-handed in its own recitals, acknowledging that data centers may benefit the county's tax base while recording residents' concerns about how often the facilities are now being proposed and their effect on the quality of life of people living near them. Jackson County is in the mountains of far western North Carolina; its seat is Sylva.","summary_technical":"Jackson County, N.C. Ordinance 2026-02, adopted by the Board of Commissioners at its regular meeting August 18, 2026, effective immediately, expiring August 18, 2027. Suspends issuance of county permits for development related to data centers as defined in the moratorium. Stated purpose: to let the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board study data center impacts, establish a definition of the use for the purposes of the county's Unified Development Ordinance (which did not previously define it), and potentially adopt regulations. Recitals expressly balance a possible tax-base benefit against residents' quality-of-life concerns and the rising frequency of proposals. DISAMBIGUATION — this dataset already carries two unrelated Jackson Counties: jackson-county-fl-dc-ban-2026 (Jackson County, FLORIDA, effective 2026-06-23) and jackson-county-mo-dc-bess-moratorium-2026 (Jackson County, MISSOURI, effective 2026-06-22). This entry is Jackson County, NORTH CAROLINA and is a distinct jurisdiction and instrument from both. A triage note had provisionally guessed Tennessee on the strength of the outlet name; that was wrong.","who_is_protected":"Jackson County, North Carolina residents, through a one-year permit freeze while the county defines data centers in its Unified Development Ordinance and decides what regulation is warranted.","who_must_comply":"Anyone seeking county permits for data center development in Jackson County, NC; county planning and permitting staff.","citation":"Jackson Cnty., N.C. Ordinance 2026-02 (Aug. 18, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.thesylvaherald.com/top_stories/article_0dcb3bf1-6b2a-4c45-9e5b-c3c38a62e9bf.html","source_title":"Data center moratorium passes — The Sylva Herald","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Jackson County Planning Department / Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"County permits for data-center-related development are not issued during the moratorium"},{"id":"oh-twinsburg-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Twinsburg, OH — Ordinance 2026-065: Twelve-Month Emergency Moratorium on Data Center Zoning and Occupancy Permits (2026)","short_title":"Twinsburg OH 12-month data center moratorium (2026-065)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Twinsburg, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Summit","city":"Twinsburg","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Twinsburg adopted Ordinance 2026-065, a twelve-month moratorium on accepting for filing, considering, or issuing zoning and occupancy permits for any building, structure, use or change of use involving data centers as a principal use. The ordinance carries an emergency clause, so with five or more affirmative council votes it took effect immediately on passage and the Mayor's approval. Two features stand out. First, Twinsburg's Planning and Zoning Codes already did not permit data centers as a principally permitted use — the City Administration recommended the moratorium anyway, in the ordinance's own words 'out of an abundance of caution,' to give the city room to review its Codified Ordinances and applicable state law and decide whether anything further is needed on top of the existing ban. So this is a pause layered over a prohibition, not a pause instead of one. Second, Section IV separately bars any existing business in the city from expanding in a way that would involve data centers as a principal use for the duration — closing the route where an established operator grows into the use rather than applying fresh. The moratorium runs twelve months from the effective date, or until the Codified Ordinances are amended to address the issue, or until Council explicitly revokes it, whichever comes first. The ordinance defines a data center as a 'physical facility housing computers and/or networking equipment that is principally used for data processing and storage.'","summary_technical":"City of Twinsburg, Ohio Ordinance 2026-065, an emergency measure establishing a temporary moratorium on accepting for filing and consideration and/or issuing zoning and/or occupancy permits for any building, structure, use or change of use involving Data Centers as a principal use, for twelve months. Operative text read directly from the ordinance published by the city. SECTION III sets three alternative endpoints, whichever occurs first: twelve months from the effective date; amendment of the Codified Ordinances to address the issues described; or Council legislation explicitly revoking the moratorium. SECTION IV independently prohibits any existing business from expanding in any way involving Data Centers as a principal use for the moratorium's duration. SECTION V states the purpose as considering amendments to the Codified Ordinances and studying where and whether to allow, limit or continue to prohibit the use. SECTION VII declares the emergency, reciting immediate preservation of public peace, health, safety, welfare and convenience, and provides that with the affirmative vote of five or more members of Council it takes effect immediately on passage and mayoral approval, otherwise at the earliest period allowed by law. Definition adopted for the moratorium: 'physical facility housing computers and/or networking equipment that is principally used for data processing and storage.' Baseline context recorded in the recitals: the City's Planning and Zoning Codes do NOT permit Data Centers as a principally permitted use, and the Administration recommended the moratorium 'out of an abundance of caution' in addition to that existing ban. Ohio Revised Code § 121.22 open-meetings compliance is recited in Section VI.","who_is_protected":"Twinsburg residents, through a twelve-month bar on data center zoning and occupancy permits that also blocks existing businesses from expanding into the use — layered on top of the city's existing prohibition on data centers as a principal use.","who_must_comply":"Anyone seeking a zoning or occupancy permit involving data centers as a principal use in Twinsburg, and any existing Twinsburg business contemplating expansion into that use; city zoning and building officials.","citation":"City of Twinsburg, Ohio Ordinance 2026-065","source_url":"https://mytwinsburg.com/DocumentCenter/View/11167/2026-065-Establishing-Moratorium-for-Data-Centers","source_title":"City of Twinsburg, Ohio — Ordinance 2026-065, Establishing Moratorium for Data Centers","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Twinsburg zoning and building departments / City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Covered permit applications are not accepted for filing, considered, or issued; existing businesses may not expand into the use"},{"id":"oh-ravenna-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Ravenna, OH — City Council Unanimous One-Year Citywide Data Center Moratorium (April 20, 2026)","short_title":"Ravenna OH one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Ravenna, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Portage","city":"Ravenna","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-04-20","enacted_date":"2026-04-20","expires_date":"2027-04-20","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Ravenna City Council voted unanimously on April 20, 2026 to impose a one-year citywide moratorium on data center construction, to give city leaders time to study the issues and make an informed decision. The vote came ten days after a packed council meeting at which resident Will Hollingsworth delivered a four-minute speech against a data center proposed on State Route 14 by local landowner Ray Harner — directly across from UH Portage Medical Center. The speech passed 250,000 views on X and is widely credited with turning local opinion. Ravenna is the seat of Portage County and sits inside a dense cluster of Northeast Ohio municipalities that paused data centers through 2026, including Twinsburg, Cleveland, Lordstown, Painesville, Wellington, Vermilion, Westlake, Avon and neighbouring Shalersville Township. The concentration was sufficient that regional business leaders publicly urged Northeast Ohio communities to stop passing moratoriums.","summary_technical":"City of Ravenna, Ohio — citywide moratorium on data center construction, adopted by unanimous City Council vote April 20, 2026 for a term of twelve months. Purpose stated as affording city leaders time to study issues and concerns surrounding data centers before making zoning decisions. Immediate trigger: a data center proposed by landowner Ray Harner on State Route 14 opposite UH Portage Medical Center, and the April 10, 2026 council meeting at which resident Will Hollingsworth's public comment against it circulated widely. Regional context: part of a Northeast Ohio cluster of 2026 municipal pauses — Twinsburg (Ordinance 2026-065, twelve months, see oh-twinsburg-dc-moratorium-2026), Cleveland (effective 2026-07-15, already indexed), plus Lordstown, Painesville Township, Wellington, Vermilion, Westlake (six months, September 2026), Avon and Shalersville Township, none of which except Cleveland and Twinsburg are yet in this dataset. Ordinance number not obtained; expires_date computed as twelve months from the vote.","who_is_protected":"Ravenna residents, including patients and staff at UH Portage Medical Center opposite the proposed State Route 14 site, through a one-year citywide construction pause.","who_must_comply":"Anyone seeking to construct a data center in Ravenna; city zoning and building officials.","citation":"City of Ravenna, Ohio — One-Year Data Center Moratorium (Apr. 20, 2026)","source_url":"https://clevelandmagazine.com/articles/inside-one-ravenna-resident-s-fight-against-data-centers/","source_title":"Inside One Ravenna Resident's Fight Against Data Centers — Cleveland Magazine","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Ravenna / Ravenna City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center construction is not approved during the moratorium"},{"id":"nc-greensboro-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Greensboro, NC — 180-Day Moratorium on Data Centers Above 10 Megawatts (August 18, 2026)","short_title":"Greensboro NC 180-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Greensboro, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Guilford","city":"Greensboro","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-18","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","expires_date":"2027-02-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Greensboro City Council voted 8-0 on August 18, 2026, with one councilmember recusing herself, to impose a 180-day moratorium on data centers requiring more than 10 megawatts of electrical power. It pauses acceptance, processing and approval of development applications for data centers, data storage and processing facilities and similar uses above that threshold, and runs until February 14, 2027. The council arrived here the long way round: it rejected a moratorium on July 21, 2026, then reversed itself 9-0 on August 3 to bring the question back, held a public hearing, and finally adopted the pause in August — lengthening it from the 120 days originally floated to 180 after residents pushed for longer. The 10-megawatt floor is the important detail: it targets large facilities and leaves smaller server installations alone, and it gives the city a working line to use while it does the thing it admits it has not done — define 'data center' in the Land Development Ordinance, which currently contains no such definition. Greensboro is North Carolina's third-largest city.","summary_technical":"City of Greensboro, N.C. — 180-day moratorium adopted by City Council 8-0 (one recusal) on Tuesday, August 18, 2026, running through February 14, 2027. Scope: temporarily suspends acceptance, processing and approval of development applications for data centers, data storage and processing facilities, and similar uses with an electrical power demand EXCEEDING 10 MEGAWATTS. The megawatt trigger is the operative limit — facilities below it are unaffected. Procedural history is unusual and worth preserving: the council REJECTED a proposed moratorium on July 21, 2026 (reported 5-4); voted 9-0 on August 3, 2026 to reverse that decision and reconsider; scheduled and held a public hearing; and then adopted the measure at 180 days rather than the 120 days initially under consideration, after public feedback sought a longer pause. Stated purposes: study potential impacts, DEFINE data centers in the City's Land Development Ordinance (no definition currently exists), and continue receiving community input. Ordinance number not reported in the city's release.","who_is_protected":"Greensboro residents, through a 180-day pause on data centers drawing more than 10 megawatts while the city studies impacts and writes a definition of the use into its Land Development Ordinance.","who_must_comply":"Applicants for development approvals for data centers, data storage and processing facilities or similar uses above 10 MW of electrical demand in Greensboro; city planning staff.","citation":"City of Greensboro, N.C. — 180-Day Data Center Moratorium (Aug. 18, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.greensboro-nc.gov/Home/Components/News/News/22889/36","source_title":"Greensboro City Council Approves Data Center Moratorium — City of Greensboro, NC","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Greensboro Planning Department / City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Covered development applications are not accepted, processed or approved during the moratorium"},{"id":"in-jeffersonville-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Jeffersonville, IN — City Council Unanimous One-Year Data Center Moratorium (August 3, 2026)","short_title":"Jeffersonville IN one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Jeffersonville, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Clark","city":"Jeffersonville","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-03","enacted_date":"2026-08-03","expires_date":"2027-08-03","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Jeffersonville City Council voted 8-0 on August 3, 2026 to halt new data center development for a year, and suspended its own standard rules to push the ordinance through all three required readings in a single session. The administration had proposed a six-month pause; Councilmember Jackie Snelling moved it to a full year, which pushes expiry to mid-2027 and — the stated reason — makes sure the plan commission has time to finish permanent zoning rules before the Indiana legislature is back in session and might constrain what cities can do. The year is for updating the city's Unified Development Ordinance to regulate data centers properly. One large carve-out defines the measure's real reach: it does not apply to the River Ridge Commerce Center or the Meta data center nearing completion there. River Ridge sits on the former Indiana Army Ammunition Plant, and federal and state reuse statutes plus a decades-old interlocal agreement leave ultimate zoning authority with the River Ridge Development Authority rather than the city — so Jeffersonville could not have reached that site even if it wanted to. The vote came amid resident pushback and what local coverage described as major utility disclosures. Jeffersonville is in Clark County, across the Ohio River from Louisville.","summary_technical":"City of Jeffersonville, Ind. ordinance imposing a one-year moratorium on new data center development, adopted 8-0 by City Council on Monday, August 3, 2026. Procedural note: the council suspended its standard rules to advance the ordinance through all three statutorily required readings within a single session. Term: extended from the administration's proposed six months to twelve months on Councilmember Jackie Snelling's motion, with the stated rationale that a full year guarantees the plan commission finishes permanent zoning rules before the Indiana General Assembly reconvenes. Purpose: update the city's Unified Development Ordinance to regulate data centers. JURISDICTIONAL CARVE-OUT, material to scope: the moratorium does NOT apply to the River Ridge Commerce Center or to the Meta data center nearing completion there. River Ridge occupies the former Indiana Army Ammunition Plant; federal and state military reuse statutes govern its land use and, under a decades-old interlocal agreement, the River Ridge Development Authority holds ultimate zoning authority — the exclusion reflects a limit on municipal power, not a policy concession. Ordinance number not reported. Note on naming: distinct from a same-period one-year moratorium adopted by Jefferson (Ashtabula County, Ohio) village council, a different jurisdiction reported under a near-identical headline.","who_is_protected":"Jeffersonville residents, through a one-year pause on new data center development while the city rewrites its Unified Development Ordinance. Residents near the River Ridge Commerce Center are NOT covered — that land is outside city zoning authority.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking approvals for new data centers within Jeffersonville's zoning jurisdiction; city planning and permitting staff.","citation":"City of Jeffersonville, Ind. — One-Year Data Center Moratorium (Aug. 3, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.lpm.org/news/2026-08-04/jeffersonville-approves-1-year-data-center-moratorium","source_title":"Jeffersonville approves 1-year data center moratorium — Louisville Public Media","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Jeffersonville Planning and Zoning / Jeffersonville Plan Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"New data center development is not approved during the moratorium"},{"id":"md-calvert-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Calvert County, MD — Board of County Commissioners Six-Month Moratorium on Data Center Site Plan Approvals (Adopted August 18, 2026; Effective August 28, 2026)","short_title":"Calvert County MD six-month data center site plan moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Calvert County, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Calvert","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-28","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","expires_date":"2027-02-28","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"The Calvert County Board of County Commissioners unanimously passed a six-month moratorium on site plan approvals for data center development at its August 18, 2026 regular meeting, following a public hearing. It took effect on August 28, 2026. The politics behind the vote are unusually legible. Calvert County had been the target of an Amazon Web Services proposal for multiple data center campuses totalling about 2.4 million square feet on the grounds of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. In the June 2026 primary, three incumbent commissioners who had opposed a moratorium were defeated after fierce voter pushback over hyperscale development. AWS then abandoned the Calvert Cliffs plan in early August. The reconstituted board passed the moratorium unanimously weeks later — a reversal from an earlier attempt that had died on a tied vote. The pause targets site plan approvals specifically rather than all permitting, which is the stage at which a data center project becomes concrete in Maryland county practice.","summary_technical":"Calvert County, Md. Board of County Commissioners moratorium on site plan approvals for data center development projects, adopted unanimously at the August 18, 2026 regular meeting after a public hearing, effective August 28, 2026, six-month term. Scope is the site plan approval stage rather than the full permitting chain. Sequence worth preserving: an earlier Calvert moratorium vote FAILED on a tie; three incumbent commissioners opposed to a moratorium were defeated in the June 2026 primary amid opposition to hyperscale development; Amazon Web Services abandoned its proposal for multiple data center campuses (~2.4 million sq ft) at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in early August 2026; the board then adopted this measure unanimously. Distinct from calvert-county-md-data-center-text-amendment-2026-05, the separate zoning text amendment already indexed as proposed. Ordinance/resolution number not obtained.","who_is_protected":"Calvert County residents, through a six-month pause on data center site plan approvals while the county considers permanent regulation, in the wake of a withdrawn 2.4 million square foot proposal at Calvert Cliffs.","who_must_comply":"Applicants seeking site plan approval for data center development in Calvert County; county planning and zoning staff.","citation":"Calvert Cnty., Md. — Six-Month Data Center Site Plan Moratorium (adopted Aug. 18, 2026; eff. Aug. 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.calvertcountymd.gov/m/newsflash/home/detail/3201","source_title":"Calvert County Commissioners Enact Six-Month Data Center Moratorium — Calvert County, MD","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Calvert County Department of Planning & Zoning / Board of County Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center site plan approvals are not granted during the moratorium"},{"id":"nc-alamance-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Alamance County, NC — Board of Commissioners Unanimous One-Year Data Center Moratorium (August 17, 2026)","short_title":"Alamance County NC one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Alamance County, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Alamance","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-17","enacted_date":"2026-08-17","expires_date":"2027-08-17","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Alamance County commissioners voted unanimously on August 17, 2026 to impose a one-year moratorium on large data centers, at the end of a public hearing held as part of a business meeting that ran more than two hours. More than 23 residents spoke in favour of the pause. The board had directed staff to draft the moratorium and set the hearing date earlier in the month, and had signalled it was willing to act while leaving the length open until the hearing. The year is meant to give the county time to review and potentially revise the ordinances governing this kind of development — and the data center debate has revived a longer-running local argument about whether Alamance should adopt countywide zoning at all, which it has historically resisted. Alamance County sits between Greensboro and Durham along the I-40/85 corridor in North Carolina's Piedmont; Greensboro adopted its own 180-day moratorium the following day.","summary_technical":"Alamance County, N.C. Board of Commissioners one-year moratorium on large data center development, adopted unanimously August 17, 2026 following a public hearing exceeding two hours with more than 23 speakers in support. Procedural history: commissioners directed staff to draft the moratorium and set the August 17 public hearing earlier in August 2026, with the term left undetermined pending the hearing. Stated purpose: a yearlong pause allowing review and potential revision of the ordinances governing such development. Secondary effect noted in local coverage: the data center question has resurrected the issue of countywide zoning in a county that has historically not adopted it, which bears on what regulatory instrument can follow the moratorium. Part of a concentrated mid-August 2026 North Carolina cluster — Yadkin County adopted a two-year pause the same day (see nc-yadkin-county-dc-moratorium-2026) and Greensboro adopted a 180-day moratorium on August 18 (see nc-greensboro-dc-moratorium-2026). Ordinance number not obtained; expires_date computed as one year from adoption.","who_is_protected":"Alamance County residents, through a one-year pause on large data center development while the county reviews and potentially revises the governing ordinances.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking approvals for large data centers in Alamance County; county planning and permitting staff.","citation":"Alamance Cnty., N.C. — One-Year Data Center Moratorium (Aug. 17, 2026)","source_url":"https://myfox8.com/news/north-carolina/alamance/alamance-county-commissioners-approve-1-year-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Alamance County commissioners approve 1-year data center moratorium — FOX8 WGHP","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Alamance County Planning Department / Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Large data center development approvals are paused during the moratorium"},{"id":"nc-yadkin-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Yadkin County, NC — Board of Commissioners Unanimous Two-Year Data Center Moratorium in Unincorporated County (August 17, 2026)","short_title":"Yadkin County NC two-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Yadkin County, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Yadkin","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-17","enacted_date":"2026-08-17","expires_date":"2028-08-17","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Yadkin County commissioners unanimously approved a two-year moratorium on data center development on August 17, 2026, following a public hearing. The proposal on the table was for twelve months; Commissioner Cliff Collins moved to double it, and the board agreed. The timing was pointed — that same day, AI infrastructure company WhiteFiber announced plans to acquire and retrofit warehouse space in Yadkinville for use as data centers. The moratorium does not reach those projects. County Manager Michael Silverman was explicit about why: 'The moratorium only addresses the unincorporated areas of the county, which fall underneath our zoning areas.' Yadkinville is an incorporated town with its own zoning authority, so the county pause stops at its limits. WhiteFiber had separately bought land in Yadkin County for data center campuses in August 2026. Yadkin County is in North Carolina's northwest Piedmont, west of Winston-Salem.","summary_technical":"Yadkin County, N.C. Board of Commissioners two-year moratorium on data center development, adopted unanimously August 17, 2026 after a public hearing. Term: originally proposed at 12 months, extended to 24 months on the motion of Commissioner Cliff Collins before adoption. JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT, material to scope: the moratorium binds only the unincorporated areas of the county that fall under county zoning authority, per County Manager Michael Silverman. Incorporated municipalities — notably the town of Yadkinville — are outside it. Practical consequence, confirmed in contemporaneous reporting: WhiteFiber's announced plan to acquire and retrofit Yadkinville warehouse space for data center use is NOT affected by this moratorium, and the announcement came the same day the board voted. WhiteFiber had also purchased land in Yadkin County for data center campuses in August 2026. Adopted the same day as Alamance County's one-year moratorium (see nc-alamance-county-dc-moratorium-2026), one day before Greensboro's 180-day measure. Ordinance number not obtained.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated, county-zoned Yadkin County, through a two-year pause on data center development. Residents of incorporated municipalities including Yadkinville are NOT covered, and announced projects inside town limits proceed unaffected.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals in unincorporated Yadkin County; county planning and zoning staff.","citation":"Yadkin Cnty., N.C. — Two-Year Data Center Moratorium (Aug. 17, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.yadkinripple.com/news/moratorium-approved-for-yadkin-county-as-potential-yadkinville-data-center-project-announced/article_485d48fb-c61b-4167-b885-3d469e9a6bbe.html","source_title":"Moratorium approved for Yadkin County as potential Yadkinville data center project announced — Yadkin Ripple","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Yadkin County Planning Department / Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center development approvals are not granted in unincorporated areas during the moratorium"},{"id":"il-hb3851-school-cyberbullying-digital-replica-2026","title":"Illinois — HB 3851: School Code Cyber-Bullying Definition Extended to Unauthorized AI Digital Replicas (Effective July 1, 2026)","short_title":"Illinois HB 3851 — deepfake cyberbullying in schools (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Illinois","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["deepfakes","children","education","ncii","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2025-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Illinois has written AI deepfakes into the part of the School Code that governs bullying. Under House Bill 3851, signed in August 2025 and effective July 1, 2026, the statutory definition of 'cyber-bullying' now includes posting or distributing an unauthorized digital replica of a student by electronic means. A digital replica means an AI-generated or electronically altered representation of a person's voice, image or likeness; it is unauthorized when the depicted person did not consent. The law also makes explicit that bullying includes posting or distributing sexually explicit images. The practical effect is jurisdictional: school districts can now act on deepfake incidents under their bullying policies, rather than being left to argue about whether an AI-generated image of a student counts as bullying at all. The change applies from the 2026-2027 school year, and districts across Illinois had to update their policies and procedures to match. Alongside it, the Illinois State Board of Education was required to develop statewide guidance on artificial intelligence in schools by July 1, 2026, expected to cover AI-generated false representations of individuals. The problem is not hypothetical: a 2024 Center for Democracy & Technology survey found 40% of K-12 public school students knew of a deepfake involving someone at their school, and 15% knew of a sexually explicit deepfake depicting a member of their school community, while more than 60% of teachers said their school had not shared any policy on AI-generated sexual imagery.","summary_technical":"Illinois House Bill 3851 (104th General Assembly), amending the Illinois School Code's bullying provisions. Signed August 2025; effective July 1, 2026; operative beginning with the 2026-2027 school year. Operative changes: (1) the definition of 'cyber-bullying' is extended to include the posting or distribution of a digital replica by electronic means, where that conduct otherwise satisfies the School Code's definition of bullying; (2) an 'unauthorized digital replica' is the use of a digital replica of an individual without the consent of the depicted individual, a digital replica being an AI-generated or electronically altered representation of a person's voice, image or likeness; (3) bullying is stated to include the posting or distribution of sexually explicit images. Companion administrative duty: the Illinois State Board of Education was required to develop statewide guidance on artificial intelligence in schools by July 1, 2026, anticipated to address AI-generated false representations of individuals so districts could update policy ahead of the school year. Enforcement runs through existing district bullying policies and procedures rather than creating a new cause of action. Public Act number not captured — the Illinois General Assembly bill-status page did not resolve on fetch (TLS chain error).","who_is_protected":"Illinois public school students depicted in AI-generated or electronically altered images, audio or likenesses distributed without their consent, including sexually explicit deepfakes — by bringing that conduct inside the School Code's bullying and cyber-bullying framework their district must act on.","who_must_comply":"Illinois public school districts, which must update bullying policies and procedures to cover unauthorized digital replicas; students subject to those policies; the Illinois State Board of Education, which owed statewide AI guidance by July 1, 2026.","citation":"Ill. H.B. 3851, 104th Gen. Assemb. (eff. July 1, 2026) (amending the Ill. School Code)","source_url":"https://capitolnewsillinois.com/news/illinois-schools-grapple-with-ai-cyberbullying-deepfakes-as-new-law-takes-effect/","source_title":"Illinois schools grapple with AI cyberbullying, deepfakes as new law takes effect — Capitol News Illinois","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Illinois State Board of Education; individual school districts through their bullying policies","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Handled through school district bullying policies and procedures; no separate statutory penalty established by this amendment"},{"id":"il-lake-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Lake County, IL — County Board Unanimous Eight-Month Data Center Moratorium in Unincorporated Areas (September 8, 2026)","short_title":"Lake County IL eight-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Lake County, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Lake","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-08","enacted_date":"2026-09-08","expires_date":"2027-05-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Lake County Board voted unanimously on September 8, 2026 to put new data centers in unincorporated Lake County on hold for eight months. The moratorium lifts on May 11, 2027, or earlier if the county adopts data center regulations before then — the pause is tied to finishing the work, not just running out the clock. The county paired it with an immediate administrative deferral that can hold applications for up to 120 days, so the two instruments together reach close to a year of coverage without the board having to adopt a year-long moratorium outright. The sequence began on June 9, 2026, when the board approved a resolution sending draft changes to the Lake County Unified Development Ordinance to the Zoning Board of Appeals and proposing the eight-month pause; the ZBA unanimously recommended it on August 18. County leaders said the time is for planners to study long-term effects on electricity, water and roads as AI-ready campuses spread across Chicago's northern suburbs. Lake County sits between Chicago and the Wisconsin border.","summary_technical":"Lake County, Ill. County Board eight-month moratorium on data center applications and development in unincorporated Lake County, adopted unanimously September 8, 2026. Scheduled to lift May 11, 2027, with early termination if the County Board adopts data center development regulations before that date. Paired instrument: an immediate Temporary Administrative Deferral of data center applications in unincorporated Lake County, capable of pausing applications for up to 120 days, which together with the moratorium extends effective coverage toward a full year. Procedural chain: June 9, 2026 board resolution transmitting draft Unified Development Ordinance amendments to the Zoning Board of Appeals and proposing the eight-month moratorium; August 18, 2026 unanimous ZBA recommendation; September 8, 2026 unanimous County Board adoption. Stated purpose: evaluate data centers as an emerging land use, review best practices, and assess infrastructure and environmental considerations — electricity, water and roads — with the goal of enacting development restrictions for future proposals in unincorporated areas. Jurisdictional scope is unincorporated county-zoned land only. DISAMBIGUATION: distinct from lake-county-in-dc-zoning-2025 (Lake County, INDIANA) already in this dataset, and from Lake County, FLORIDA, whose separate one-year moratorium was still pending final adoption as of this verification. Ordinance/resolution number not obtained.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Lake County, Illinois, through an eight-month pause on data center applications and development while the county studies electricity, water and road impacts and drafts development restrictions. Incorporated municipalities are outside its scope.","who_must_comply":"Applicants for data center approvals in unincorporated Lake County, IL; Lake County Planning, Building and Development staff.","citation":"Lake Cnty., Ill. — Eight-Month Data Center Moratorium (Sept. 8, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.dailyherald.com/20260909/news/lake-county-approves-8-month-moratorium-on-data-center-applications-development/","source_title":"Lake County approves 8-month moratorium on data center applications, development — Daily Herald","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Lake County (IL) Planning, Building and Development / Lake County Board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center applications are not accepted or approved in unincorporated areas during the moratorium"},{"id":"mi-rochester-hills-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Rochester Hills, MI — City Council Unanimous 180-Day Extension of Data Center Moratorium Through March 4, 2027 (August 10, 2026)","short_title":"Rochester Hills MI data center moratorium extended (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Rochester Hills, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Oakland","city":"Rochester Hills","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-02-23","enacted_date":"2026-02-23","expires_date":"2027-03-04","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Rochester Hills has had a data center moratorium in place since February 23, 2026, and in August the City Council unanimously extended it rather than let it lapse. The original pause was due to expire on September 5, 2026; at its Monday, August 10 meeting the council added 180 days, pushing the end date to March 4, 2027. The stated reason for the extension is straightforward — the city had not finished the work. The additional six months are for drafting changes to the city's ordinances to set standards for data centers, so that when the moratorium does end there is a regulatory framework rather than a vacuum. Rochester Hills is in Oakland County, in the Detroit suburbs, and is one of a number of Michigan communities that paused data centers through 2026 while the state legislature's own data center bills stalled.","summary_technical":"City of Rochester Hills, Mich. — data center moratorium originally approved February 23, 2026 with a September 5, 2026 expiry, extended by unanimous City Council vote at the August 10, 2026 meeting for a further 180 days to March 4, 2027. Purpose of the extension: allow city officials to complete amendments to the city's ordinances establishing standards for data centers. This entry tracks the measure as a single continuing instrument — effective_date is the original February 23, 2026 adoption and expires_date reflects the extended March 4, 2027 end date, with the extension recorded in last_action. State context: Michigan data center regulation bills were stalled in the legislature through 2026, and environmental groups were pressing for a statewide moratorium, leaving municipalities to act individually; Delta County adopted a twelve-month county-level moratorium on data centers and cryptocurrency mining on July 21, 2026 (see delta-county-mi-dc-crypto-moratorium-2026). Ordinance number not obtained. NAME DISAMBIGUATION: Rochester Hills, MICHIGAN is distinct from Rochester, NEW HAMPSHIRE (which was separately pursuing a zoning ordinance confining data centers to its Recycling Industrial zone) and from Rochester, MINNESOTA and Rochester, NEW YORK, all of which appear in this dataset's candidate pool under similar headlines.","who_is_protected":"Rochester Hills residents, through a continuing pause on data center development — now running to March 2027 — while the city writes ordinance standards for the use.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals in Rochester Hills; city planning and building officials.","citation":"City of Rochester Hills, Mich. — Data Center Moratorium (adopted Feb. 23, 2026; extended Aug. 10, 2026 to Mar. 4, 2027)","source_url":"https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2026/08/11/rochester-hills-extends-data-center-moratorium/91256551007/","source_title":"Rochester Hills extends data center moratorium — The Detroit News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Rochester Hills Planning Department / City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center approvals are not granted during the moratorium"},{"id":"nj-jersey-city-dc-industrial-ban-ord-26-057","title":"Jersey City, NJ — Ordinance 26-057: Data Centers and Cyber Hotels Removed as Permitted Principal Use in the Industrial District (August 19, 2026)","short_title":"Jersey City NJ data center ban in industrial zones (Ord. 26-057)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Jersey City, NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","county":"Hudson","city":"Jersey City","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-19","enacted_date":"2026-08-19","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Jersey City Council voted unanimously on August 19, 2026 to bar new data centers from the city's industrial zones. Ordinance 26-057 amends the Land Development Ordinance to strike data centers and 'cyber hotels' from the list of permitted principal uses in the Industrial District. This is a permanent zoning change, not a temporary pause. It is also narrower than it first sounds: the city already has five data centers operating inside existing office buildings shared with other tenants, and those are untouched. What the ordinance stops is new standalone facilities taking industrial land. That framing is the point — Jersey City's industrial land is some of the last remaining in the city, and it had been open to a use that draws enormous electricity and water, occupies a large footprint and produces comparatively few permanent jobs. Jersey City is New Jersey's second-largest city and became the 34th municipality in the state to ban data centers; by that point more than a million New Jersey residents lived somewhere the facilities are prohibited.","summary_technical":"City of Jersey City, N.J. Ordinance 26-057, introduced July 15, 2026 and adopted unanimously on final reading August 19, 2026. Amends the Jersey City Land Development Ordinance to remove 'cyber hotels' and data centers as a permitted principal use within the Industrial District. Permanent zoning amendment with no sunset. SCOPE LIMIT, material: five existing data centers housed inside occupied multi-tenant office buildings are unaffected; the prohibition reaches new standalone data center development on industrial land. Rationale recorded in the record and coverage: scarcity of remaining industrial land in the city, and the electricity, water, footprint and low permanent-employment profile of the use. Sequence position: 34th New Jersey municipality to adopt a data center ban, part of a statewide municipal wave that had passed 50 towns by late August 2026 — an outright-prohibition pattern that distinguishes New Jersey from the moratorium-led approach dominant in most other states. Ordinance text published by the city at cityofjerseycity.civicweb.net (Data Center Amendment).","who_is_protected":"Jersey City residents and ratepayers, through a permanent bar on new standalone data centers taking the city's remaining industrial land, with existing in-office facilities left in place.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to establish data centers or cyber hotels as a principal use on Jersey City industrial land; city planning and zoning officials.","citation":"Jersey City, N.J. Ordinance 26-057 (Aug. 19, 2026)","source_url":"https://newjersey.news12.com/2026/08/23/jersey-city-council-votes-to-ban-data-centers-on-industrial-property/2juzJBPYsK7KemgdiedWKP","source_title":"Jersey City Council Votes To Ban Data Centers On Industrial Property — News 12 New Jersey","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Jersey City Division of City Planning / Jersey City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data centers and cyber hotels are not a permitted principal use in the Industrial District"},{"id":"nj-stafford-township-dc-ban-ord-2026-22","title":"Stafford Township, NJ — Ordinance No. 2026-22: All Data Centers Prohibited Township-Wide (August 25, 2026)","short_title":"Stafford Township NJ total data center ban (Ord. 2026-22)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Stafford Township, NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","county":"Ocean","city":"Stafford Township","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-25","enacted_date":"2026-08-25","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Stafford Township adopted Ordinance No. 2026-22 unanimously on August 25, 2026, banning data centers everywhere in the township. The operative language is about as short as a land-use prohibition gets: 'All data centers are hereby prohibited from operating anywhere in the Township of Stafford.' The ordinance supplements Section 212-4.1 of the township code, the section headed 'Additional Prohibited Uses,' and defines data centers as facilities used to store and manage digital data. There is no zone where they are allowed and no sunset date — this is a permanent, township-wide prohibition rather than a pause. Stafford was one of three New Jersey municipalities to ban data centers the same night, alongside North Brunswick and East Brunswick, making it the 37th in the state to do so. Stafford Township is in Ocean County on the Jersey Shore, adjoining Manahawkin and the Long Beach Island causeway.","summary_technical":"Township of Stafford, N.J. Ordinance No. 2026-22, adopted unanimously August 25, 2026. Supplements Section 212-4.1 of the Township Code ('Additional Prohibited Uses') with the provision that all data centers are prohibited from operating anywhere in the Township of Stafford. Defines data centers as facilities used to store and manage digital data. Structure to note: the prohibition is placed in the township's existing prohibited-uses section rather than implemented by removing the use from individual zone schedules, which makes it comprehensive by construction — there is no district in which the use survives. No sunset provision; permanent prohibition rather than a moratorium. Adopted the same night as North Brunswick's and East Brunswick's bans; the three were the 35th, 36th and 37th New Jersey municipalities to prohibit data centers.","who_is_protected":"Stafford Township residents, through a permanent township-wide prohibition on data center operation with no permitted zone.","who_must_comply":"Any person or entity seeking to operate a data center anywhere in Stafford Township; township zoning and code enforcement officials.","citation":"Stafford Twp., N.J. Ordinance No. 2026-22 (Aug. 25, 2026) (supplementing Twp. Code § 212-4.1)","source_url":"https://patch.com/new-jersey/barnegat-manahawkin/data-center-ban-approved-stafford-township","source_title":"Data Center Ban Approved In Stafford Township — Barnegat-Manahawkin Patch","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Township of Stafford zoning and code enforcement / Township Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center operation is a prohibited use township-wide"},{"id":"nj-east-brunswick-dc-ban-ord-26-21","title":"East Brunswick, NJ — Ordinance 26-21: Data Centers Prohibited in All Commercial, Business and Industrial Zones (August 2026)","short_title":"East Brunswick NJ data center zoning ban (Ord. 26-21)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"East Brunswick, NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","county":"Middlesex","city":"East Brunswick","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The East Brunswick Township Council adopted Ordinance 26-21, amending the township zoning code to add a definition for 'data centers' and to designate them a prohibited use in every commercial, business and industrial zoning district. Adding the definition matters as much as the prohibition: before this, the township had no settled term for the use, which is the gap developers elsewhere have worked through. Before voting, the council made a technical correction to the text, changing 'primary use' to 'principal use' so the ordinance matches terminology already used in the township's land use code — a small edit that prevents an argument later about whether the ban reaches a facility characterised as something else. Local coverage framed the ban as protecting residents from the increased utility costs data centers tend to bring, along with noise, air and water pollution. East Brunswick was one of three New Jersey municipalities to ban data centers in the same period, with North Brunswick and Stafford Township, and joined more than 50 New Jersey communities that had done so.","summary_technical":"Township of East Brunswick, N.J. Ordinance 26-21, amending the township zoning code to (a) add a definition of 'data centers' and (b) designate data centers a prohibited use in all commercial, business and industrial zoning districts. Permanent zoning prohibition; no sunset. Drafting note preserved because it bears on enforceability: prior to adoption the council made a floor correction replacing 'primary use' with 'principal use' to align with the terminology already operative in the township land use code. Stated protective rationale: utility cost increases, noise, air and water pollution. DATE UNRESOLVED and therefore null: TAPinto reports adoption 'at its Monday meeting', while ROI-NJ and Insider NJ group East Brunswick with North Brunswick and Stafford Township as banning on August 25, 2026 (a Tuesday) — the two cannot both be literally right, and the township council's meeting night has not been confirmed. last_action_date 2026-08-25 is recorded for ordering only and should not be read as a verified adoption date. East Brunswick was the 36th New Jersey municipality to ban data centers.","who_is_protected":"East Brunswick residents and ratepayers, through a permanent prohibition on data centers in every commercial, business and industrial district, framed around utility costs and noise, air and water pollution.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to site data centers in East Brunswick's commercial, business or industrial districts; township planning and zoning officials.","citation":"East Brunswick Twp., N.J. Ordinance 26-21 (Aug. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.tapinto.net/towns/east-brunswick/sections/government/articles/east-brunswick-council-advances-broad-zoning-ban-on-data-centers","source_title":"East Brunswick Council Advances Broad Zoning Ban on Data Centers — TAPinto East Brunswick","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"East Brunswick Township Planning Board / Township Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data centers are a prohibited use in all commercial, business and industrial zoning districts"},{"id":"nj-north-brunswick-dc-ban-2026","title":"North Brunswick, NJ — Municipal Data Center Ban (August 25, 2026)","short_title":"North Brunswick NJ data center ban (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"North Brunswick, NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","county":"Middlesex","city":"North Brunswick","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-25","enacted_date":"2026-08-25","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"North Brunswick banned data centers on August 25, 2026, one of three New Jersey municipalities to do so the same night alongside East Brunswick and Stafford Township. The three became the 35th, 36th and 37th municipalities in New Jersey to prohibit the facilities. North Brunswick was the 35th. Advocates described three bans passing in a single night as a marker of how fast the movement had spread across the state, with rural, suburban and urban communities alike citing the electricity and water demands of data centers, pollution, infrastructure strain, and the small number of permanent jobs the facilities create relative to their footprint. North Brunswick is in Middlesex County, in the central New Jersey corridor along Route 1 between New Brunswick and Princeton.","summary_technical":"Township of North Brunswick, N.J. — municipal data center ban adopted August 25, 2026. Recorded as the 35th New Jersey municipality to prohibit data centers, adopted the same night as East Brunswick (36th) and Stafford Township (37th). DETAIL GAP ACKNOWLEDGED: available reporting establishes that North Brunswick banned data centers on that date and its position in the statewide sequence, but does not supply the ordinance number, the zoning mechanism used (prohibited-use section versus removal from zone schedules), the definition adopted, or the vote tally — all of which ARE available for its two same-night counterparts. This entry is therefore thinner than the Stafford Township and East Brunswick entries by necessity, not by choice. Statewide context: New Jersey's municipal response to data centers has been dominated by outright permanent prohibitions rather than the time-limited moratoriums that lead in most other states, with more than 50 municipalities having banned the use by late August 2026 and over a million residents living under such a ban.","who_is_protected":"North Brunswick residents, through a municipal prohibition on data centers.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to site data centers in North Brunswick; township planning and zoning officials.","citation":"Twp. of North Brunswick, N.J. — Data Center Ban (Aug. 25, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.roi-nj.com/2026/08/25/industry/energy-utilities/north-brunswick-east-brunswick-and-stafford-township-ban-data-centers/","source_title":"North Brunswick, East Brunswick, and Stafford Township ban data centers — ROI-NJ","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"North Brunswick Township planning and zoning / Township Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data centers are a prohibited use"},{"id":"fl-lakeland-dc-moratorium-ord-26-018","title":"Lakeland, FL — Ordinance 26-018: One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers and Loads Above 50 MW, Extending to Projects Outside the City Served by Lakeland Electric (August 3, 2026)","short_title":"Lakeland FL data center + 50MW load moratorium (Ord. 26-018)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lakeland, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Polk","city":"Lakeland","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-03","enacted_date":"2026-08-03","expires_date":"2027-08-03","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Lakeland commissioners voted 4-3 on August 3, 2026 to impose a one-year moratorium on new data centers and on any other business expected to draw at least 50 megawatts of electricity. Two things make this ordinance unusual. First, it is not limited to data centers as a category — the trigger is the 50 MW load, so a large industrial customer of any description is caught by the same rule. Second, and more significant, it reaches beyond the city's borders. The moratorium applies both inside Lakeland and to projects located outside the city that seek service from Lakeland's utilities. That matters because nearly 70% of Lakeland Electric's service area lies outside the city limits, where Lakeland has no land-use authority at all but can still be asked to power a project. Using utility service as the hook lets the city reach developments it cannot zone. The pause took effect immediately, stopping the city from accepting or reviewing applications while staff write permanent rules covering power and water demand, noise, public safety, environmental effects, impacts on nearby properties, infrastructure costs, jobs and tax revenue. It can run up to twelve months but commissioners may end it sooner if the work finishes. The vote was contested: Commissioners Stephanie Madden, Mike Musick and Ashley Troutman were strongly opposed to the language and voted no.","summary_technical":"City of Lakeland, Fla. Ordinance 26-018, adopted 4-3 by the City Commission August 3, 2026, effective immediately, maximum term twelve months with discretionary early termination once permanent regulations are complete. TRIGGER IS LOAD, NOT USE: applies to new data centers and to other businesses anticipated to consume at least 50 megawatts of electricity, so scope is set by grid impact rather than by how a project describes itself. EXTRATERRITORIAL REACH VIA UTILITY SERVICE — the distinguishing feature: the moratorium binds both projects inside the municipal boundary and projects outside it that request service from Lakeland's utilities. Approximately 70% of Lakeland Electric's service territory lies beyond the city limits, where the city has no zoning jurisdiction; conditioning utility service supplies the only lever available over those projects. Municipal utilities elsewhere have the same structural position and largely have not used it this way. Operative effect: the city may not accept or review covered applications during the term. Study agenda for permanent rules: power and water demand, noise, public safety, environmental effects, effects on neighbouring properties, infrastructure cost allocation, employment and tax revenue. Recorded dissents: Commissioners Stephanie Madden, Mike Musick, Ashley Troutman. Ordinance text published in the City Commission agenda packets for July 20 and August 3, 2026 (lakelandgov.net, 26-018Ord.pdf).","who_is_protected":"Lakeland residents and Lakeland Electric ratepayers — including the roughly 70% of the utility's service area outside the city limits, who gain protection they could not get through Lakeland's zoning power.","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers or any business anticipated to draw 50 MW or more, whether located in Lakeland or outside the city and seeking Lakeland utility service; City of Lakeland planning staff and Lakeland Electric.","citation":"City of Lakeland, Fla. Ordinance 26-018 (Aug. 3, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.lkldnow.com/lakeland-approves-one-year-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Lakeland Approves One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers — LkldNow","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Lakeland Community & Economic Development / Lakeland Electric / City Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Covered applications are not accepted or reviewed during the moratorium; utility service requests for covered loads are not processed"},{"id":"va-henry-county-dc-district-ordinance-2026","title":"Henry County, VA — Data Center District Ordinance: Special Use Permit Required, 1,000-Foot Setback, No Land Currently Zoned for the Use (August 25, 2026)","short_title":"Henry County VA data center district ordinance (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Henry County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Henry","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-25","enacted_date":"2026-08-25","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Henry County's Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a revised data center ordinance on August 25, 2026, and its structure does more work than a moratorium would. The ordinance creates a new Data Center District (D-C). Data centers are permitted only inside that district, and only then with a special use permit approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The catch — and it is deliberate — is that no property in Henry County is currently zoned D-C. Any company wanting to build must first acquire or control land, then apply to have it rezoned into the district, and then separately win a special use permit. Two discretionary approvals stand between a developer and a building permit, with no site anywhere in the county pre-cleared. The ordinance also sets a 1,000-foot setback from any property not zoned industrial, and imposes requirements on noise, water use, electrical infrastructure, cooling systems, screening, lighting, emergency response and decommissioning. It is a permanent regulatory framework, not a pause. The board reached it the hard way: more than 100 residents packed the July 28, 2026 public hearing to raise concerns about water, noise, health and animal habitats, and the board sent the draft back to the drawing board before returning with this stricter version. Henry County is in southern Virginia on the North Carolina line, around Martinsville.","summary_technical":"Henry County, Va. zoning ordinance amendment adopted unanimously by the Board of Supervisors August 25, 2026, establishing a Data Center District (D-C). Regulatory structure: data centers are permitted only within the D-C District and only upon approval of a special use permit by the Board of Zoning Appeals. CRITICAL STRUCTURAL FACT: no property in Henry County is currently zoned D-C, so a prospective developer must first acquire or control a site, obtain a rezoning into the district, and then obtain an SUP — two separate discretionary approvals, with zero pre-zoned inventory. Substantive standards: minimum 1,000-foot separation from any property not zoned industrial, plus requirements governing setbacks, noise, water use, electrical infrastructure, cooling systems, screening, lighting, emergency response and decommissioning. Permanent framework with no sunset, distinguishing it from the moratorium-led approach dominant elsewhere in 2026. Procedural history: draft presented at a July 28, 2026 public hearing attended by more than 100 residents raising water, noise, health and wildlife-habitat objections; the board declined to adopt and directed revisions; the stricter version returned and passed August 25. Ordinance number not obtained. NAME DISAMBIGUATION: distinct from henry-county-ga-dc-ord-2026 (Henry County, GEORGIA, effective 2026-02-18), a different jurisdiction already in this dataset.","who_is_protected":"Henry County, Virginia residents and landowners — particularly those on non-industrial-zoned property, protected by the 1,000-foot separation — through a framework in which no land is pre-zoned for data centers and two discretionary approvals are required.","who_must_comply":"Any party seeking to develop a data center in Henry County, VA, who must obtain both a rezoning to D-C and a special use permit; Henry County planning staff and the Board of Zoning Appeals.","citation":"Henry Cnty., Va. — Data Center District Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Aug. 25, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.henrycountyva.gov/m/newsflash/home/detail/148","source_title":"Board Adopts Stringent Data Center Regulations — Henry County, VA","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Henry County Planning, Zoning and Inspections / Board of Zoning Appeals","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data centers are not permitted outside the D-C District, and not permitted within it absent an approved special use permit"},{"id":"in-clark-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Clark County, IN — Commissioners Unanimous One-Year Data Center Moratorium in Unincorporated County (August 27, 2026)","short_title":"Clark County IN one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Clark County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Clark","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-27","enacted_date":"2026-08-27","expires_date":"2027-08-27","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Clark County Board of Commissioners unanimously approved a one-year moratorium on data center construction in the unincorporated county at its August 27, 2026 meeting. The county had been weighing it since early July, when commissioners first signalled they might consider a pause on data center zoning. Clark County sits across the Ohio River from Louisville, and the county action followed its own largest city: Jeffersonville adopted a one-year municipal moratorium on August 3, 2026. Southern Indiana municipalities moved quickly on data center zoning through mid-2026, and between the city and county measures most of the county is now covered — though the River Ridge Commerce Center, built on the former Indiana Army Ammunition Plant, remains outside local zoning authority under federal and state reuse statutes and an interlocal agreement vesting control in the River Ridge Development Authority.","summary_technical":"Clark County, Ind. Board of Commissioners ordinance imposing a one-year moratorium on data center construction in unincorporated Clark County, adopted unanimously at the August 27, 2026 commissioners' meeting. Jurisdictional scope: unincorporated county only — incorporated municipalities regulate for themselves, and Jeffersonville separately adopted its own one-year moratorium on August 3, 2026 (see in-jeffersonville-dc-moratorium-2026). Procedural history: the county publicly raised the possibility of a data center zoning moratorium in early July 2026 amid a broader and rapid southern Indiana municipal response. Residual gap shared with the Jeffersonville measure: the River Ridge Commerce Center occupies the former Indiana Army Ammunition Plant, where federal and state military reuse statutes and a decades-old interlocal agreement leave ultimate zoning authority with the River Ridge Development Authority rather than with the city or the county — neither moratorium reaches it. Ordinance number not obtained; expires_date computed as one year from adoption. NAME DISAMBIGUATION: distinct from Clark County, NEVADA (Las Vegas), which appears in this dataset as clark-county-nv-stellar-ai-2024 and which was separately debating data center standards in July 2026 — coverage of the two counties ran in the same period under near-identical headlines.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Clark County, Indiana, through a one-year pause on data center construction. Incorporated municipalities are covered by their own measures, and River Ridge Commerce Center land is outside county zoning authority entirely.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to construct data centers in unincorporated Clark County, IN; county planning and zoning officials.","citation":"Clark Cnty., Ind. — One-Year Data Center Moratorium (Aug. 27, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.newsandtribune.com/news/clark-county-commissioners-approve-data-center-moratorium/article_75db5fbb-7271-4948-837d-c6dbfa79d9ab.html","source_title":"Clark County Commissioners approve data center moratorium — News and Tribune","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Clark County (IN) Planning and Zoning / Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center construction is not approved in unincorporated areas during the moratorium"},{"id":"nc-statesville-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Statesville, NC — Unanimous 180-Day Moratorium on Telecommunications and Data Center Development Applications (September 14, 2026)","short_title":"Statesville NC 180-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Statesville, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Iredell","city":"Statesville","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-14","enacted_date":"2026-09-14","expires_date":"2027-03-13","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Statesville City Council unanimously approved the second reading of a 180-day moratorium on data centers on Monday, September 14, 2026, and it took effect the same day. The moratorium halts acceptance, processing and approval of development applications for telecommunications facilities and data centers. It got longer as it moved: the city originally proposed 150 days, and the council extended it to 180 at first reading. That first reading also passed unanimously, in August, after a packed public hearing at which 15 residents spoke in support. Previously approved data centers are not affected — the pause reaches new applications only. The city was unusually public about its reasoning, publishing both a 'Why the City of Statesville Is Considering a Proposed Data Center Moratorium' explainer and a standing data center information page while the measure was pending. The six months are for staff to evaluate infrastructure capacity, environmental concerns, zoning regulations and community impacts before any further projects are considered. Statesville is the seat of Iredell County, north of Charlotte on the I-77 corridor.","summary_technical":"City of Statesville, N.C. — 180-day moratorium on the acceptance, processing and approval of development applications for telecommunications facilities and data centers, adopted on unanimous second reading September 14, 2026, effective immediately on adoption. TERM HISTORY: noticed and initially proposed at 150 days; extended to 180 days at first reading, which the council also passed unanimously in August 2026 following a public hearing on August 10, 2026 at which 15 residents spoke in support. GRANDFATHERING: previously approved data centers are expressly unaffected; the moratorium operates prospectively on new development applications. Purpose: allow staff time to evaluate infrastructure capacity, environmental concerns, zoning regulations and community impacts. DATE ARITHMETIC NOTE: earlier coverage of the 150-day version stated an end date of February 11, 2027, which is exactly 150 days from September 14. At the adopted 180 days the correct expiry is approximately March 13, 2027, and expires_date is recorded accordingly — the February 11 figure in circulation belongs to the superseded term and should not be used. Part of a dense North Carolina cluster: Greensboro (180 days, >10 MW, Aug 18), Alamance County (one year, Aug 17), Yadkin County (two years, Aug 17), Waxhaw (12 months, Aug 11) and Jackson County (one year, Aug 18). Ordinance number not obtained.","who_is_protected":"Statesville residents, through a 180-day pause on new telecommunications and data center development applications while the city evaluates infrastructure capacity, environmental impact and zoning.","who_must_comply":"Applicants for telecommunications facility or data center development approvals in Statesville; city planning staff. Previously approved data centers are exempt.","citation":"City of Statesville, N.C. — 180-Day Telecommunications and Data Center Moratorium (Sept. 14, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wbtv.com/2026/09/15/statesville-unanimously-approves-180-day-moratorium-data-centers-what-we-know/","source_title":"Statesville unanimously approves 180-day moratorium on data centers: What we know — WBTV","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Statesville Planning and Development / City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Covered development applications are not accepted, processed or approved during the moratorium"},{"id":"ny-s9934-a11292-stealth-crawler-prohibition-act-2026","title":"New York — S9934 / A11292, the Stealth Crawler Prohibition Act: First-in-the-Nation Bill Requiring Any Web Crawler Accessing a News Site to Disclose Its Identity and Purpose, With $15,000-Per-Day Penalties — Passed the Legislature, Awaiting the Governor, and Opposed by EFF, CDT and 18 Civil Society Organizations (2026)","short_title":"New York Stealth Crawler Prohibition Act (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["copyright","privacy","transparency","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"New York's Legislature has passed the Stealth Crawler Prohibition Act, S9934 / A11292, and sent it to Governor Kathy Hochul. It is the first bill of its kind in the country. The rule is simple to state: any web crawler that accesses a covered news source must disclose its identity and its purpose, either before or at the time of access. Deploying a 'stealth crawler' in a way that damages or economically harms a news publisher is a civil violation carrying penalties of up to $15,000 PER DAY. The bill is framed as protection for local journalism against AI companies scraping news content without identifying themselves. It has drawn organized opposition from an unusual direction. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy & Technology and more than a dozen other civil society organizations — nineteen groups in all — wrote to Governor Hochul urging a veto. Their argument is that although the bill is presented as a journalism measure, it effectively DEANONYMIZES AND CRIMINALIZES AUTOMATED ACCESS TO THE OPEN WEB: it would threaten anonymous access to information, compel speculative disclosures about purpose, and expose researchers, journalists, watchdogs and ordinary internet users to liability simply for using automated tools to read publicly available pages. This entry is recorded as PROPOSED. The bill is not law, the Governor had not acted as of mid-September 2026, and action was widely expected to wait until after the November 7, 2026 gubernatorial election.","summary_technical":"State of New York — S9934 / A11292, the NEW YORK STEALTH CRAWLER PROHIBITION ACT, passed by both houses and delivered to Gov. Kathy Hochul; NOT ENACTED as of 2026-09-15. CORE OBLIGATION: any CRAWLER accessing a COVERED NEWS SOURCE must DISCLOSE ITS IDENTITY AND PURPOSE before or at the time of access. PENALTY: deploying a stealth crawler in a manner that DAMAGES OR ECONOMICALLY HARMS a news publisher is a CIVIL VIOLATION carrying penalties of UP TO $15,000 PER DAY. FIRST IN THE NATION: no other state has enacted a crawler-identification mandate. POLICY FRAME: protection of local journalism against unidentified automated scraping, principally by AI developers building training corpora and retrieval systems. ORGANISED OPPOSITION, which is the reason this entry is worth recording in full: the ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, the CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY & TECHNOLOGY and more than a dozen further civil society organisations — 19 groups total — formally urged the Governor to VETO. Their stated objections: (a) the bill effectively DEANONYMIZES AND CRIMINALIZES AUTOMATED ACCESS TO THE OPEN WEB; (b) it THREATENS ANONYMOUS ACCESS TO INFORMATION; (c) it COMPELS SPECULATIVE DISCLOSURES, since a crawler must state a 'purpose' that may not be fixed at the time of access; (d) it EXPOSES RESEARCHERS, JOURNALISTS, WATCHDOGS AND ORDINARY USERS TO LIABILITY for using automated tools to read the open web. WHY THIS MATTERS BEYOND NEW YORK: most AI-adjacent measures in this dataset restrict what a system may DO with data. This one restricts HOW a system may READ publicly accessible pages, and does so through an identification mandate rather than a use restriction. If enacted it would apply to any crawler reaching a New York news site regardless of where the operator sits, and the civil-liberties objection is that the same mechanism reaches non-commercial and accountability uses indistinguishably from commercial scraping. PROCEDURAL EXPECTATION: commentary held that the Governor was unlikely to act on any passed bill until after the NOVEMBER 7, 2026 GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION. COMPANION NEW YORK ACTIVITY: New York moved on SURVEILLANCE PRICING in the same period; the indexed measures include ny-gbl349a-algorithmic-pricing-disclosure.","who_is_protected":"New York news publishers, as the bill's stated beneficiaries; per the opposition, the populations put at risk are researchers, journalists, watchdog organisations and ordinary internet users relying on automated access","who_must_comply":"Operators of web crawlers accessing covered New York news sources — including AI developers, search engines, archivists, academic researchers and accountability organisations — prospectively, if the bill is signed","citation":"N.Y. S. 9934 / A. 11292 (2025-2026 Sess.) — New York Stealth Crawler Prohibition Act (passed legislature; awaiting gubernatorial action)","source_url":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/08/eff-joins-18-civil-rights-organizations-calling-governor-hochul-reject-stealth","source_title":"EFF Joins 18 Civil Rights Organizations Calling on Governor Hochul to Reject the Stealth Crawler Prohibition Act — Electronic Frontier Foundation","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"New York State (civil enforcement); not yet operative","penalties":"Up to $15,000 per day for deploying a stealth crawler in a manner that damages or economically harms a news publisher — prospective, subject to enactment"},{"id":"il-ottawa-dc-moratorium-extension-2027","title":"Ottawa, Illinois — City Council Unanimously Extends Its Data Center Moratorium Across ALL Zoning Districts Through August 25, 2027, Explicitly Because the Illinois POWER Act Stalled (August 19, 2026)","short_title":"Ottawa IL data center moratorium extended to 2027","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Ottawa, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"LaSalle County","city":"Ottawa","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-19","enacted_date":"2026-08-19","expires_date":"2027-08-25","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Ottawa City Council unanimously extended the city's temporary data center moratorium through August 25, 2027, covering ALL zoning districts within the city. The reason given is the useful part, and it is unusual for a municipality to state it so directly: the city is waiting on the state. Illinois lawmakers had been working on the POWER Act, which would set guidelines for how Illinois communities regulate data centers and address their energy and water demands, and the bill STALLED in the spring legislative session. Ottawa has been drafting its own data center ordinance, but it wants to wait until the state acts so its local rules will align with whatever Illinois eventually passes rather than being superseded or contradicted. So this is a moratorium held open not because the city needs more study time but because the legal framework it intends to build on does not yet exist. That is a distinct category from the study-period pauses that make up most of this dataset, and it is a direct consequence of state inaction. Ottawa is in LaSalle County in north-central Illinois. Illinois context: the Governor separately paused state data center incentives, and Godfrey extended its own moratorium through January 2027 in the same period.","summary_technical":"City of Ottawa, Ill. (LaSalle County) — extension of the city's temporary data center moratorium, passed UNANIMOUSLY by ordinance in mid-August 2026, running THROUGH AUGUST 25, 2027. TERRITORIAL SCOPE: ALL ZONING DISTRICTS within the city — no district carve-outs, which distinguishes it from the single-district and industrial-only instruments elsewhere in this dataset. STATED RATIONALE, and the reason this entry is recorded separately: the city cited STATE INACTION on legislation that would set guidelines for how Illinois communities regulate data centers. The Illinois POWER ACT, which would address data center energy and water demands, STALLED IN THE SPRING 2026 LEGISLATIVE SESSION. Ottawa has been DRAFTING ITS OWN DATA CENTER ORDINANCE but is deliberately holding it so that local rules ALIGN with whatever the state ultimately enacts. INSTRUMENT CLASS \\u2014 A DISTINCT CATEGORY: this is not a study-period moratorium. The city is not gathering information; it is waiting for a superior legal framework to exist so its own ordinance is not superseded or contradicted on adoption. A municipality in this posture will extend for as long as the state remains silent, which makes the expiry date a function of legislative calendars rather than local readiness. Compare wa-elma-alpr-moratorium-2026, which pauses pending a state Attorney General model policy in a different subject area, and mi-utica-dc-moratorium-extension-2026, where the city attorney is waiting to see other communities' decisions. ILLINOIS CONTEXT: the Governor paused state data center INCENTIVES; the Village of Godfrey extended its own moratorium through 2027-01-31 (il-godfrey-dc-moratorium-extension-2026); Rockford adopted a six-month pause (il-rockford-dc-moratorium-2026); GovTech reported Illinois cities and counties acting broadly on data center rules.","who_is_protected":"Ottawa, Illinois residents across all city zoning districts","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals anywhere in the City of Ottawa through August 25, 2027","citation":"City of Ottawa, Ill. — extension of the temporary data center moratorium through August 25, 2027 (adopted August 2026)","source_url":"https://www.shawlocal.com/illinois-valley/2026/08/20/ottawa-extends-data-center-moratorium-through-august-2027/","source_title":"Ottawa extends data center moratorium through August 2027 — Shaw Local","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Ottawa zoning administration / Ottawa City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No data center may be approved in any Ottawa zoning district during the moratorium"},{"id":"ca-sb1119-adam-raine-law-companion-chatbots-2026","title":"California — SB 1119, Adam's Law: Time Limits for Minors on Companion Chatbots, Crisis Resources, a Duty to Alert Parents When Self-Harm Is Detected, Pre-Deployment Risk Assessments and Company Liability (Signed September 10, 2026)","short_title":"California SB 1119 Adam's Law, companion chatbots (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["children","healthcare","consumer-protection","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"enacted","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2027-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-10","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"California Senate Bill 1119, which the law itself names \"Adam's Law\" (press coverage calls it the Adam Raine Law), was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 10, 2026 (Chapter 190). Starting July 1, 2027, companies that run companion chatbots must protect users under 18. By default, a child can chat for no more than one hour at a time and two hours a day, and only a parent can change those limits. Operators must have a crisis plan that points a child to crisis services, must tell a parent as soon as practicable if the chatbot detects a credible threat of suicide or self-harm, must assess risks to children before launching a new or substantially changed chatbot, and must publish a child safety policy. Public prosecutors can seek civil penalties of up to $5,000 per affected child, or $15,000 if the violation was intentional, and a harmed child or their parent can sue for actual damages.","summary_technical":"Cal. Stats. 2026, ch. 190 (SB 1119, Padilla; approved and filed Sept. 10, 2026). Amends Bus. & Prof. Code § 22602 and adds Chapter 11.6 (commencing with § 21810) to Division 8; § 21810: 'This chapter shall be known as \"Adam's Law.\"' 'Child' = natural person under 18. Operators of companion chatbots must, beginning July 1, 2027 (§§ 21812, 21812.5, 21813 operative July 1, 2027), before making a new or substantially modified companion chatbot available in California, conduct and document a risk assessment of covered harms; publish a high-level child safety policy (§ 21812(c)); set default limits changeable only by a parent of one hour per continuous session and two hours per day for child users; maintain a crisis-response protocol with referral to an appropriate crisis service; and notify a parent as soon as practicable when a credible threat of suicide or self-harm is detected. The Attorney General must establish an incident-reporting mechanism by Jan. 1, 2028; child safety audits are required from Jan. 1, 2029 (or first public deployment, if later). § 21816: a public prosecutor (§ 17204) may recover civil penalties up to $5,000 per affected child for negligent and $15,000 per affected child for intentional violations, plus injunctive relief and fees; a child who suffers actual harm from a violation of § 21812(d)(1)-(5), or a parent/guardian on the child's behalf, may sue for actual damages, fees and injunctive or declaratory relief (financial harm must exceed $1,000 per child; emotional harm must be serious emotional distress). Companion measures signed the same day are indexed separately (ca-sb867-ai-chatbot-toy-moratorium-2026, ca-ab1709-addictive-feeds-under-16-2026, ca-ab2-social-media-child-harm-liability-2026, ca-ab2071-digital-wellness-curriculum-2026, ca-ab2298-cybersecurity-curriculum-2026).","who_is_protected":"California minors using companion chatbots, and their parents or guardians","who_must_comply":"Operators of companion chatbots accessible to minors in California — required to impose time limits, supply mental health resources, maintain safety plans, alert parents on detected self-harm and complete pre-deployment risk assessments","citation":"Cal. S.B. 1119 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2026, ch. 190 — Adam's Law, Bus. & Prof. Code § 21810 et seq. (approved September 10, 2026; main duties operative July 1, 2027)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB1119","source_title":"California Legislative Information — SB 1119 (2025-2026), chaptered text (Stats. 2026, ch. 190)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California state enforcement; private liability created by the statute","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil penalties recoverable by a public prosecutor of up to $5,000 per affected child (negligent) or $15,000 per affected child (intentional), plus injunctive relief and attorney's fees; private action by a harmed child or parent for actual damages, fees and injunctive/declaratory relief (financial harm must exceed $1,000 per child; emotional harm must be serious emotional distress)."},{"id":"ca-sb867-ai-chatbot-toy-moratorium-2026","title":"California — SB 867: Four-Year Moratorium on AI-Powered Chatbot Toys for Children Under 16 (Signed September 10, 2026)","short_title":"California SB 867 AI chatbot toy moratorium (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["children","consumer-protection","automated-decisions","robotics"],"status":"enacted","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-10","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"California Senate Bill 867, titled 'Toys: companion chatbots', establishes a FOUR-YEAR MORATORIUM on AI-powered chatbot toys for children under sixteen. Governor Newsom signed it on September 10, 2026. This is an unusual instrument and worth understanding on its own terms. Almost every AI measure in this dataset regulates a service — an app, a platform, a website — that a child chooses to open. SB 867 regulates a PHYSICAL PRODUCT that a parent buys and a child holds: a toy with a conversational AI inside it. A child does not navigate to it, consent to terms, or understand it as software. The response is not disclosure, not age verification, not a safety plan, but a flat four-year pause on the category for under-16s. A four-year term is also notably long for a moratorium; it is closer to a prohibition with a scheduled review than to a study period. The bill was one of twelve signed the same day in California's online child safety and AI package, alongside SB 1119's companion chatbot duties and AB 1709's restrictions on addictive social media features.","summary_technical":"State of California — SENATE BILL 867 (Padilla), 'Toys: companion chatbots', approved by Gov. Gavin Newsom on September 10, 2026 and chaptered as Chapter 189, Statutes of 2026. OPERATIVE EFFECT: adds Business and Professions Code § 22604.5, which bars any person from manufacturing, selling, exchanging, possessing with intent to sell or exchange, or offering for sale to any retailer any TOY that includes a COMPANION CHATBOT; amends § 22601 to define 'toy' as a physical product designed, marketed, or manufactured for use in play by children under 16. DURATION: § 22604.5 remains in effect only until January 1, 2031, when it is repealed — roughly a four-year ban from the January 1, 2027 effective date. ENFORCEMENT: violations carry the same civil liability as the existing companion-chatbot operator duties — a private action under § 22605 for injunctive relief, the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation, and attorney's fees. INSTRUMENT CLASS: a PRODUCT-SIDE prohibition on an embodied conversational AI, not a service-side regulation; the child does not experience the toy as software and there is no interface at which notice or consent is meaningful, so the response is categorical rather than procedural. STATUS is `enacted` (not yet `effective`); effective January 1, 2027 under California's default rule for non-urgency statutes. PACKAGE CONTEXT: reported as one of twelve bills signed 2026-09-10; companions indexed separately include ca-sb1119-adam-raine-law-companion-chatbots-2026, ca-ab1709-addictive-feeds-under-16-2026 and ca-ab2-social-media-child-harm-liability-2026. SUPERSEDES the LegiScan stub legiscan-active-ca-sb867.","who_is_protected":"Children under 16 in California, and the parents and guardians who purchase toys for them","who_must_comply":"Manufacturers, distributors and retailers of AI-powered chatbot toys marketed or sold for children under 16 in California","citation":"Cal. S.B. 867 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2026, ch. 189 (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22601, 22604.5) — Toys: companion chatbots (signed September 10, 2026; effective January 1, 2027; repealed January 1, 2031)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB867","source_title":"CA California SB 867 AI chatbot toy moratorium (2026) — official record (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California state enforcement; specific agency not identified in located coverage","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Private civil action under Bus. & Prof. Code § 22605 for a person injured in fact: injunctive relief, the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs."},{"id":"ca-ab1709-addictive-feeds-under-16-2026","title":"California — AB 1709: Social Media Companies Must Strip Addictive Features Such as Infinite Scroll and Autoplay for Users Under 16 or Exclude Them Entirely, and May Not Offer Algorithmic Feeds to Under-16s — Signed Over EFF's First Amendment Objection (September 10, 2026)","short_title":"California AB 1709 addictive feeds and under-16 age restriction (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["children","consumer-protection","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"enacted","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-10","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"California Assembly Bill 1709 bars covered platforms — social media and similar apps and websites — from giving users under 16 any 'addictive feature': a personalized, engagement-driven feed, autoplay, or any other feature the Attorney General defines by regulation. Platforms must verify ages and take reasonable measures to keep these features away from under-16s. A platform can still let under-16s have accounts if those accounts have no addictive features; otherwise it must delete under-16 accounts and their personal information. The Attorney General or a local prosecutor can sue for up to $50,000 per affected child for knowing violations ($25,000 if negligent). The law also creates a seven-member, purely advisory e-Safety Advisory Commission. Governor Newsom signed it on September 10, 2026 (Chapter 183); as a regular statute it takes effect January 1, 2027. The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposed it, arguing it works as a social media ban for under-16s and violates the First Amendment — while supporting two digital-literacy bills (AB 2071 and AB 2298) signed in the same package. No court challenge had been located as of late September 2026.","summary_technical":"AB 1709 (Stats. 2026, ch. 183), signed September 10, 2026. Adds Bus. & Prof. Code ch. 22.9 (§§ 22682-22686): 'addictive feature' = (1) an addictive feed (media recommended, selected or prioritized based on information associated with the user or device, subject to enumerated exceptions), (2) autoplay, or (3) any feature the AG defines by regulation. § 22683: a covered platform shall not provide an addictive feature to a user under 16 and must implement reasonable measures to ensure under-16s are not provided one; under-16 accounts without addictive features are permitted. § 22684: before providing an addictive feature the platform must verify age under the Digital Age Assurance Act (Civ. Code § 1798.500 et seq.), falling back on the Health & Safety Code § 27001 age determination; it must delete under-16 accounts and associated personal information unless it runs them without addictive features. § 22685: AG may adopt regulations and alter the scope of 'covered platform'. § 22686: enforcement only by civil action by the AG or a local public prosecutor; civil penalty up to $50,000 per affected minor (knowing) or $25,000 per affected minor (negligent), weighted by platform size, severity/duration and good-faith compliance. Adds Gov. Code ch. 5.4 (§ 11530 et seq.): independent, purely advisory seven-member e-Safety Advisory Commission within DOJ for administrative purposes (4 Governor, 1 Senate Pro Tem, 1 Speaker, 1 AG appointees), annual report to Legislature and Governor by January 1. Non-urgency with no operative-date clause, so effective January 1, 2027. EFF characterises the law as functioning as an under-16 social media ban and argues it violates the First Amendment; it supported AB 2071 and AB 2298 in the same signing package.","who_is_protected":"California users under 16, as the bill's stated beneficiaries; per EFF, the same population's expressive access is what the measure burdens","who_must_comply":"Social media companies and covered platforms serving California users under 16 — required either to strip infinite scroll, autoplay and algorithmic feeds for those users or to exclude them","citation":"Cal. A.B. 1709 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2026, ch. 183 — Covered platforms: age restriction: e-Safety Advisory Commission; adds Bus. & Prof. Code § 22682 et seq. and Gov. Code § 11530 et seq.","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1709","source_title":"CA California AB 1709 addictive feeds and under-16 age restriction (2026) — official record (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California state enforcement; e-Safety Advisory Commission established by the Act","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalty up to $50,000 per affected minor for a knowing violation and up to $25,000 per affected minor for a negligent violation; enforced only by civil action brought by the Attorney General or a local public prosecutor."},{"id":"ca-ab2-social-media-child-harm-liability-2026","title":"California — AB 2: Social Media Platforms Made Legally Liable for Damages to Children, With Penalties Reported at Up to $1 Million Per Child Where a Large Platform Is Found Negligent (Signed September 10, 2026)","short_title":"California AB 2 social media child harm liability (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["children","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"enacted","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-10","last_verified_date":"2026-09-22","summary_plain":"California Assembly Bill 2 makes social media platforms LEGALLY LIABLE for damages to children. Reporting on the signing package describes penalties of up to $1 MILLION PER CHILD where a large social media company is found negligent of harming children. Governor Newsom signed it on September 10, 2026. This is the enforcement engine of the whole package. The other bills signed that day impose duties — strip addictive features, run risk assessments, alert parents, keep AI toys away from under-16s — and duties without a liability route are frequently unenforced in practice. AB 2 supplies that route, and a per-child measure of damages is the design choice that gives it weight: for a platform with millions of minor users, exposure scales with the affected population rather than being capped at a single institutional fine, which changes the calculation from a cost of doing business into an existential number. The mechanism also differs from the dominant American approach to platform harm, which has generally run through Section 230 disputes and product-liability theories in court rather than through a state statute creating liability directly. The specific negligence standard, the definition of 'large' platform and the relationship to federal law are not established by the located coverage and must be read from the statute.","summary_technical":"State of California — ASSEMBLY BILL 2, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on September 10, 2026. OPERATIVE EFFECT: makes SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS LEGALLY LIABLE FOR DAMAGES TO CHILDREN. REPORTED PENALTY STRUCTURE: up to $1 MILLION PER CHILD where a large social media company is found NEGLIGENT of harming children. STRUCTURAL ROLE IN THE PACKAGE: AB 2 is the LIABILITY LAYER beneath the conduct requirements imposed by the other bills signed 2026-09-10 (ca-ab1709-addictive-feeds-under-16-2026, ca-sb1119-adam-raine-law-companion-chatbots-2026, ca-sb867-ai-chatbot-toy-moratorium-2026). Conduct duties without an enforcement route are frequently unenforced; AB 2 supplies one. THE PER-CHILD MEASURE IS THE CONSEQUENTIAL DESIGN CHOICE: exposure scales with the number of affected minors rather than being capped at an institutional penalty, so for a platform with a large minor user base the ceiling is a function of population rather than of a fixed statutory maximum. DOCTRINAL NOTE: the prevailing American route to platform accountability for harm to minors has run through litigation \\u2014 Section 230 immunity disputes and product-design liability theories \\u2014 rather than through a state statute creating liability directly. A statutory liability regime bypasses part of that argument but invites preemption and Section 230 defences of its own; NEITHER THE NEGLIGENCE STANDARD, THE DEFINITION OF 'LARGE' PLATFORM, NOR THE RELATIONSHIP TO FEDERAL LAW is established by the located coverage. STATUS IS `enacted` NOT `effective`, effective_date NULL \\u2014 no operative date located. NOT PRESENT IN THIS DATASET IN ANY FORM before this pass, including as a LegiScan stub.","who_is_protected":"California children harmed by social media platforms, and their families as claimants","who_must_comply":"Social media platforms serving California children, in particular large platforms exposed to the reported per-child penalty","citation":"Cal. A.B. 2 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.) — social media platform liability for harm to children (signed September 10, 2026; effective January 1, 2027)","source_url":"https://broadbandbreakfast.com/california-governor-signs-laws-aimed-at-protecting-kids-from-social-media-and-ai/","source_title":"California Governor Signs Laws Aimed at Protecting Kids From Social Media and AI — Broadband Breakfast","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"California courts; enforcement agency not identified in located coverage","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Reported at up to $1 million per child where a large social media company is found negligent of harming children"},{"id":"ca-ab2071-digital-wellness-curriculum-2026","title":"California — AB 2071: Digital Wellness Integrated Into Middle and High School Health Classes, Teaching Students to Identify Unhealthy Tech Habits and Evaluate the Credibility of Digital Content (Signed September 10, 2026)","short_title":"California AB 2071 digital wellness curriculum (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["education","children","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-10","last_verified_date":"2026-09-22","summary_plain":"California Assembly Bill 2071 integrates DIGITAL WELLNESS into middle and high school health classes. Students are to be taught to identify unhealthy technology habits, protect their personal safety, and EVALUATE THE CREDIBILITY OF DIGITAL CONTENT — which is media and AI literacy placed inside the health curriculum rather than a computer science elective. Governor Newsom signed it on September 10, 2026. Two things distinguish this bill. It was CO-AUTHORED BY STUDENTS, which is unusual for any statute and especially for one governing their own schooling. And it was publicly SUPPORTED by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which opposed AB 1709 in the same signing package on First Amendment grounds. EFF praised AB 2071 as 'an affirmative and constitutional way' to approach youth online safety, on the principle that real digital safety comes from preparation, not isolation. That contrast is the reason this entry sits alongside the restriction-based measures rather than being treated as a minor curriculum bill: California signed, on a single day, both a measure that limits what minors may access and a measure that equips them to handle it, and the civil liberties community drew a sharp line between the two approaches.","summary_technical":"State of California — ASSEMBLY BILL 2071, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on September 10, 2026. OPERATIVE EFFECT: integrates DIGITAL WELLNESS into MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL HEALTH CLASSES, with instruction covering (a) identifying unhealthy technology habits, (b) protecting personal safety, and (c) EVALUATING THE CREDIBILITY OF DIGITAL CONTENT. PLACEMENT IS THE DESIGN CHOICE: locating media and content-credibility literacy in the HEALTH curriculum rather than in computer science or an elective makes it reach the general student population rather than the self-selecting technical cohort, and frames technology use as a wellbeing question rather than a technical skill. AUTHORSHIP: CO-AUTHORED BY STUDENTS. ENDORSEMENT: publicly SUPPORTED by the ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, which praised it as 'an affirmative and constitutional way' to address youth online safety \\u2014 the same organisation that called AB 1709, signed the same day, 'misguided' and unconstitutional. EFF's framing: 'real digital safety comes from preparation, not isolation.' THE PAIRING IS THE POINT: California enacted an access-restriction approach and a capability-building approach simultaneously, and this dataset records both so the contrast is visible rather than collapsing the package into a single 'child online safety' characterisation. COMPANION: ca-ab2298-cybersecurity-curriculum-2026, signed the same day and similarly EFF-supported. STATUS IS `enacted` NOT `effective`, effective_date NULL \\u2014 no operative date located; curriculum mandates commonly phase in over subsequent school years and no phase-in schedule was located. NOT PRESENT IN THIS DATASET IN ANY FORM before this pass.","who_is_protected":"California middle and high school students","who_must_comply":"California school districts and the state education agencies responsible for health curriculum standards","citation":"Cal. A.B. 2071 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.) — digital wellness in middle and high school health education (signed September 10, 2026; effective January 1, 2027)","source_url":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/09/governor-newsom-signs-student-backed-digital-literacy-bills-alongside-misguided","source_title":"Governor Newsom Signs Student-Backed Digital Literacy Bills Alongside Misguided Bans — Electronic Frontier Foundation","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"California Department of Education; local education agencies","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not applicable — a curriculum mandate"},{"id":"ca-ab2298-cybersecurity-curriculum-2026","title":"California — AB 2298: Cybersecurity Concepts Added to Recommended School Curricula So Young People Learn to Safeguard Their Own Personal Data (Signed September 10, 2026)","short_title":"California AB 2298 cybersecurity curriculum (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["education","children","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-09-10","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"California Assembly Bill 2298 adds cybersecurity concepts to RECOMMENDED school curricula, so that young people learn how to safeguard their own personal data. Governor Newsom signed it on September 10, 2026, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation publicly supported it as one of the 'constitutional, empowering solutions' in a package it otherwise partly opposed. The word RECOMMENDED is doing significant work and this entry records it at limited strength for that reason. A recommended curriculum is not a required one: districts may adopt it, and many will, but nothing in the located coverage indicates a mandate, a compliance deadline or a funding mechanism. Compared with AB 2071 in the same package, which INTEGRATES digital wellness into health classes that students already take, AB 2298 is the weaker instrument — a state endorsement of content rather than a guarantee that any particular student encounters it. It is recorded here nonetheless because the pairing matters: California's response to children and technology in September 2026 combined restriction, liability and education, and the education half is routinely omitted from accounts of the package.","summary_technical":"State of California — ASSEMBLY BILL 2298, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on September 10, 2026. OPERATIVE EFFECT: adds CYBERSECURITY CONCEPTS to RECOMMENDED SCHOOL CURRICULA, directed at teaching young people how to SAFEGUARD PERSONAL DATA. strength IS `limited` DELIBERATELY: the located source describes the curricula as RECOMMENDED, not required. No mandate, compliance deadline, funding mechanism or accountability measure is identified in any located source, so the statute's practical reach depends entirely on voluntary district adoption. CONTRAST WITHIN THE SAME PACKAGE: ca-ab2071-digital-wellness-curriculum-2026 INTEGRATES digital wellness into middle and high school HEALTH CLASSES \\u2014 a course students already take \\u2014 whereas AB 2298 endorses content without placing it anywhere compulsory. Where AB 2071 reaches the general student population by placement, AB 2298 reaches whoever a district elects to reach. ENDORSEMENT: publicly SUPPORTED by the ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION as among the 'constitutional, empowering solutions' in the package, against its opposition to AB 1709. WHY IT IS INDEXED DESPITE BEING WEAK: accounts of California's September 2026 action consistently describe restriction and liability and omit the education component; recording both halves keeps the package legible. STATUS IS `enacted` NOT `effective`, effective_date NULL \\u2014 no operative date or phase-in schedule located. NOT PRESENT IN THIS DATASET IN ANY FORM before this pass.","who_is_protected":"California students in districts that adopt the recommended cybersecurity curricula","who_must_comply":"No compulsory obligation identified; California school districts may adopt the recommended curricula, and state education agencies maintain the recommendations","citation":"Cal. A.B. 2298 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.) — cybersecurity concepts in recommended school curricula (signed September 10, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/09/governor-newsom-signs-student-backed-digital-literacy-bills-alongside-misguided","source_title":"Governor Newsom Signs Student-Backed Digital Literacy Bills Alongside Misguided Bans — Electronic Frontier Foundation","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"California Department of Education (curriculum recommendations)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None — the curricula are recommended rather than required"},{"id":"litig-new-mexico-v-meta-public-nuisance-2026","title":"New Mexico v. Meta — Judge Declares Meta's Products a PUBLIC NUISANCE and Orders $567 Million in Damages, Bringing the Total to $942 Million, While Holding the Court CANNOT Compel Age Verification Because New Mexico's Children's Privacy Law Dates From 1998 (August 10, 2026)","short_title":"New Mexico v. Meta public nuisance ruling (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Mexico","state_abbr":"NM","topics":["children","privacy","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"litigation","strength":"strong","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"On August 10, 2026 Judge Bryan Biedscheid of New Mexico's First Judicial District declared Meta's products a PUBLIC NUISANCE and ordered $567 million in damages. Combined with an earlier $375 million verdict, the total against Meta in this case reaches $942 MILLION. It is the largest judgment in this dataset and one of very few instances anywhere of public nuisance doctrine being applied to a social media product rather than to a physical hazard. But the most consequential part of the ruling is what the judge said he could NOT do. Biedscheid wrote that the court CANNOT order Meta to request children to submit personal data or be passively tracked online, EVEN FOR AGE-VERIFICATION PURPOSES — because New Mexico's Child's Online Privacy Act DATES FROM 1998 and does not authorise it. So a court willing to find a company liable for nearly a billion dollars still found itself unable to order the single remedy most directly aimed at the harm, because the governing statute predates the problem by a quarter-century. That is the clearest illustration in this dataset of what happens when enforcement outruns legislation. Attorney General Raúl Torrez responded by saying he would propose stronger age assurance legislation to the New Mexico Legislature, describing it as an opportunity to incorporate rapidly evolving technology. Meta disagrees with the ruling and plans to appeal both this award and the earlier verdict; against roughly $60 billion of 2025 profit the financial penalty is not, by itself, decisive.","summary_technical":"New Mexico First Judicial District — ruling of JUDGE BRYAN BIEDSCHEID dated AUGUST 10, 2026 in CASE NO. D-101-CV-2023-02838, the New Mexico Attorney General's action against Meta. HOLDINGS: (1) META'S PRODUCTS DECLARED A PUBLIC NUISANCE; (2) $567 MILLION IN DAMAGES ORDERED, which combined with an earlier $375 MILLION verdict brings the total to $942 MILLION. PUBLIC NUISANCE APPLIED TO A SOFTWARE PRODUCT is doctrinally significant: the theory has historically attached to physical conditions and, more recently, to opioids and firearms; extending it to social media design treats the product's aggregate effect on a population as the actionable harm rather than requiring individualised causation. Two other public nuisance matters are indexed here (litig-doe-v-xai-grok-ncii-2026, litig-florida-ag-v-openai-2026), so this is an emerging line rather than an isolated ruling. THE REMEDIAL LIMITATION IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE DECISION: Biedscheid wrote that the court CANNOT ORDER META TO REQUEST CHILDREN TO SUBMIT PERSONAL DATA OR BE PASSIVELY TRACKED ONLINE, EVEN FOR AGE-VERIFICATION PURPOSES, because New Mexico's CHILD'S ONLINE PRIVACY ACT DATES FROM 1998. The statute that empowers the claim simultaneously forecloses the remedy most closely targeted at the conduct. A court may therefore impose very large retrospective liability while being unable to compel prospective design change \\u2014 the sharpest illustration in this dataset of enforcement outrunning legislation. LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE: Attorney General RAÚL TORREZ stated he would propose STRONGER AGE ASSURANCE LEGISLATION to the New Mexico Legislature, framing the ruling as 'an opportunity to rely on and incorporate rapidly advancing and evolving technology'. Expect a New Mexico age assurance bill in the next session; that bill, not this judgment, will be the operative instrument. APPEAL: Meta disagrees and plans to appeal both the $567 million award and the earlier verdict; no appellate ruling exists. FINANCIAL CONTEXT recorded for proportion: Meta's 2025 annual profit was approximately $60 billion, so the combined $942 million represents roughly 1.6% of a single year's profit \\u2014 the ruling's significance is doctrinal and precedential rather than financial.","who_is_protected":"New Mexico children using Meta's products","who_must_comply":"Meta Platforms, subject to the damages award; the ruling does NOT compel Meta to implement age verification","citation":"New Mexico v. Meta Platforms, No. D-101-CV-2023-02838 (N.M. 1st Jud. Dist., Aug. 10, 2026) (Biedscheid, J.)","source_url":"https://www.biometricupdate.com/202608/new-mexico-ruling-puts-meta-on-collision-course-with-age-assurance","source_title":"New Mexico ruling puts Meta on collision course with age assurance — Biometric Update","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"New Mexico Attorney General's Office; New Mexico First Judicial District Court","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"$567 million ordered in this ruling; $942 million combined with the earlier $375 million verdict. On appeal."},{"id":"litig-krupke-v-walmart-bipa-voiceprint-2026","title":"Krupke v. Walmart — Illinois BIPA Class Action Alleging Walmart Builds Voiceprints From Customer Service Calls and Analyzes Speech for 'Emotional Tracking' Without Written Consent (N.D. Ill., Filed August 6, 2026)","short_title":"Krupke v. Walmart BIPA voiceprint class action (2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["biometrics","privacy","consumer-protection","data-retention"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Carol J. Krupke and Jeanne Thomas filed a class action against Walmart in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on August 6, 2026, under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The case is No. 1:26-cv-09305, before Judge Martha M. Pacold. The allegation is that when Walmart records customer service calls it extracts vocal characteristics and builds mathematical templates — creating, in the plaintiffs' words, 'a voice print or biometric identifier which can be used to identify them in the future' — and that it analyzes speech patterns for EMOTIONAL TRACKING, all without the written consent BIPA requires. The consent point is the heart of it. Walmart's automated message tells callers that calls 'may be recorded for business purposes, including fraud prevention.' The plaintiffs say that disclosure does not mention voiceprint creation at all, nor retention periods, nor sharing with third parties — so a caller who hears it and stays on the line has not consented to anything like what is alleged to happen. This matters beyond Walmart because almost every large company records customer service calls and many now run AI analysis over them. If a routine recording disclosure is insufficient consent for biometric voiceprint extraction under BIPA, a very large number of existing call-center practices are exposed. The plaintiffs seek class certification, an injunction requiring BIPA compliance, destruction or return of improperly retained information, attorneys' fees, and BIPA's statutory damages of $1,000 per negligent violation or $5,000 per intentional or reckless violation. The proposed class is described as hundreds of people with more than $5 million in controversy. No ruling has issued.","summary_technical":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois — KRUPKE AND THOMAS v. WALMART, No. 1:26-cv-09305, filed Tuesday, AUGUST 6, 2026, assigned to JUDGE MARTHA M. PACOLD. CAUSE OF ACTION: Illinois BIOMETRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14. CORE ALLEGATIONS: (1) Walmart records customer service calls, EXTRACTS VOCAL CHARACTERISTICS and builds MATHEMATICAL TEMPLATES constituting 'a voice print or biometric identifier which can be used to identify them in the future'; (2) Walmart ANALYZES SPEECH PATTERNS FOR 'EMOTIONAL TRACKING'; (3) all without the WRITTEN CONSENT BIPA requires. THE CONSENT THEORY IS THE POINT OF THE CASE AND THE REASON IT IS INDEXED: Walmart's automated notice states calls 'may be recorded for business purposes, including fraud prevention'. Plaintiffs contend that disclosure FAILS TO DISCLOSE VOICEPRINT CREATION, RETENTION PERIODS OR THIRD-PARTY SHARING \\u2014 each of which BIPA \\u00a7 15(b) and \\u00a7 15(a) treat as required elements of informed written consent and of a public retention schedule. SECTORAL EXPOSURE: recorded customer service calls are near-universal among large retailers and service providers, and AI-driven sentiment and emotion analysis over those recordings is now routine. If a generic recording disclosure is held insufficient to authorise biometric voiceprint extraction, the holding reaches an entire category of existing call-centre practice rather than one defendant's conduct. THE 'EMOTIONAL TRACKING' ALLEGATION IS SEPARATELY NOTABLE: emotion inference from voice is a distinct processing purpose from identification, and BIPA is drafted around identifiers rather than inferences \\u2014 whether the statute reaches affect analysis is an open question this case may put squarely. RELIEF SOUGHT: class certification; an injunction requiring BIPA compliance; destruction or return of improperly retained information; attorneys' fees; and statutory damages of $1,000 PER NEGLIGENT VIOLATION or $5,000 PER INTENTIONAL OR RECKLESS VIOLATION. PROPOSED CLASS: described as hundreds of people, with more than $5 MILLION IN CONTROVERSY (the CAFA threshold). STATUS: complaint only. NO RULING is reflected in located sources; strength is `unknown` accordingly.","who_is_protected":"Illinois residents who called Walmart customer service and had their calls recorded — the proposed class","who_must_comply":"Walmart, as defendant; by implication, operators of recorded customer service call systems that extract voice characteristics from Illinois callers","citation":"Krupke v. Walmart Inc., No. 1:26-cv-09305 (N.D. Ill. filed Aug. 6, 2026) (Pacold, J.)","source_url":"https://www.biometricupdate.com/202608/walmart-sued-over-alleged-voiceprint-collection-from-customer-calls","source_title":"Walmart sued over alleged voiceprint collection from customer calls — Biometric Update","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Judge Martha M. Pacold)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Sought: BIPA statutory damages of $1,000 per negligent violation or $5,000 per intentional or reckless violation, plus injunctive relief, destruction of retained data and attorneys' fees"},{"id":"litig-anthropic-v-dod-first-amendment-retaliation-2026","title":"Anthropic v. Department of War — Court Rules the Pentagon's 'Supply Chain Risk' Designation Was Unlawful FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION Against a Company That Refused to Let Its AI Be Used for Mass Surveillance of Americans or Autonomous Weapons (September 2026)","short_title":"Anthropic v. DOD First Amendment retaliation ruling (2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["national-security","law-enforcement","public-sector","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"litigation","strength":"strong","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"A federal court ruled in Anthropic v. Department of War that the Pentagon's designation of Anthropic as a 'SUPPLY CHAIN RISK' — which effectively blacklisted the company from government contracts — constituted UNLAWFUL RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. What triggered the designation is the whole point of the case. Anthropic had refused to allow its AI technology to be used for MASS SURVEILLANCE OF U.S. CITIZENS or for AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS SYSTEMS. The government responded not by arguing the merits of those uses but by classifying the company as a security risk, cutting it out of federal procurement. The court held that using a procurement designation to punish a company for protected speech and for declining to participate in those activities is retaliation the First Amendment forbids. This matters well beyond one company. Every AI developer contracting with the federal government now has a documented instance of a procurement mechanism being used as leverage over model use policy, and a ruling that doing so is unconstitutional. It establishes that a developer's refusal to supply capability for domestic mass surveillance or autonomous weapons is protected, and that the government cannot convert a supply-chain security tool into a penalty for that refusal. The ruling is recorded here as reported; the court, the judge and the relief ordered were not identified in the located source, and this is a trial-level decision that may be appealed.","summary_technical":"ANTHROPIC v. DEPARTMENT OF WAR, No. 26-cv-01996 — ruling reported September 1, 2026. GOVERNMENT ACTION CHALLENGED: the Department of Defense designated Anthropic a 'SUPPLY CHAIN RISK', a classification that effectively BLACKLISTED the company from government contracts. PREDICATE CONDUCT: the designation followed Anthropic's REFUSAL TO ALLOW ITS AI TECHNOLOGY TO BE USED FOR (a) MASS SURVEILLANCE OF U.S. CITIZENS and (b) AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS SYSTEMS. HOLDING: the designation CONSTITUTED UNLAWFUL RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. LEGAL BASIS: First Amendment protection against government retaliation for protected speech and for refusal to participate in the challenged activities. WHY THIS ENTRY MATTERS BEYOND ITS PARTIES: supply-chain risk designations are an administrative security instrument, not ordinarily a speech-regulating one, and they carry severe commercial consequence with limited process. The ruling establishes that such a designation cannot be deployed as a penalty for a contractor's use-policy decisions, and specifically that a developer's refusal to supply capability for DOMESTIC MASS SURVEILLANCE or AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS is protected against procurement retaliation. For every AI developer with federal exposure this converts an implicit leverage point into a litigable constraint. STRUCTURAL NOTE: this dataset indexes many measures that restrict what AI systems may do; this is one of very few addressing what the GOVERNMENT may do to a developer that imposes such restrictions on itself. PROCEDURAL LIMITS RECORDED: the located source does NOT identify the court, the judge, the ruling's exact date, or the RELIEF ORDERED, and this is a trial-level decision subject to appeal. status is `litigation` accordingly. Other indexed Anthropic matters (litig-bartz-v-anthropic, litig-concord-music-v-anthropic) are copyright cases and unrelated.","who_is_protected":"U.S. citizens, as the population Anthropic declined to supply mass surveillance capability against; AI developers exercising use restrictions against federal procurement retaliation","who_must_comply":"The U.S. Department of Defense / Department of War, whose supply chain risk designation was held unlawful","citation":"Anthropic v. Department of War, No. 26-cv-01996 (ruling reported September 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/09/judge-rules-dod-unlawfully-retaliated-against-anthropic","source_title":"Judge Rules DOD Unlawfully Retaliated Against Anthropic — Electronic Frontier Foundation","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"United States federal court (specific court not identified in the located source)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Relief ordered was not stated in the located source"},{"id":"litig-alvarez-v-meta-nametag-smart-glasses-biometrics-2026","title":"Alvarez v. Meta — BIPA Class Action Alleging Meta Built Facial Recognition for Ray-Ban and Oakley Smart Glasses by Extracting Biometric Identifiers From Facebook and Instagram Photos of USERS AND NON-USERS (N.D. Ill., Filed September 7, 2026)","short_title":"Alvarez v. Meta NameTag smart glasses biometrics suit (2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["biometrics","facial-recognition","privacy","children","consumer-protection"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Francisco Alvarez and his minor child, together with Jeremy Wahl and his minor daughter, filed a 66-page class action complaint against Meta in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on September 7, 2026. They bring claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, California publicity and misappropriation law, and the privacy protections of the California Constitution. The allegation is that Meta took photographs from Facebook and Instagram, extracted numerical representations of the faces in them, and created biometric identifiers — face embeddings, vectors and templates encoding facial features — in order to train a facial recognition system called 'NAMETAG' for its Ray-Ban and Oakley smart glasses. Two elements make this different from the biometric cases already in this dataset. First, the complaint alleges Meta obtained photographs FROM BOTH USERS AND NON-USERS. A non-user never agreed to anything, has no account to delete and no settings to change; if the allegation holds, the biometric identifier exists regardless of any choice they made. Second, it alleges Meta used the images to train GENERATIVE AI MODELS — named as Emu and Muse Image — that RETAINED IDENTITY-RELATED FACIAL CHARACTERISTICS. That is a claim about a model's weights carrying biometric information forward, which is a considerably harder thing to remedy than a database of templates. The plaintiffs seek an injunction, an order requiring Meta to stop, and BIPA statutory damages of $5,000 per intentional or reckless violation or $1,000 per negligent violation. No ruling has issued.","summary_technical":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois — ALVAREZ v. META, 66-page class action complaint filed SEPTEMBER 7, 2026 by FRANCISCO ALVAREZ and his minor child, and JEREMY WAHL and his minor daughter. CAUSES OF ACTION: (1) Illinois BIOMETRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT; (2) CALIFORNIA PUBLICITY AND MISAPPROPRIATION law; (3) the CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION's privacy protections. CORE ALLEGATIONS: Meta obtained photographs from Facebook and Instagram, 'extracted numerical representations of the faces in those photos, and created biometric identifiers', generating FACE EMBEDDINGS, VECTORS AND TEMPLATES encoding facial features, to train a facial recognition system called 'NAMETAG' for RAY-BAN AND OAKLEY SMART GLASSES. TWO ALLEGATIONS DISTINGUISH THIS FROM THE OTHER BIOMETRIC MATTERS INDEXED HERE: (a) PHOTOGRAPHS WERE OBTAINED FROM BOTH USERS AND NON-USERS. A non-user has no account, no terms of service, no settings and no deletion path; consent-based and account-based remedies are structurally unavailable to them, and the resulting identifier exists independent of any choice they made. This is the population BIPA's written-consent requirement is hardest to satisfy for and easiest to violate at scale. (b) THE IMAGES WERE ALLEGEDLY USED TO TRAIN GENERATIVE AI MODELS \\u2014 named as EMU and MUSE IMAGE \\u2014 THAT RETAINED IDENTITY-RELATED FACIAL CHARACTERISTICS. A claim that biometric information persists in MODEL WEIGHTS rather than in a template database raises a remedy problem this dataset has not previously recorded: destruction of unlawfully obtained biometric data, which BIPA contemplates, may require retraining or discarding a model rather than deleting records. PRODUCT CONTEXT: the target is a WEARABLE camera device performing identification on people in public, which is the deployment scenario the municipal facial recognition bans indexed here were written against \\u2014 this case attacks the training pipeline upstream of it. RELIEF SOUGHT: injunction halting the practices; an order requiring Meta to cease; damages at the greater of actual damages or BIPA statutory damages of $5,000 for intentional or reckless violations and $1,000 for negligent violations. STATUS: complaint only, no ruling; strength `unknown`.","who_is_protected":"Illinois residents whose faces appeared in Facebook or Instagram photographs — expressly including NON-USERS of Meta's services — and minors, two of whom are named plaintiffs","who_must_comply":"Meta Platforms, as defendant, in respect of biometric extraction from platform photographs and the training of NameTag and the Emu and Muse Image models","citation":"Alvarez v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (N.D. Ill. filed Sept. 7, 2026) — BIPA, California publicity and constitutional privacy claims","source_url":"https://www.biometricupdate.com/202609/meta-sued-over-alleged-facial-recognition-training-for-smart-glasses","source_title":"Meta sued over alleged facial recognition training for smart glasses — Biometric Update","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Sought: BIPA statutory damages of $5,000 per intentional or reckless violation or $1,000 per negligent violation, plus injunctive relief"},{"id":"litig-imperial-county-ca-ceqa-330mw-data-center-eir-2026","title":"Imperial County, California — Superior Court Orders a Full Environmental Impact Report for a 330 MW Data Center, Holding the County Wrongly Treated Approvals as Ministerial and Cannot Review 132 Gas Generators, a Substation and 862 MWh of Batteries Piecemeal (September 1, 2026)","short_title":"Imperial County CA CEQA ruling, 330 MW data center EIR (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Imperial County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Imperial County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"litigation","strength":"strong","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Judge L. Brooks Anderholt of the Imperial County Superior Court issued a tentative ruling on September 1, 2026 holding that Imperial County must conduct a FULL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT under the California Environmental Quality Act before approving Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing LLC's 330-megawatt data center, on roughly 75 acres southeast of Aten Road and Clark Road. The ruling identifies two distinct failures. First, the county improperly treated its approvals as MINISTERIAL — meaning a rubber-stamp determination that the application met fixed standards, which under CEQA carries no environmental review obligation at all. The court held the approvals were not ministerial, which restores the review duty. Second, the county relied on a 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW that did not address the current proposal. Nine-year-old analysis of a different project cannot substitute for analysis of this one. The most useful part of the ruling is its treatment of scope. The court found the project encompasses INTEGRATED INFRASTRUCTURE that must be evaluated comprehensively rather than piecemeal: a 330 MW substation, an 862 MWh battery storage system, emergency generation comprising 132 NATURAL GAS GENERATORS, and water treatment facilities. Splitting a data center from its substation, its batteries and its generator farm — and reviewing each as if it were a separate small project — is the standard way large facilities avoid full environmental review, and this ruling forecloses it. The tentative decision prevents grading, construction and physical development from proceeding until proper review occurs. It is a tentative ruling, and no final judgment or appeal is reflected in the located source.","summary_technical":"Imperial County Superior Court (Cal.) — TENTATIVE RULING of JUDGE L. BROOKS ANDERHOLT dated SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 concerning IMPERIAL VALLEY COMPUTER MANUFACTURING, LLC's 330 MW data center on approximately 75 ACRES southeast of ATEN ROAD and CLARK ROAD, Imperial County, California. GOVERNING LAW: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). HOLDINGS: (1) THE COUNTY IMPROPERLY TREATED ITS APPROVALS AS 'MINISTERIAL'. Ministerial approvals are exempt from CEQA review because they involve no exercise of judgment; characterising a discretionary approval as ministerial removes the environmental review obligation entirely, and is the single most consequential classification decision in California land use. The court rejected that characterisation. (2) THE COUNTY RELIED ON A 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW THAT DID NOT ADDRESS THE CURRENT PROPOSAL \\u2014 nine-year-old analysis of different facts cannot serve as the review for this project. (3) ANTI-PIECEMEALING: the project encompasses INTEGRATED INFRASTRUCTURE that must be evaluated COMPREHENSIVELY RATHER THAN PIECEMEAL, specifically a 330 MW SUBSTATION, an 862 MWh BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEM, EMERGENCY GENERATION COMPRISING 132 NATURAL GAS GENERATORS, and WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES. THE ANTI-PIECEMEALING HOLDING IS THE TRANSFERABLE ONE: segmenting a hyperscale facility from its substation, storage and on-site generation, and reviewing each component as a separate minor project, is the standard route by which large data centers avoid a full EIR. A court identifying the substation, the 862 MWh of batteries and 132 gas generators as one project with the data center closes that route in California. THE 132 NATURAL GAS GENERATORS ARE WORTH NOTING INDEPENDENTLY: on-site combustion at that scale is an air quality question of a different order from the diesel backup at issue in litig-lowell-ma-markley-diesel-generator-injunction-2026, where a Massachusetts court enjoined FOUR generators. RELIEF: the tentative decision PREVENTS GRADING, CONSTRUCTION OR PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT from proceeding until proper environmental review occurs, and requires a full EIR before approval. STATUS: TENTATIVE ruling; no final judgment or appellate action is reflected in the located source. Imperial County separately has indexed data center measures (imperial-ca-dc-moratorium-2026, imperial-county-ca-dc-urgency-moratorium-proposed, calipatria-ca-dc-moratorium-proposed).","who_is_protected":"Imperial County residents near the Aten Road and Clark Road site; regional air quality and water resources in a CEQA environmental justice context","who_must_comply":"Imperial County, which must prepare a full Environmental Impact Report before approving the project; Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, LLC, barred from grading, construction or physical development pending review","citation":"Imperial County Superior Court (Cal.) — tentative ruling requiring a full EIR for the Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing 330 MW data center (September 1, 2026) (Anderholt, J.)","source_url":"https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/data-center-construction/california-judge-orders-full-environmental-review-of-330-mw-data-center","source_title":"California Judge Orders Full Environmental Review of 330 MW Data Center — Data Center Knowledge","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Imperial County Superior Court (Judge L. Brooks Anderholt); Imperial County as CEQA lead agency","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Grading, construction and physical development are prevented until a full EIR is completed"},{"id":"litig-gatlin-v-st-louis-aws-rekognition-false-arrest-2026","title":"Gatlin v. St. Louis — Amazon Web Services Added as a Defendant in a Wrongful Arrest Suit Where a Facial Recognition Match on a Poor-Quality Image of a MASKED Suspect Put a Man in Jail for 17 Months (Amended Complaint, August 2026)","short_title":"Gatlin v. St. Louis / AWS Rekognition false arrest suit (2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","state_abbr":"MO","county":"St. Louis","city":"St. Louis","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-09-21","summary_plain":"Christopher Gatlin, a St. Louis resident, spent SEVENTEEN MONTHS IN JAIL for an assault he did not commit. The sequence that put him there is the reason this case matters. Police investigating a December 2020 assault on a MetroLink security guard submitted a POOR-QUALITY IMAGE OF A MASKED SUSPECT to the St. Louis Mugshot Recognition Technology system. The system returned Gatlin as a possible match. He had not previously been a suspect — there was no other reason to look at him. On the strength of that match police put his photo in a lineup, where suggestive procedures influenced the victim's identification. He was arrested on August 14, 2021 and could not post a $75,000 bond. The criminal charges were dismissed in March 2024 after body camera footage revealed the improper lineup procedures. Two things make the civil case significant. In October 2025 a U.S. Magistrate Judge denied motions to dismiss most of Gatlin's claims, so the case is proceeding rather than being disposed of early. And in AUGUST 2026 an amended complaint ADDED AMAZON WEB SERVICES AS A DEFENDANT. Facial recognition wrongful-arrest suits have overwhelmingly been brought against police departments; naming the technology vendor puts the question of whether a provider bears responsibility for matches its system returns on poor-quality inputs directly before a federal court. No ruling on the merits has issued.","summary_technical":"U.S. federal court — CHRISTOPHER GATLIN's civil action arising from his wrongful arrest and 17-month pretrial detention in St. Louis, Missouri. FACTUAL SEQUENCE: police investigating a DECEMBER 2020 assault on a MetroLink security guard submitted a POOR-QUALITY IMAGE OF A MASKED SUSPECT to the ST. LOUIS MUGSHOT RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY system; the system returned GATLIN AS A POSSIBLE MATCH; he had been under NO PRIOR SUSPICION. The match caused police to include his photograph in a lineup, in which suggestive procedures influenced the victim's identification. ARREST: August 14, 2021. DETENTION: 17 months, unable to post a $75,000 bond. DISMISSAL: criminal charges dismissed MARCH 2024 after BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE revealed improper lineup procedures. THE TWO FACTS THAT MAKE THIS CASE MATTER: (1) OCTOBER 2025 \\u2014 a U.S. Magistrate Judge DENIED MOTIONS TO DISMISS MOST CLAIMS, so the action survived the stage at which facial recognition wrongful-arrest suits are commonly disposed of; (2) AUGUST 2026 \\u2014 an AMENDED COMPLAINT ADDED AMAZON WEB SERVICES AS A DEFENDANT. VENDOR LIABILITY IS THE NOVEL QUESTION: the wrongful-arrest cases that have shaped this area were brought against police departments and municipalities, on theories of investigative negligence and suggestive identification procedure. Naming the technology provider asks whether a vendor bears responsibility for the matches its system returns \\u2014 particularly on an input its own documentation would characterise as unsuitable, a poor-quality image of a MASKED face. A masked subject is the clearest possible case of an input outside a facial recognition system's reliable operating envelope, and the system returned a name anyway. WHY THE 'NO PRIOR SUSPICION' FACT IS DECISIVE: where facial recognition merely corroborates an existing investigative lead, its contribution to the outcome is arguable; here it GENERATED the lead, so the entire chain of detention traces to the match. RELATED INDEXED MATTERS: litig-clearview-acluil-2022 and litig-clearview-class-settlement-2024 concern a different vendor and different theories. STATUS: no merits ruling; strength `unknown`.","who_is_protected":"People subjected to facial recognition searches by law enforcement, particularly where a match generates rather than corroborates suspicion","who_must_comply":"The St. Louis Police Department and St. Louis County police as defendants; AMAZON WEB SERVICES, added as a defendant in August 2026","citation":"Gatlin v. City of St. Louis et al. — wrongful arrest action; amended complaint adding Amazon Web Services (August 2026)","source_url":"https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/amazon-facial-id-tech-targeted-in-st-louis-false-arrest-suit","source_title":"Amazon Facial-ID Tech Targeted in St. Louis False Arrest Suit — Bloomberg Law","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"U.S. federal court (U.S. Magistrate Judge; specific district not identified in the located source)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Damages sought; no judgment has issued"},{"id":"litig-us-v-sant-clearview-ice-protest-surveillance-2026","title":"United States v. Sant (Operation Metro Surge, Minnesota) — Court Records Reveal HSI Ran Clearview AI Facial Recognition Alongside Undercover Infiltration of Churches, Libraries, Schools and Union Halls, With One Search Returning the Wrong Man Plus Facebook Images of His Wife and Child (2026)","short_title":"US v. Sant — Clearview AI in ICE protest surveillance (2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","state_abbr":"MN","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","privacy","national-security"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Court records filed as exhibits to a defense discovery motion in the prosecution of Isaac Sant — one of fifteen defendants accused of conspiring to impede federal immigration officers during OPERATION METRO SURGE in Minnesota — disclose how Homeland Security Investigations combined facial recognition with undercover human surveillance of activists. At least TWO CLEARVIEW AI SEARCH REPORTS were produced in the case. One of them RETURNED PHOTOGRAPHS OF ANOTHER MAN as possible matches, AND INCLUDED FACEBOOK IMAGES OF THAT MAN'S WIFE AND CHILD. That single detail is the most important thing in this entry: a facial recognition search run on one person swept in a different, uninvolved person and then his family, including a child, none of whom were suspects in anything. The facial recognition sat inside a much larger operation. HSI personnel conducted UNDERCOVER INFILTRATION OF ACTIVIST GROUPS, monitored encrypted communications, recorded license plates, and compiled intelligence files combining facial recognition results with vehicle records and social media data. Undercover agents attended meetings at CHURCHES, LIBRARIES, SCHOOLS AND UNION FACILITIES, secretly recording conversations and accessing encrypted activist communications. Three named operations appear in the records: Operation Puppet Master, opened January 28; Project Whipple Shield, in February; and Operation Metro Surge. Defense attorneys are seeking comprehensive records to establish the scope of the surveillance and whether FIRST AMENDMENT protections were violated. Nothing here has been ruled on; these are disclosures in a pending criminal case.","summary_technical":"United States v. ISAAC SANT (and 14 co-defendants), Minnesota — court records filed as EXHIBITS TO A DEFENSE DISCOVERY MOTION in a prosecution charging conspiracy to impede federal immigration officers during OPERATION METRO SURGE. DISCLOSED SURVEILLANCE ARCHITECTURE: HOMELAND SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS (HSI) combined (a) CLEARVIEW AI FACIAL RECOGNITION \\u2014 at least TWO CLEARVIEW AI SEARCH REPORTS were produced; (b) UNDERCOVER INFILTRATION of activist groups; (c) MONITORING OF ENCRYPTED COMMUNICATIONS; (d) LICENSE PLATE RECORDING; and (e) INTELLIGENCE FILES COMBINING facial recognition results with vehicle records and social media data. THE COLLATERAL-SWEEP DETAIL IS THE CORE FINDING: one Clearview search 'returned photographs of ANOTHER MAN as possible matches and included FACEBOOK IMAGES OF THE MAN'S WIFE AND CHILD'. A single facial recognition query therefore produced a dossier on an uninvolved third party and his family including a minor, none of them suspects. This is the concrete mechanism behind the objection that face search against scraped social media corpora cannot be contained to its target \\u2014 the system returns a person, and the person's relationships come with them. UNDERCOVER VENUES, recorded because of their constitutional sensitivity: agents attended meetings at CHURCHES, LIBRARIES, SCHOOLS AND UNION FACILITIES, secretly recording conversations and accessing encrypted activist communications. Surveillance of religious worship, public libraries, educational institutions and labour organising implicates association and religious exercise interests distinct from ordinary investigative privacy. NAMED OPERATIONS: OPERATION PUPPET MASTER (opened January 28), PROJECT WHIPPLE SHIELD (February), OPERATION METRO SURGE. DEFENSE POSTURE: attorneys seek comprehensive records to determine the scope of surveillance and WHETHER FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS WERE VIOLATED. STATUS: a discovery dispute inside a pending criminal prosecution. NOTHING HERE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED; the facts are as stated in records filed by the defense, and strength is `unknown` accordingly. This dataset indexes other Clearview matters (litig-clearview-acluil-2022, litig-clearview-class-settlement-2024) but had NO record of federal protest-surveillance use.","who_is_protected":"Activists and protesters in Minnesota subject to the surveillance; uninvolved third parties swept in by facial recognition searches, including the man, wife and child identified in the records; congregants, library users, students and union members present at infiltrated meetings","who_must_comply":"Homeland Security Investigations and the federal agencies conducting Operations Puppet Master, Whipple Shield and Metro Surge; Clearview AI as the search provider","citation":"United States v. Sant — discovery motion exhibits documenting Clearview AI facial recognition use in Operation Metro Surge (Minnesota, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.biometricupdate.com/202608/court-records-detail-clearview-ais-role-in-ice-protest-surveillance","source_title":"Court records detail Clearview AI's role in ICE protest surveillance — Biometric Update","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"United States District Court (District of Minnesota; not expressly named in the located source)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None — this is a discovery dispute within a criminal prosecution"},{"id":"litig-data-center-noise-wave-dba-measurement-gap-2026","title":"The 2026 Data Center Noise Litigation Wave — At Least Six Nuisance and Negligence Suits Across Six States, Turning on a Measurement Gap: Standard dBA Monitors CANNOT DETECT the Low-Frequency Sound Data Centers Produce, So Municipal Decibel Ordinances Do Not Reach It (2026)","short_title":"Data center noise litigation wave and the dBA measurement gap (2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"At least SIX lawsuits were filed during 2026 against data center operators over noise, in Mount Pleasant Wisconsin, Southaven Mississippi, Vineland New Jersey, Dowagiac Michigan, North Tonawanda New York and Hood County Texas. Residents near Microsoft's Mount Pleasant facility brought a federal class action in June 2026; residents near xAI's Southaven facility, represented by Weitz & Luxenberg, sued the same month over noise, vibration and air pollution from the gas turbines powering the site. The claims rest on NUISANCE AND NEGLIGENCE — old, well-established doctrines. As Wilmer Hale observed, what is new is not the legal theory but the defendant: data center operators had not previously been the target of this kind of suit. Microsoft's complaint alleges the company could have used adequate soundproofing, acoustic barriers, low-noise cooling systems and proper monitoring and prevention plans. But the most important fact in this entry is technical, and it has consequences for a great many other entries in this dataset. The Mount Pleasant plaintiffs allege the facility produces a LOW-FREQUENCY HUM THAT STANDARD dBA MONITORS CANNOT DETECT. dBA is A-weighted decibel measurement, which deliberately discounts low frequencies because human hearing is less sensitive to them at conversational levels. Almost every municipal noise ordinance is written in dBA. So a jurisdiction can set a strict-sounding decibel limit, measure compliance honestly, and find the facility passes — while residents a quarter mile away cannot sleep. That is the regulatory gap these plaintiffs are suing into. Any jurisdiction relying on a dBA cap to control data center noise should assume it does not reach the sound people are actually complaining about.","summary_technical":"United States — a coordinated-in-effect wave of DATA CENTER NOISE LITIGATION during 2026: AT LEAST SIX SUITS as of September 2026, in MOUNT PLEASANT, WISCONSIN; SOUTHAVEN, MISSISSIPPI; VINELAND, NEW JERSEY; DOWAGIAC, MICHIGAN; NORTH TONAWANDA, NEW YORK; and HOOD COUNTY, TEXAS. LEAD ACTIONS: (a) MICROSOFT, Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin \\u2014 FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT CLASS ACTION filed JUNE 2026 by residents alleging the facility produces a LOW-FREQUENCY HUM UNDETECTABLE BY STANDARD dBA MONITORS that harms quality of life and property values; the complaint alleges Microsoft 'could have used adequate soundproofing, acoustic barriers, low-noise cooling systems, and proper monitoring and prevention plans'. (b) xAI, Southaven, Mississippi \\u2014 filed JUNE 2026 by WEITZ & LUXENBERG for residents, claiming noise, vibration AND AIR POLLUTION from the GAS TURBINES supporting the data center. LEGAL THEORIES: NUISANCE and NEGLIGENCE, both long-settled. Per Wilmer Hale, 'Data center operators as the defendants in such lawsuits is new' \\u2014 the novelty is the defendant class, not the doctrine, which is why these suits are hard to dispose of early. THE MEASUREMENT GAP IS THE REASON THIS ENTRY EXISTS AND IT BEARS ON MANY OTHERS IN THIS DATASET: conventional dBA monitors FAIL TO DETECT the lower-frequency sound generated by data center cooling systems. dBA is A-WEIGHTED sound measurement, which by design attenuates low-frequency content to approximate human loudness perception at moderate levels. Municipal noise ordinances are written almost universally in dBA. THE CONSEQUENCE: a data center can COMPLY WITH A STRICT dBA LIMIT, MEASURED HONESTLY, WHILE PRODUCING EXACTLY THE SOUND RESIDENTS COMPLAIN OF \\u2014 because the ordinance's instrument is blind to it. Standard municipal noise ordinances therefore cannot effectively enforce against this class of emission, which is the regulatory gap plaintiffs are exploiting through nuisance litigation. ENTRIES IN THIS DATASET DIRECTLY AFFECTED, none of which state a weighting or a low-frequency metric in any located source: mo-joplin-dc-regulations-2026 (45 dB at residential property lines, with mandatory pre-construction baseline testing \\u2014 the baseline requirement helps but does not cure a weighting blind spot), in-portage-technology-campus-district-2026 (55 dB), mi-corunna-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026 (unspecified noise maxima), tx-north-richland-hills-dc-sup-regulations-2026, oh-canton-dc-zoning-chapter-2026 (its 2,500-foot 'sensitive receptor' radius is a distance rule, which is arguably a better instrument precisely because it does not depend on a measurement the ordinance cannot make). DRAFTING IMPLICATION worth recording: a data center noise standard should specify dBC or a low-frequency band metric, or use distance and enclosure requirements, rather than relying on an unqualified dBA cap. NOTE: two of the six named locations already appear in this dataset for unrelated measures \\u2014 North Tonawanda for a data center moratorium and Hood County for having REJECTED one \\u2014 so the suits reach jurisdictions at opposite ends of the regulatory spectrum.","who_is_protected":"Residents living near data centers in Mount Pleasant WI, Southaven MS, Vineland NJ, Dowagiac MI, North Tonawanda NY and Hood County TX, and by extension residents in jurisdictions whose dBA-based noise ordinances cannot measure the emission at issue","who_must_comply":"Data center operators named as defendants, including Microsoft and xAI; more broadly, operators whose facilities produce low-frequency emissions not captured by dBA-based compliance measurement","citation":"Data center noise litigation wave, 2026 — at least six nuisance and negligence actions across six states","source_url":"https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/noise-lawsuit-is-latest-in-legal-wave-hitting-data-center-operations/829219/","source_title":"Noise lawsuit is latest in legal wave hitting data center operations — Smart Cities Dive","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"United States federal district courts and state courts in the six jurisdictions","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Damages and abatement sought under nuisance and negligence theories; no judgments reported"},{"id":"oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Clayton, Ohio — Immediate 365-Day Moratorium on Zoning, Conditional Use and Building Permit Applications for Data Processing Centers, Adopted Because the City Code Has No Definition for Them and They Could Otherwise Be Read as Warehouses (July 16, 2026)","short_title":"Clayton OH 365-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Clayton, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Montgomery County","city":"Clayton","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-16","enacted_date":"2026-07-16","expires_date":"2027-07-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Clayton City Council passed a resolution at its July 16, 2026 meeting imposing an immediate 'temporary' moratorium of 365 days on the acceptance and processing of applications for zoning, conditional use and building permits for DATA PROCESSING CENTERS. The reason the city gave is the most useful part of the record. Clayton's codified ordinances contain NO SPECIFIC DEFINITION OR USE CLASSIFICATION for data processing centers — and City staff noted such facilities COULD BE INTERPRETED TO FALL WITHIN THE CITY'S EXISTING DEFINITION OF A WAREHOUSE-TYPE USE. That is a live hazard for any municipality with an older code: a hyperscale computing facility arriving as a permitted warehouse, approved administratively, with no opportunity for review. City Manager Elaine Wittman said the moratorium was a way to protect the city until its codified ordinances are updated, and added that she did not think Clayton had enough open land to accommodate a data center anyway. The public exchange is worth preserving too. Resident Deborah Retman, a thirty-year Piqua City Schools teacher, pressed council on the word 'temporary' and on transparency, citing what happened in nearby PIQUA: that city approved zoning for a massive data center WITHOUT INFORMING RESIDENTS it was making the zoning change, because of a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, and residents have since gone to court to halt the project. Wittman replied that the term is temporary because state-level rules remain up in the air, that it could be less than 365 days, that any extension would require returning to council, and that the city would advertise upcoming decisions.","summary_technical":"City of Clayton, Ohio (Montgomery County) — RESOLUTION adopted by City Council at its meeting of JULY 16, 2026, imposing an IMMEDIATE temporary moratorium of 365 DAYS on the ACCEPTANCE AND PROCESSING of applications for ZONING, CONDITIONAL USE, AND BUILDING PERMITS for DATA PROCESSING CENTERS. THE STATED LEGAL DEFECT DRIVING IT, and the transferable finding: the city's codified ordinances LACK A SPECIFIC DEFINITION OR USE CLASSIFICATION for data processing centers, and such facilities COULD BE INTERPRETED TO FALL WITHIN THE CITY'S EXISTING DEFINITION OF A WAREHOUSE-TYPE USE. A data center admitted as a warehouse is approved under standards written for storage \\u2014 no power, water, noise, or generator review \\u2014 and in many codes administratively rather than by council. Any municipality with a pre-2020 zoning code should assume this exposure exists unless it has checked. Compare in-portage-technology-campus-district-2026, which solved the same problem by creating a single permissible district, and fl-putnam-county-dc-moratorium-2026, where commissioners adopted a DEFINITION before adopting the pause. TERM AND EXTENSION: City Manager Elaine Wittman stated the period 'could be 365 days or it could be less', that the city 'would have to come back to council' to extend, and that the temporary framing reflects that 'things with the state are still up in the air' \\u2014 i.e. the same wait-for-the-state posture recorded on il-ottawa-dc-moratorium-extension-2027. CAPACITY OBSERVATION: Wittman did not think the city had enough open land to accommodate a data center; the moratorium is protective rather than responsive to a pending project. THE PIQUA NDA PRECEDENT, raised by resident Deborah Retman at the meeting and recorded here because it is the concrete harm the transparency objection rests on: the CITY OF PIQUA approved zoning for a massive data center WITHOUT INFORMING RESIDENTS of the zoning change, DUE TO A NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, and residents have taken legal action to halt the project. The Piqua site sits in a 1,168-acre heavy-industry area at the I-75 Exit 78 Business and Industrial Park, of which approximately 330 acres was reclassified from agriculture to heavy industrial in late January 2025. NEITHER THE PIQUA REZONING NOR THE RESIDENT LITIGATION IS INDEXED and both are leads. Pennsylvania has since banned data center NDAs outright (pa-eo-2026-05-data-center-grid-requirements-2026).","who_is_protected":"Clayton, Ohio residents; the city's ability to review data center applications before its code defines the use","who_must_comply":"Applicants seeking zoning, conditional use or building permits for data processing centers in Clayton during the 365-day moratorium","citation":"City of Clayton, Ohio — resolution imposing a 365-day data center moratorium (adopted July 16, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.registerherald.com/2026/07/27/clayton-enacts-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Clayton enacts data center moratorium — Register-Herald","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Clayton zoning administration / Clayton City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No covered application may be accepted or processed during the moratorium"},{"id":"tn-gallatin-dc-application-pause-2026","title":"Gallatin, Tennessee — City Commissioners Approve a 60-Day Pause on New Data Center Applications as a Holding Action While a Broader Moratorium Is Considered (July 2026)","short_title":"Gallatin TN 60-day data center application pause (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Gallatin, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Sumner County","city":"Gallatin","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"expired","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-29","enacted_date":"2026-07-29","expires_date":"2026-09-27","last_verified_date":"2026-10-07","summary_plain":"Gallatin City Commissioners approved a SIXTY-DAY pause on new data center applications in late July 2026. The commissioners were explicit that this is NOT the full moratorium proposed weeks earlier — it temporarily stops the processing of new data center applications while city leaders consider a broader one, and the planning commission was expected to take up that broader moratorium the following Monday. This entry is recorded at limited strength and with that distinction in front, because a sixty-day application pause and a one-year moratorium are different instruments and coverage frequently blurs them. What makes the sixty-day device worth recording at all is its function: it is a HOLDING ACTION, adopted quickly to close the window in which a developer could file before the real measure is ready. Several jurisdictions in this dataset lost the project that motivated their moratorium precisely because an application landed first — Salem, Oregon and Rockford, Illinois among them. Gallatin's commissioners solved that sequencing problem by stopping the clock first and deciding second. The contrast in the same report is instructive: in Lawrence County, Tennessee, commissioners TABLED a proposed yearlong moratorium after concluding the county lacks the zoning rules needed to enforce one.","summary_technical":"City of Gallatin, Tenn. (Sumner County) — 60-DAY PAUSE on new data center applications, approved by the City Commissioners in late July 2026. EXPRESS LIMITATION, stated by the commissioners themselves: this is NOT the full moratorium proposed weeks earlier; it TEMPORARILY STOPS THE PROCESSING of new data center applications WHILE LEADERS CONSIDER A BROADER MORATORIUM. The Gallatin planning commission was expected to take up the proposed broader moratorium the following Monday. INSTRUMENT CLASS \\u2014 A HOLDING ACTION, which is why it is indexed despite its brevity: a short application pause adopted quickly serves to CLOSE THE FILING WINDOW while a substantive measure is drafted. This dataset records several jurisdictions that failed to do so and lost the project that prompted them: or-salem-dc-moratorium-process-2026 (application filed days before the council vote, moratorium may not reach it), il-rockford-dc-moratorium-2026 (pre-existing annexation agreement), wa-cle-elum-emergency-dc-moratorium-2026 (2002 development agreement) and litig-lowell-ma-markley-diesel-generator-injunction-2026 (pre-moratorium plans preserved by settlement). Gallatin inverted the sequence: stop first, decide second. strength is `limited` because 60 days confers no substantive protection beyond the drafting window, and status/dates should be re-checked since the pause has likely lapsed or been superseded by the broader measure. CONTRAST IN THE SAME REPORT: LAWRENCE COUNTY, TENNESSEE commissioners TABLED a proposed yearlong moratorium after concluding THE COUNTY LACKS THE ZONING RULES NEEDED TO ENFORCE IT \\u2014 the inverse of the Westerly, Rhode Island reasoning (ri-westerly-dc-moratorium-2026), where the same absence of zoning capacity was given as the reason TO adopt a pause. Neither the Gallatin broader moratorium nor the Lawrence County tabling is separately indexed.","who_is_protected":"Gallatin, Tennessee residents in Sumner County, for the duration of the application pause","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to file new data center applications with the City of Gallatin during the 60-day pause","citation":"City of Gallatin, Tenn. — 60-day pause on new data center applications (approved July 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wsmv.com/2026/07/29/future-data-centers-unclear-midstate-one-county-tables-moratorium-other-area-passes-pause-in-applications/","source_title":"Future of data centers unclear in Midstate as one county tables moratorium, other area passes pause in applications — WSMV","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Gallatin planning administration / Gallatin City Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"New data center applications are not processed during the pause"},{"id":"pa-falls-township-zoning-curative-amendment-dc-2026","title":"Falls Township, Pennsylvania — Officials Declare Parts of Their OWN Zoning Ordinance 'Substantively Invalid' and Launch a Curative Amendment to Write Data Center Rules, Shielding the Township From Developer Zoning Challenges (August 2026)","short_title":"Falls Township PA curative amendment on data centers (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Falls Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Bucks County","city":"Falls Township","topics":["data-centers","public-sector","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-03","enacted_date":"2026-08-03","last_verified_date":"2026-09-21","summary_plain":"Falls Township officials voted to declare portions of the township's OWN zoning ordinance 'SUBSTANTIVELY INVALID', triggering a CURATIVE AMENDMENT process to draft updated regulations targeting data centers. This is an unusual and clever manoeuvre, and it is the reason this entry exists. Under Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning Code, a landowner who believes a zoning ordinance is defective can file a CURATIVE AMENDMENT CHALLENGE — and if it succeeds, the developer effectively gets to write the fix and secure approval of its own project on its own terms. But a MUNICIPALITY can also declare its own ordinance substantively invalid and initiate the curative process itself. Doing so takes the ordinance's defects off the table as a weapon: while the municipal curative amendment is pending, a developer cannot mount the same challenge. Falls Township, in other words, pre-emptively conceded that its zoning was inadequate in order to control the remedy rather than have one imposed on it. That is a materially different strategy from the moratoriums that fill this dataset, and it is available in Pennsylvania in a way it is not elsewhere. The limit is stated plainly in the record: the Falls action DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH the Amazon Web Services data center approved in MARCH 2025. Neighbouring Morrisville Borough took the more conventional route on the same day, adopting a six-month waiting period while it writes new zoning laws.","summary_technical":"Falls Township, Pa. (Bucks County) — Board of Supervisors action declaring PORTIONS OF THE TOWNSHIP'S OWN ZONING ORDINANCE 'SUBSTANTIVELY INVALID', resulting in a CURATIVE AMENDMENT to draft updated regulations targeting data centers, and expressly undertaken to SHIELD THE TOWNSHIP FROM ZONING CHALLENGES related to data center development. THE MECHANISM IS THE POINT AND IS PENNSYLVANIA-SPECIFIC: under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, a landowner may bring a SUBSTANTIVE VALIDITY CHALLENGE accompanied by a curative amendment proposing its own cure; where the challenge succeeds the challenger ordinarily obtains site-specific relief, meaning the DEVELOPER writes the fix and secures approval on its own terms. The MPC also permits a MUNICIPALITY to declare its own ordinance substantively invalid and initiate a curative amendment process itself, which forecloses landowner challenges on the same ground while the municipal process runs. Falls Township therefore CONCEDED THE DEFECT IN ORDER TO CONTROL THE REMEDY \\u2014 a defensive use of an offensive tool. STRATEGIC CONTRAST WITH THE REST OF THIS DATASET: a moratorium buys time but invites attack as arbitrary (see litig-nj-developer-suits-municipal-dc-bans-2026, where New Jersey developers plead exactly that, and mi-garfield-township-dc-crypto-moratorium-2026, where officials chose a zoning-amendment route because ad hoc moratoriums 'are being challenged and losing in court'). A municipal curative amendment instead removes the vulnerability the challenge would exploit. EXPRESS LIMIT: the action DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH the AMAZON WEB SERVICES data center APPROVED MARCH 2025 \\u2014 the same vested-rights boundary recorded across this dataset. COMPANION ACTION, same report, not separately indexed: MORRISVILLE BOROUGH council adopted a SIX-MONTH WAITING PERIOD and stated it planned to write new zoning laws. REGIONAL CONTEXT: these actions reflect broader debate across BUCKS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES; Pennsylvania separately adopted statewide data center requirements by executive order (pa-eo-2026-05-data-center-grid-requirements-2026).","who_is_protected":"Falls Township residents in Bucks County, Pennsylvania — principally by denying developers the ability to exploit the township's own zoning defects","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Falls Township, who cannot mount a substantive validity challenge on the grounds the township has itself declared and cured; the March 2025 AWS approval is unaffected","citation":"Falls Township, Pa. — declaration of substantive invalidity and curative amendment targeting data center regulation (August 2026)","source_url":"https://www.thereporteronline.com/2026/08/03/falls-and-morrisville-to-address-zoning-issues-around-data-centers/","source_title":"Falls and Morrisville to address zoning issues around data centers — The Reporter","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Falls Township Board of Supervisors; Falls Township zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not a penalty instrument — a procedural zoning action"},{"id":"nv-henderson-dc-moratorium-rejected-code-changes-2026","title":"Henderson, Nevada — City Council REJECTS a 180-Day Data Center Moratorium in Favour of Permanent Code Changes, With the City Attorney Stating Moratoriums Are Defensible Only 12 to 18 Months (August 2026)","short_title":"Henderson NV rejects data center moratorium, pursues code changes (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Henderson, NV","state_abbr":"NV","county":"Clark County","city":"Henderson","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Henderson City Council decided AGAINST imposing a 180-day moratorium on data center construction, choosing instead to pursue permanent code changes. Mayor Michelle Romero, who had proposed the moratorium the previous month, said at the meeting that city staff would develop regulations for future licensing of data centers within city limits: 'There has to be a framework of laws and ordinances for us to refer to.' This entry is recorded as PROPOSED, and deliberately so — Henderson has no data center restriction in force. It is indexed because of what the city attorney said, which is the single most useful practitioner statement recovered in this entire triage. City Attorney Nicholas Vaskov advised that code changes would be more permanent and more effective in the long run than a moratorium, and explained why: 'A moratorium is temporary to some degree, they are only defensible for up to a certain point, usually that's up to 12 to 18 months before you have to make some permanent changes to your code.' That figure — TWELVE TO EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF DEFENSIBILITY — is a direct assessment of the outer limit of the instrument that dominates this dataset. Several entries here already exceed it: Sierra County New Mexico and Cottage Grove Wisconsin adopted eighteen-month pauses, and three Arkansas counties adopted three-year ones. Henderson is one of several Southern Nevada governments reconsidering data center regulation.","summary_technical":"City of Henderson, Nev. (Clark County) — City Council DECISION AGAINST imposing a 180-DAY MORATORIUM on data center construction, taken on a Tuesday evening in the period reported 2026-08-02, in favour of exploring ADDITIONAL CODE CHANGES. NO RESTRICTION IS IN FORCE; status is `proposed` and refers to the forthcoming regulations, not to a moratorium. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: MAYOR MICHELLE ROMERO proposed the moratorium the previous month and, at the meeting rejecting it, stated that city staff would develop regulations for FUTURE LICENSING of data centers within city limits \\u2014 'There has to be a framework of laws and ordinances for us to refer to.' THE REASON THIS ENTRY IS INDEXED DESPITE BEING A NEGATIVE RESULT: CITY ATTORNEY NICHOLAS VASKOV placed on the public record a direct assessment of moratorium durability \\u2014 code changes 'would be more permanent and more effective in the long run than a moratorium', because 'A moratorium is temporary to some degree, they are only defensible for up to a certain point, usually that's up to 12 to 18 months before you have to make some permanent changes to your code.' THE 12-TO-18-MONTH DEFENSIBILITY WINDOW IS A CROSS-CUTTING FINDING for this dataset, in which moratoriums are the dominant instrument. Entries at or beyond that outer bound include nm-sierra-county-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026 (18 months), wi-cottage-grove-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026 (18 months), ar-madison-county-dc-moratorium-3yr-2026 (THREE YEARS, alongside four other Arkansas counties at the same term) and mn-otsego-dc-moratorium-2026 (12 months plus a bounded 6-month extension, i.e. an 18-month ceiling by design). It is consistent with the Garfield Township, Michigan officials' statement that municipalities adopting 'knee-jerk moratoriums' without proper process 'are being challenged and losing in court', and with the developer challenges pleaded in litig-nj-developer-suits-municipal-dc-bans-2026. REGIONAL CONTEXT: Henderson is one of several Southern Nevada governments considering changes to data center regulation; Nevada's other indexed local instrument is nv-nye-county-dc-ban-basin-162-2026.","who_is_protected":"No one, presently — Henderson adopted no restriction; residents would be protected prospectively by the code changes under development","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Henderson, prospectively, once licensing regulations are adopted","citation":"City of Henderson, Nev. — rejection of a proposed 180-day data center moratorium in favour of code changes (August 2026)","source_url":"https://lccentral.com/2026/08/02/henderson-rejects-data-center-moratorium-instead-exploring-code-changes/","source_title":"Henderson rejects data center moratorium, instead exploring code changes — Lincoln County Record","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Henderson / Henderson City Council; city staff developing the licensing framework","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None in force"},{"id":"fl-escambia-county-large-dc-ban-2026","title":"Escambia County, Florida — Commission Approves an ORDINANCE BANNING Large-Scale Data Centers in Unincorporated Areas, and Separately Begins a Moratorium Process (August 2026)","short_title":"Escambia County FL large-scale data center ban (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Escambia County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Escambia County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-01","enacted_date":"2026-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-21","summary_plain":"The Escambia County Commission approved an ordinance BANNING large-scale data centers in the unincorporated areas of the county — everywhere outside the City of Pensacola and the Town of Century — and separately started the process for a moratorium. This is a prohibition, not a pause, which puts it in the small group of permanent bans in this dataset alongside Woodford County Kentucky and Nye County Nevada rather than with the moratoriums that make up most of the 2026 record. The territorial limit is the standard one for county land-use authority: Escambia's ban reaches unincorporated territory only, and the two incorporated municipalities inside the county make their own decisions. Pensacola has a separately indexed data center moratorium of its own. The sequencing is worth noting: the county adopted the ban FIRST and then began a moratorium process, which is the reverse of the usual order. A moratorium is normally the holding action taken while permanent rules are written; here the permanent rule came first, and the moratorium appears intended to cover whatever the ban does not. At a later meeting the commissioners stood firm on the existing ban and took no further action.","summary_technical":"Escambia County, Fla. — ORDINANCE BANNING LARGE-SCALE DATA CENTERS in the UNINCORPORATED AREAS of the county, approved by the Board of County Commissioners on a Thursday night in August 2026, together with the commencement of a separate MORATORIUM PROCESS. INSTRUMENT CLASS: a PROHIBITION, not a time-limited pause \\u2014 no sunset is reported, placing it with ky-woodford-county-permanent-dc-ban-2026 and nv-nye-county-dc-ban-basin-162-2026 rather than with the moratoriums that dominate the 2026 municipal record. TERRITORIAL SCOPE, stated expressly in the source: unincorporated Escambia County, OUTSIDE the CITY OF PENSACOLA and the TOWN OF CENTURY. Florida county land-use authority does not reach incorporated municipalities, which legislate for themselves; Pensacola's own measure is separately indexed as pensacola-fl-dc-moratorium-2026. SEQUENCING IS UNUSUAL AND WORTH RECORDING: the county adopted the PERMANENT BAN FIRST and then began a moratorium process. The ordinary pattern across this dataset is the inverse \\u2014 a moratorium adopted as a holding action while permanent regulations are drafted (see oh-clearcreek-township-dc-permit-moratorium-2026 and the Dayton sequence recorded there). A moratorium commenced after a ban is most plausibly intended to close whatever the ban's 'large-scale' qualifier leaves open, since a size-qualified prohibition necessarily permits everything below the threshold. THE 'LARGE-SCALE' THRESHOLD IS NOT STATED in any located source and is the material gap on this entry: without it the ban's reach cannot be assessed. SUBSEQUENT ACTION: at a later meeting the commissioners STOOD FIRM ON THE EXISTING BAN AND TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, indicating the ban survived reconsideration.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Escambia County, Florida","who_must_comply":"Developers proposing large-scale data centers in unincorporated Escambia County; the ban does not reach the City of Pensacola or the Town of Century","citation":"Escambia County, Fla. — ordinance banning large-scale data centers in unincorporated areas (approved August 2026)","source_url":"http://www.northescambia.com/2026/08/escambia-commission-approves-ordinance-banning-data-centers-starts-process-for-moratorium","source_title":"Escambia Commission Approves Ordinance Banning Data Centers, Starts Process For Moratorium — NorthEscambia.com","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Escambia County Development Services / Escambia County Board of County Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Large-scale data centers are a prohibited use in unincorporated Escambia County"},{"id":"nc-cary-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026","title":"Cary, North Carolina — Town Council Unanimously Adopts an 18-Month Moratorium on ALL Data Center Development, With an Express Carve-Out for Sub-1-Megawatt Server Rooms at Offices and Hospitals (August 2026)","short_title":"Cary NC 18-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cary, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Wake County","city":"Cary","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-01","enacted_date":"2026-08-01","expires_date":"2028-02-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-21","summary_plain":"Cary Town Council unanimously approved an EIGHTEEN-MONTH moratorium on ALL data center development in August 2026. The length puts it among the longest local pauses in this dataset, and the town was specific about what the time is for: staff will study power demand and grid capacity, water consumption, noise and vibration effects, and site design and buffering, while engaging the community and coordinating with regional partners. Staff will give periodic progress updates to council, with a decision on a permanent ordinance expected in February. The carve-out is the part worth copying. The moratorium expressly excepts 'enterprise, small-scale, collocated data processing equipment, such as server rooms at offices or hospitals' DRAWING LESS THAN ONE MEGAWATT of demand. That is a cleanly drafted exclusion: it is defined by function and by a hard numerical threshold, so a hospital's server closet is unambiguously outside the moratorium while anything of real scale is inside. Several other jurisdictions in this dataset had to solve the same problem by describing the excluded use in words alone, which leaves argument room. Not everyone supported it — Cary resident Michael Morris, who works in IT, told council the town has been about growth for twenty years and the moratorium 'sends the wrong message,' while accepting that a data center should not go next to a supermarket. Cary is in Wake County, in the Research Triangle, where Durham County and the City of Durham also paused data centers in 2026.","summary_technical":"Town of Cary, N.C. (Wake County) — 18-MONTH MORATORIUM on ALL DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENT, approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Town Council on a Thursday night in August 2026. STUDY SCOPE during the moratorium, per Director of Planning and Community Development HEATHER WHELEHAN and the staff report: POWER DEMAND AND GRID CAPACITY; WATER CONSUMPTION; NOISE AND VIBRATION EFFECTS; SITE DESIGN AND BUFFERING; plus community engagement and coordination with regional partners. Staff to provide PERIODIC PROGRESS UPDATES to council, with an ordinance decision expected in FEBRUARY. THE EXEMPTION IS THE TRANSFERABLE DRAFTING, and is better constructed than most in this dataset: the moratorium excepts 'enterprise, small-scale, collocated data processing equipment, such as server rooms at offices or hospitals' DRAWING LESS THAN ONE MEGAWATT of demand. It combines a FUNCTIONAL description with a HARD NUMERIC THRESHOLD (1 MW), so ordinary commercial and institutional IT infrastructure is unambiguously outside the pause while anything of scale is inside. Compare nj-cherry-hill-dc-prohibited-use-2026, which distinguishes 'small server rooms used by standalone businesses' in words only, with no threshold \\u2014 a formulation that invites argument at the margin. A 1 MW line is also far below the 5 MW (Knox County), 10 MW (Knoxville), 20 MW (Town of Tonawanda) and 50 MW (New York State) triggers recorded elsewhere, so Cary's moratorium is among the broadest in reach. DURATION CAUTION: 18 months sits at the outer edge of the 12-to-18-month defensibility window that Henderson, Nevada's city attorney identified on the record (nv-henderson-dc-moratorium-rejected-code-changes-2026), and North Carolina's moratorium authority should be checked against that. OPPOSITION ON THE RECORD: resident Michael Morris, an IT industry worker, argued the town 'has been about growth and development for the 20 years I've been here, and this sends the wrong message', while conceding a data center should not be sited next to a neighbourhood supermarket. REGIONAL CONTEXT: Wake County adjoins Durham County, whose nine-month moratorium is indexed as nc-durham-county-dc-moratorium-2026 and which timed itself to the City of Durham's.","who_is_protected":"Cary, North Carolina residents; Wake County grid and water capacity","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers in Cary drawing one megawatt or more; enterprise server rooms at offices and hospitals below 1 MW are expressly exempt","citation":"Town of Cary, N.C. — 18-month moratorium on all data center development (approved August 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wral.com/news/local/cary-18-month-data-center-moratorium-aug-2026/","source_title":"Cary Town Council unanimously approves 18-month moratorium on data centers — WRAL","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Cary Planning and Community Development / Cary Town Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No covered data center development may be approved during the 18-month moratorium"},{"id":"wi-bellevue-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Bellevue, Wisconsin — Village Board Unanimously Adopts a 12-Month Data Center Moratorium by Zoning Code Amendment, With the Administrator Stating Wisconsin Law Caps Moratoriums at 12 Months Plus One Six-Month Extension (August 12, 2026)","short_title":"Bellevue WI 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Bellevue, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Brown County","city":"Bellevue","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-12","enacted_date":"2026-08-12","expires_date":"2027-08-12","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"The Bellevue Village Board held a public hearing and unanimously passed a temporary TWELVE-MONTH moratorium on data centers on Wednesday, August 12, 2026, expiring in August 2027. It was done as an AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 500 of the village Zoning Code — not as a standalone resolution — which is the more durable route, the same choice Garfield Township Michigan made deliberately for legal defensibility. The board also adopted a definition, which many jurisdictions omit and later regret: a data center is 'a dedicated building, facility or campus used primarily to house computer system servers that process, store and transmit digital data.' The most valuable thing in this record is what Village Administrator Benjamin Krumenauer told the board before the hearing. He explained that THE STATE OF WISCONSIN'S REGULATIONS LIMIT THE LENGTH of a moratorium and how far it can be amended: 'Wisconsin allows for up to 12 months and one additional six month extension — if appropriate — at which point in time the board would correct whatever perceived issue they have in their code... or the moratorium would simply expire.' And he added the principle behind it: 'Moratoriums are not meant to be a tool to prohibit something forever.' That is a STATUTORY CEILING of eighteen months in Wisconsin, stated on the record by a village administrator — which independently corroborates the twelve-to-eighteen-month defensibility estimate Henderson Nevada's city attorney gave, and raises a direct question about the Wisconsin entries in this dataset that run to eighteen months.","summary_technical":"Village of Bellevue, Wis. (Brown County) — temporary 12-MONTH data center moratorium, adopted UNANIMOUSLY by the Village Board following a public hearing on WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2026, expiring AUGUST 2027. INSTRUMENT FORM: an AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 500 OF THE BELLEVUE ZONING CODE, temporarily blocking the development or construction of data centers \\u2014 not a freestanding resolution. This is the same durability-motivated choice recorded on mi-garfield-township-dc-crypto-moratorium-2026, where officials said municipalities enacting standalone 'knee-jerk moratoriums' 'are being challenged and losing in court'. ADOPTED DEFINITION, which many jurisdictions in this dataset omitted and had to add later: a data center is 'a dedicated building, facility or campus used primarily to house computer system servers that process, store and transmit digital data.' THE STATUTORY CEILING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT CONTENT HERE. Village Administrator BENJAMIN KRUMENAUER stated on the record that 'The state of Wisconsin's regulations limit the length and overall time you can amend the length of a moratorium' and that 'Wisconsin allows for up to 12 months and one additional six month extension \\u2014 if appropriate \\u2014 at which point in time the board would correct whatever perceived issue they have in their code... or the moratorium would simply expire', adding that 'Moratoriums are not meant to be a tool to prohibit something forever.' AN 18-MONTH STATUTORY MAXIMUM IN WISCONSIN, stated by a municipal administrator, has direct consequences for other Wisconsin entries in this dataset: wi-cottage-grove-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026 was adopted at EIGHTEEN MONTHS in a single step, which on Krumenauer's account would exhaust the entire statutory allowance at once and leave no extension available; wi-chippewa-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (12 months) and wi-town-of-janesville-dc-moratorium-2026 (12 months) sit within the base allowance. It also independently corroborates, from a statutory rather than litigation-risk direction, the 12-to-18-month figure given by Henderson, Nevada's city attorney (nv-henderson-dc-moratorium-rejected-code-changes-2026). THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATOR'S CHARACTERISATION OF STATE LAW, NOT A CITATION \\u2014 the underlying Wisconsin statute is not named in the source and should be identified before the ceiling is treated as settled.","who_is_protected":"Village of Bellevue residents in Brown County, Wisconsin","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to develop or construct data centers in Bellevue during the 12-month moratorium","citation":"Village of Bellevue, Wis. — 12-month data center moratorium by amendment to Zoning Code ch. 500 (adopted August 12, 2026)","source_url":"https://gopresstimes.com/stories/bellevue-village-board-passes-data-center-moratorium,350481","source_title":"Bellevue Village Board passes data center moratorium — Green Bay Press Times","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Village of Bellevue zoning administration / Bellevue Village Board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Development or construction of data centers is temporarily blocked under the amended Zoning Code chapter 500"},{"id":"ny-auburn-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Auburn, New York — One-Year Data Center Moratorium Adopted to Reach Facilities the Statewide Moratorium Does NOT Cover, Binding the Council, Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals Alike (August 2026)","short_title":"Auburn NY one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Auburn, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"Cayuga County","city":"Auburn","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-01","enacted_date":"2026-08-01","expires_date":"2027-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-21","summary_plain":"Auburn City Council passed a one-year moratorium on data centers in August 2026. The reason given is the one that makes this entry worth having: it provides ADDED PROTECTION AGAINST FACILITIES NOT COVERED BY THE STATEWIDE MORATORIUM imposed by New York's governor. New York was the first state in the country to impose a statewide data center pause, but that measure applies at a peak electrical demand threshold of 50 megawatts — so every facility below that line falls outside it entirely. Auburn is the second New York municipality in this dataset to legislate specifically into that gap; the Town of Tonawanda did the same thing by setting its local threshold at 20 megawatts. A city that assumes the state has covered the problem will find mid-sized facilities arriving unregulated. The drafting detail is also useful. The moratorium prevents any application for a data center from being accepted or processed BY ANY CITY ENTITY, naming the City Council, the Auburn Planning Board and the city's Zoning Board of Appeals. Listing every body that could otherwise take an application closes the route in which a developer bypasses a council-level pause by going to the zoning board for a variance — exactly what happened in Amherst, Ohio. The year also gives the city time to develop regulations during its ongoing comprehensive plan update. Councilor Terry Cuddy publicly explained his support.","summary_technical":"City of Auburn, N.Y. (Cayuga County) — ONE-YEAR data center moratorium passed by the City Council on a Thursday in August 2026. STATED PURPOSE, and the reason this entry matters: it provides ADDED PROTECTION AGAINST FACILITIES NOT COVERED BY THE STATEWIDE MORATORIUM imposed by the Governor. New York's statewide pause (ny-hochul-eo-statewide-dc-moratorium-2026) was the first in the nation but operates at a 50 MW peak-electrical-demand threshold, leaving everything below it unregulated by the state. Auburn is the SECOND New York municipality in this dataset to legislate into that gap \\u2014 ny-town-of-tonawanda-dc-moratorium-ll2-2026 did so by setting a 20 MW local trigger, and its supervisor said the lower threshold was the point. THE LESSON IS GENERAL: a statewide measure with a high threshold creates a false sense of coverage, and municipalities that rely on it will receive sub-threshold facilities with no local rules in place. INSTITUTIONAL SCOPE \\u2014 the drafting worth copying: the moratorium prevents any data center application from being ACCEPTED OR PROCESSED BY ANY CITY ENTITY, expressly INCLUDING THE CITY COUNCIL, THE AUBURN PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY'S ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. Enumerating every body with application-receiving authority forecloses the bypass in which a developer takes a use variance to the zoning board notwithstanding a council-level pause \\u2014 the precise route at issue in oh-amherst-bza-nordson-data-center-variance-denial-2026, where the board happened to deny it. PARALLEL WORK: the moratorium runs alongside Auburn's ongoing COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, giving the city a year to develop regulations within that process. Councilor TERRY CUDDY publicly explained his support.","who_is_protected":"Auburn, New York residents, particularly against data center facilities falling below the 50 MW threshold of the statewide moratorium","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals in Auburn; the City Council, Auburn Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals, none of which may accept or process such applications","citation":"City of Auburn, N.Y. — one-year data center moratorium (passed August 2026)","source_url":"https://auburnpub.com/news/local/government-politics/article_a0e1d923-f4f6-4b5d-bce1-f7aee7cb1185.html","source_title":"Auburn City Council approves 1-year data center moratorium — The Citizen (auburnpub.com)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Auburn; Auburn Planning Board; Auburn Zoning Board of Appeals","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No data center application may be accepted or processed by any city entity during the moratorium year"},{"id":"md-dorchester-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Dorchester County, Maryland — One-Year Data Center Moratorium in Unincorporated Areas, Adopted by Resolution Alongside the Hiring of a Lobbying Firm, With a Stakeholder Committee and Staff Findings Due Spring 2027 (August 2026)","short_title":"Dorchester County MD one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Dorchester County, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Dorchester County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-01","enacted_date":"2026-08-01","expires_date":"2027-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"The Dorchester County Council passed a resolution adopting a ONE-YEAR moratorium on data centers, and in the same action HIRED A LOBBYING FIRM to help the council advance its interests. That pairing is unusual and worth recording: a small Eastern Shore county concluded that pausing local approvals was not by itself sufficient, and that it also needed representation in whatever is decided above it. The council and staff determined they needed more time to research and understand the complexities associated with data centers before creating permanent policies and zoning laws, with the aim of gathering enough information over twelve months to make well-informed decisions. Staff must return in SPRING 2027 with initial findings and recommendations, and a COMMITTEE OF STAKEHOLDERS including both citizens AND INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS is to be formed — the inclusion of industry is deliberate and distinguishes this from the resident-only advisory groups elsewhere in this dataset. County Manager Jerry Jones said the approach would begin by looking at what other counties have done in similar situations before proposing a structure. The territorial limit is the standard one and the council was explicit about it: the moratorium applies ONLY to the UNINCORPORATED areas of Dorchester County. The council plans to inform municipal partners such as Hurlock, and Council President Lenny Pfeffer noted that 'Each municipality would have to make their own legislation as to what they're going to do.'","summary_technical":"Dorchester County, Md. — RESOLUTION adopting a ONE-YEAR moratorium on data centers, passed by the County Council in August 2026, together with THE HIRING OF A LOBBYING FIRM to help the council advance its interests. THE LOBBYING RETENTION IS THE DISTINGUISHING FEATURE: no other local instrument in this dataset pairs a moratorium with external representation. It reflects a judgment that a local pause alone is insufficient where the decisive rules \\u2014 Maryland state legislation, PJM interconnection policy, utility ratemaking \\u2014 are set above the county, and that a small jurisdiction needs a voice in those fora as well as control of its own permits. STATED PURPOSE: the council and staff determined they needed more time to research and understand the complexities associated with data centers BEFORE creating permanent policies and zoning laws, with the goal of gathering sufficient information over the 12 months to make well-informed decisions. DELIVERABLES AND PROCESS: staff to return in SPRING 2027 with initial findings and recommendations; a STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE to be formed INCLUDING CITIZENS AND INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS \\u2014 the express inclusion of industry contrasts with the resident-and-city-staff task forces contemplated in fl-palm-beach-county-hyperscale-moratorium-pending-2026 and the citizen study group in the Walker County Georgia measure; staff to research how other counties have managed similar situations and propose a committee structure. County Manager JERRY JONES: 'I would suggest that we go back and look at what other counties have done in a similar situation and then we'll come back to you with suggestions on a game plan.' TERRITORIAL LIMIT, stated expressly: the moratorium applies ONLY TO THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS of Dorchester County. The council plans to inform municipal partners such as HURLOCK; Council President LENNY PFEFFER: 'Each municipality would have to make their own legislation as to what they're going to do.' This is the same county/municipality boundary recorded on ky-logan-county-dc-moratorium-2026 and wi-cottage-grove-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026, where the village had to act because the county pause did not reach it.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Dorchester County, Maryland","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals in unincorporated Dorchester County; incorporated municipalities such as Hurlock are unaffected and must legislate separately","citation":"Dorchester County, Md. — resolution adopting a one-year data center moratorium in unincorporated areas (August 2026)","source_url":"https://www.cecildaily.com/dorchester-county-approves-1-year-moratorium-on-data-centers/article_0e6ed15f-7975-4099-b4db-b5bb6fac8ab5.html","source_title":"Dorchester County approves 1-year moratorium on data centers — Cecil Daily","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Dorchester County Council; Dorchester County planning and zoning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No data center approval may issue in unincorporated Dorchester County during the moratorium year"},{"id":"tn-carter-county-dc-crypto-moratorium-2026","title":"Carter County, Tennessee — County Commission Approves a One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers AND Crypto Mining to Investigate Environmental and Community Impact (August 2026)","short_title":"Carter County TN data center and crypto mining moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Carter County, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Carter County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-01","enacted_date":"2026-08-01","expires_date":"2027-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-21","summary_plain":"The Carter County Commission voted and approved a one-year moratorium on DATA CENTERS AND CRYPTO MINING on a Monday night in August 2026, following public comments. The stated purpose is to allow the county to investigate environmental and community impact. Covering cryptocurrency mining alongside data centers is the detail that matters. A moratorium naming only 'data centers' can be argued not to reach a mining operation, which is legally a different use even though it presents the same electrical load, heat and noise profile to a neighbour. Carter County is one of a small number of jurisdictions in this dataset that closed that gap in the drafting rather than discovering it later — Garfield Township Michigan, Madison County Arkansas, Carlton County Minnesota and Austin County Texas did the same. Carter County sits in the northeastern corner of Tennessee, and its action is part of a substantial Tennessee wave: this dataset already indexes moratoriums or data center measures in Knox County, Knoxville, Hamblen County, Hamilton County, Coffee County, Shelbyville, Spring City, McMinnville, Paris, Cedar Hill, Somerville, Johnson City, Nashville and Anderson County.","summary_technical":"Carter County, Tenn. — ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM on DATA CENTERS AND CRYPTO MINING, approved by the County Commission on a Monday night in August 2026 following public comments, as part of a slate of items advanced from the Budget Committee and Financial Management Committee. STATED PURPOSE: to allow the county to investigate ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACT. THE CRYPTOCURRENCY MINING COVERAGE IS THE SUBSTANTIVE DRAFTING POINT: a moratorium drafted around 'data centers' alone is open to the argument that a cryptocurrency mining operation is a distinct use \\u2014 it does not provide colocation or cloud services, and may be characterised as light industrial or even accessory \\u2014 notwithstanding that its electrical load, waste heat and fan noise are indistinguishable to an adjacent property owner. Jurisdictions in this dataset that closed the gap expressly are mi-garfield-township-dc-crypto-moratorium-2026, ar-madison-county-dc-moratorium-3yr-2026 (reaching 'digital asset mining businesses'), mn-carlton-county-dc-moratorium-2026 and tx-austin-county-dc-bess-moratorium-2026 (reaching battery storage instead). Those that did not may face the argument. PROCEDURAL NOTE: the moratorium passed within a block of Budget Committee and Financial Management Committee items rather than as a standalone land-use action, which suggests it was uncontested at the commission level despite the public comment period. TENNESSEE CONTEXT: Carter County joins an unusually dense state cohort already indexed here \\u2014 tn-knox-county-dc-moratorium-2026, tn-knoxville-dc-moratorium-emergency-ord-2026, hamblen-county-tn-dc-moratorium-2026, tn-hamilton-county-proposed-one-year-moratorium-on-data-centers-in-unincor-2026, coffee-county-tn-dc-moratorium-2026, shelbyville-tn-dc-moratorium-2026, spring-city-tn-2yr-dc-moratorium-2026, mcminnville-tn-dc-moratorium-2026, tn-paris-data-center-moratorium-2026, cedar-hill-tn-dc-moratorium-2026, tn-somerville-tennessee-somerville-18-month-data-center-moratorium-2026, johnson-city-tn-dc-moratorium-2025, nashville-metro-data-center-moratorium-2026 and anderson-county-tn-data-center-moratorium-2026.","who_is_protected":"Carter County, Tennessee residents; county environmental and community conditions","who_must_comply":"Developers and operators of data centers or cryptocurrency mining facilities seeking approvals in Carter County during the moratorium year","citation":"Carter County, Tenn. — one-year moratorium on data centers and crypto mining (approved August 2026)","source_url":"https://wcyb.com/news/local/carter-county-commission-approves-moratorium-on-data-centers-for-1-year","source_title":"Carter County Commission approves moratorium on data centers for 1 year — WCYB","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Carter County Commission; county permitting authorities","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No data center or crypto mining approval may issue during the one-year moratorium"},{"id":"mi-ypsilanti-township-electric-utility-moratorium-2026","title":"Ypsilanti Township, Michigan — Six-Month Moratorium on MAJOR ELECTRIC UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE Rather Than on Data Centers, Reaching the Substation for a University of Michigan and Los Alamos National Laboratory Computing Facility (August 18, 2026)","short_title":"Ypsilanti Township MI electric utility infrastructure moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Ypsilanti Township, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Washtenaw County","city":"Ypsilanti Township","topics":["data-centers","public-sector","consumer-protection","national-security"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-18","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","expires_date":"2027-02-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Ypsilanti Township's Board of Trustees unanimously approved a land-use moratorium on August 18, 2026 — and the thing it regulates is not data centers. It places a SIX-MONTH PAUSE on land use for the establishment or substantial expansion of a MAJOR ELECTRIC UTILITY FACILITY. That is a genuinely different instrument from everything else in this dataset, and it is the most transferable idea recovered in this triage. A hyperscale computing facility cannot run without dedicated high-capacity power, which in practice means a new on-site substation. A township that regulates the SUBSTATION reaches the project without ever having to define, classify or prohibit a 'data center' — and without the definitional fights that have forced other jurisdictions to amend their codes. The target here is specific. The University of Michigan had announced days earlier that it had selected a preferred location for what it describes as a computing research facility, on a Textile Road plot the university confirmed purchasing in March. The project includes a U-M academic research facility AND A CLASSIFIED RESEARCH FACILITY FOR LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY's work — and an electrical substation, which U-M said it would build with DTE Energy as a dedicated on-site facility. Township Supervisor Brenda Stumbo said the pause allows the township to evaluate and adopt ordinances regulating the kind of infrastructure required to power projects like it. The township is therefore asserting land-use authority over the power supply to a federal national-laboratory classified facility, which is an unusual posture worth watching.","summary_technical":"Charter Township of Ypsilanti, Mich. (Washtenaw County) — LAND-USE MORATORIUM approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Board of Trustees at its meeting of AUGUST 18, 2026, placing a SIX-MONTH PAUSE on land use for the ESTABLISHMENT OR SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF A MAJOR ELECTRIC UTILITY FACILITY. THE INSTRUMENT IS THE POINT AND IT IS NOVEL IN THIS DATASET: every other local measure indexed here regulates the DATA CENTER \\u2014 by prohibiting it, pausing its applications, confining it to a district, or conditioning it on a permit \\u2014 and each therefore depends on defining the use, a definitional problem that has repeatedly defeated municipalities (see oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026, where the code had no definition and a data center could be admitted as a WAREHOUSE). Ypsilanti Township instead regulates THE POWER INFRASTRUCTURE the facility cannot operate without. A hyperscale or research computing campus requires dedicated high-capacity supply, which in practice requires a new substation; a moratorium on major electric utility facilities reaches the project through an unambiguous, long-established land-use category, WITHOUT requiring the township to define 'data center' at all. For any jurisdiction whose code is silent on data centers, this is the fastest available route to jurisdiction. TARGET PROJECT: the UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN announced in the preceding week a preferred location for what it describes as a COMPUTING RESEARCH FACILITY, on the TEXTILE ROAD plot the university confirmed purchasing in March 2026, having previously also considered a site shared with the American Center for Mobility near Willow Run Airport. THE PROJECT COMPRISES a U-M academic research facility, A CLASSIFIED RESEARCH FACILITY FOR LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY's work, AND AN ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION \\u2014 U-M stated it would partner with DTE ENERGY to build a dedicated on-site substation to support the project. STATED PURPOSE (Township Supervisor BRENDA STUMBO): time for the township to evaluate and adopt appropriate ordinances regulating the infrastructure required to power projects such as the U-M and LANL facility. JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION WORTH WATCHING, recorded but NOT resolved: the township is asserting land-use authority over the power supply to a federal national-laboratory CLASSIFIED facility sited on state university land. Michigan township zoning authority over a state university's own property, and any federal preemption attaching to LANL's classified work, are unaddressed in the located source and are live issues.","who_is_protected":"Ypsilanti Township residents in Washtenaw County, Michigan; township electrical infrastructure and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Any party establishing or substantially expanding a major electric utility facility in Ypsilanti Township — including the University of Michigan and DTE Energy in respect of the proposed dedicated on-site substation","citation":"Charter Township of Ypsilanti, Mich. — six-month land-use moratorium on major electric utility facilities (adopted August 18, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.easternecho.com/article/2026/08/ypsilanti-township-issues-land-use-moratorium-impacting-data-centers","source_title":"Ypsilanti Township issues land-use moratorium impacting data centers — The Eastern Echo","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Ypsilanti Township Board of Trustees; township zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No land use for establishment or substantial expansion of a major electric utility facility may be approved during the six-month pause"},{"id":"nc-holly-springs-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Holly Springs, North Carolina — 12-Month Moratorium Covering Data Centers, Cryptocurrency Mining and Data Processing Across Town Limits AND Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, With the Town Manager Advising the Town Can Regulate Them But CANNOT Ban Them (June 16, 2026)","short_title":"Holly Springs NC 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Holly Springs, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Wake County","city":"Holly Springs","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-17","enacted_date":"2026-06-16","expires_date":"2027-06-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Holly Springs Town Council unanimously approved a twelve-month moratorium on new data center applications on June 16, 2026. It took effect the next day and runs through June 16, 2027, though the town can lift it earlier if it adopts new regulations first. Two features are worth recording. The coverage is broad in both subject and territory: it applies to data centers, CRYPTOCURRENCY MINING OPERATIONS, data processing facilities and related uses, and it reaches not only the town limits but HOLLY SPRINGS' EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION — the area outside the corporate boundary over which North Carolina municipalities may exercise planning authority. Most municipal moratoriums in this dataset stop at the town line, which leaves the immediately adjacent land, often the most attractive to a developer, entirely unprotected. The second feature is a legal limit the town put on the record itself. On August 18, 2026, two months into the pause, Town Manager Randy Harrington told the Council that Holly Springs CAN adopt rules governing where and how data centers operate, but CANNOT SIMPLY PROHIBIT THEM from locating in town. That distinction — regulate yes, ban no — is the constraint under which a great many of the measures in this dataset operate, and it is rarely stated so plainly by the jurisdiction's own manager. During the pause the town is studying water use, power demand, noise and where facilities could locate, and whether its existing development rules are adequate for today's data centers.","summary_technical":"Town of Holly Springs, N.C. (Wake County) — 12-MONTH MORATORIUM on new data center applications, approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Town Council on JUNE 16, 2026, EFFECTIVE JUNE 17, 2026 and running THROUGH JUNE 16, 2027, with the town able to lift it earlier if it adopts new regulations. SUBJECT SCOPE: data centers, CRYPTOCURRENCY MINING OPERATIONS, DATA PROCESSING FACILITIES and related uses \\u2014 a three-part formulation that closes the mining gap and the processing-facility gap together. TERRITORIAL SCOPE, and the feature worth copying: the moratorium applies within TOWN LIMITS AND HOLLY SPRINGS' EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. North Carolina municipalities may exercise planning and development regulation within a defined ETJ beyond the corporate boundary; a moratorium that stops at the town line leaves the adjoining land \\u2014 typically cheaper, larger-parcelled and closer to transmission, therefore the most attractive to a developer \\u2014 unprotected. oh-athens-dc-moratorium-ord-70-26 is the cautionary case: its moratorium did not reach the site that prompted it BECAUSE that site lay outside the city limits. Holly Springs extended to the limit of its authority. OPERATIVE EFFECT: stops the acceptance, processing AND approval of applications while the town studies whether existing development rules are adequate for today's data centers, examining water use, power demand, noise and permissible locations. THE LEGAL CONSTRAINT STATED ON THE RECORD: on AUGUST 18, 2026, two months into the pause, TOWN MANAGER RANDY HARRINGTON advised the Council that Holly Springs CAN ADOPT RULES GOVERNING WHERE AND HOW data centers operate BUT CANNOT SIMPLY PROHIBIT THEM from locating in town. This is the regulate-but-not-exclude boundary that constrains most municipal action in this dataset, and it is seldom articulated by a jurisdiction's own manager. It sits in tension with the outright prohibitions recorded elsewhere \\u2014 nj-cherry-hill-dc-prohibited-use-2026, ky-woodford-county-permanent-dc-ban-2026, fl-escambia-county-large-dc-ban-2026 \\u2014 and the difference is presumably a matter of differing state zoning-enabling law; that comparison is flagged, not resolved. POSTURE: no data center development was under review when Council approved the moratorium. REGIONAL: Wake County, adjacent to Cary, whose 18-month moratorium is indexed as nc-cary-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026.","who_is_protected":"Holly Springs residents, and residents of the town's extraterritorial jurisdiction in Wake County, North Carolina","who_must_comply":"Applicants for data centers, cryptocurrency mining operations, data processing facilities and related uses within Holly Springs town limits or its extraterritorial jurisdiction","citation":"Town of Holly Springs, N.C. — 12-month data center moratorium (approved June 16, 2026; effective June 17, 2026 through June 16, 2027)","source_url":"https://www.hollyspringsupdate.com/p/holly-springs-can-regulate-data-centers","source_title":"Holly Springs can regulate data centers, but town manager says it can't ban them — Holly Springs Update","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Holly Springs Planning and Zoning / Holly Springs Town Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No covered application may be accepted, processed or approved during the moratorium"},{"id":"ca-tulare-county-ai-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Tulare County, California — Interim Ordinance Pausing New Data Center Development (Adopted August 18, 2026 for 45 Days; Extended 10 Months 15 Days to August 2027) and Board Position Opposing Data Centers","short_title":"Tulare County CA data center moratorium (extended to Aug 2027)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Tulare County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Tulare County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-18","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","last_verified_date":"2026-10-03","summary_plain":"The Tulare County Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance in August 2026 banning consideration of any new data center development for FORTY-FIVE DAYS — a 45-day moratorium on consideration of artificial intelligence data centers specifically. The driver is groundwater. Tulare County sits in California's San Joaquin Valley and is subject to obligations under the SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT, the state law requiring over-drafted basins to reach sustainable extraction; groundwater sustainability agency boards operate throughout the county. Concerns over how much groundwater AI data centers could extract prompted the ordinance directly. Supervisor Larry Micari referred to the groundwater sustainability agency boards and the issues already facing county farming. The stated purpose is to give county planners time to alter zoning regulations that are ill-prepared to consider the water, energy and infrastructure demands AI data centers bring. This is the same structural conflict recorded for Patterson, California — a jurisdiction already under a legal duty to reduce groundwater pumping cannot absorb a large new industrial water user without that duty being implicated — but here at county scale across an agricultural region. Forty-five days is the initial term California's urgency-ordinance procedure allows, and it is extendable; supervisors were separately discussing a measure to automatically oppose AI data centers within county boundaries, which would be a standing position rather than a pause.","summary_technical":"Tulare County, Cal. — ORDINANCE adopted by the Board of Supervisors at its August 2026 meeting imposing a 45-DAY MORATORIUM on CONSIDERATION of any artificial intelligence data centers, banning consideration of any new data center development for that period. DRIVER: concerns over HOW MUCH GROUNDWATER AI data centers could extract. REGULATORY CONTEXT, which is what distinguishes this from a generic water objection: Tulare County lies in the San Joaquin Valley and is subject to the SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT (SGMA), under which groundwater sustainability agencies operate throughout the county and over-drafted basins must achieve sustainable yield on a statutory timetable. A county in that posture faces a CONFLICT OF LEGAL DUTIES when a large new industrial groundwater user applies, not merely a policy preference \\u2014 the same structure recorded on ca-patterson-dc-moratorium-ord-890-2026, where the city was already obliged to REDUCE its pumping, but here at county scale across an agricultural economy. Supervisor LARRY MICARI referenced the groundwater sustainability agency boards and existing pressures on county farming. STATED PURPOSE: to give COUNTY PLANNERS TIME TO ALTER ZONING REGULATIONS that are ILL-PREPARED to consider the water, energy and infrastructure demands of AI data centers. PROCEDURAL FORM: 45 days is the initial term available under California's interim urgency ordinance procedure (Cal. Gov. Code \\u00a7 65858), extendable by 10 months 15 days and then a further year \\u2014 the same sequence Patterson used and which Tulare County may follow; THE SOURCE DOES NOT STATE whether an extension was sought, so expires_date is the unextended 45-day endpoint and SHOULD BE PRESUMED SUPERSEDED. SEPARATE MEASURE UNDER DISCUSSION: Supervisors Dennis Townsend and Larry Micari discussed a measure TO AUTOMATICALLY OPPOSE artificial intelligence data centers within county boundaries \\u2014 a standing policy of opposition rather than a land-use pause, which is a distinct instrument and is NOT recorded here as adopted. [UPDATE 2026-10-01] ORIGINAL ADOPTION DATE: Aug. 18, 2026 (The Business Journal; Govly summary of the Aug. 18, 2026 Board of Supervisors meeting) — the earlier 2026-08-11 date is not supported by sources opened; the unextended 45-day term therefore ran to about Oct. 2, 2026, not Sept. 25. EXTENSION: on Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2026 the Board voted 5-0 (KMPH/FOX26; The Sun-Gazette) to extend the moratorium on new data center development in unincorporated Tulare County by 10 months and 15 days (KMPH; The Business Journal; The Sun-Gazette says 'another 10 months'), keeping it in place until August 2027 (The Business Journal; exact end date not stated, so expires_date is null). The Resource Management Agency was directed to return with proposed permanent zoning regulations before the interim ordinance expires. SEPARATE MEASURE NOW ADOPTED: the same day the Board voted 3-2 (Micari, Vander Poel, Shuklian yes; Valero, Townsend no) to adopt a position opposing data center development within Tulare County and approve a template letter of opposition (The Business Journal, citing a community coalition release).","who_is_protected":"Tulare County residents and agricultural groundwater users in the San Joaquin Valley; basin sustainability under SGMA","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking consideration of new AI data center development in Tulare County during the 45-day period","citation":"Tulare County, Cal. — 45-day ordinance banning consideration of new AI data center development (August 2026)","source_url":"https://www.bakersfield.com/news/sjv-water-tulare-county-hits-pause-on-ai-data-centers/article_e9307989-8728-4063-924c-0eb986eea60c.html","source_title":"SJV Water: Tulare County hits pause on AI data centers — Bakersfield Californian","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Tulare County Resource Management Agency / Tulare County Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No new data center development may be considered during the 45-day period"},{"id":"ca-commerce-dc-urgency-moratorium-2026","title":"Commerce, California — Immediate 45-Day Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Approval of Land-Use Permits, Entitlements OR AGREEMENTS Involving Data Center Development Anywhere in the City (August 11, 2026)","short_title":"Commerce CA 45-day data center urgency ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Commerce, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Los Angeles County","city":"Commerce","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"expired","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-11","enacted_date":"2026-08-11","expires_date":"2026-09-25","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"The Commerce City Council adopted an URGENCY ORDINANCE at its August 11, 2026 meeting imposing an immediate forty-five-day moratorium on new data center development, while officials determine how the massive power, water and infrastructure demands of such facilities should be regulated. City officials cited electricity demand, water use, noise and air quality. The drafting detail worth noting is the breadth of what is frozen: the ordinance temporarily prohibits approvals of LAND-USE PERMITS, ENTITLEMENTS OR AGREEMENTS involving data center development ANYWHERE IN COMMERCE. Including AGREEMENTS is the part most municipal pauses miss. A moratorium that stops permits and entitlements but says nothing about agreements leaves the city free to enter — or bound by — a development agreement, an annexation agreement or a memorandum of understanding that vests rights the later ordinance cannot touch. That is precisely how Rockford Illinois, Cle Elum Washington and Lowell Massachusetts each lost the project their moratorium was written for. Commerce closed all three doors at once. Forty-five days is the initial term California's urgency ordinance procedure allows before extension, so this measure has very likely been extended or superseded and should be rechecked. Commerce is a small, heavily industrial city in Los Angeles County.","summary_technical":"City of Commerce, Cal. (Los Angeles County) — URGENCY ORDINANCE adopted by the City Council at its AUGUST 11, 2026 meeting, imposing an IMMEDIATE 45-DAY MORATORIUM on new data center development. STATED GROUNDS: the massive ELECTRICITY DEMAND, WATER USE, NOISE AND AIR QUALITY implications of the facilities, pending a determination of how they should be regulated. OPERATIVE BREADTH, and the transferable drafting: the ordinance temporarily prohibits approvals of LAND-USE PERMITS, ENTITLEMENTS **OR AGREEMENTS** involving data center development ANYWHERE IN COMMERCE. THE INCLUSION OF 'AGREEMENTS' IS THE CRITICAL TERM AND IS ABSENT FROM MOST MUNICIPAL MORATORIUMS IN THIS DATASET. A pause that reaches only permits and entitlements does not prevent the municipality from executing, or being bound by, a DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, ANNEXATION AGREEMENT or memorandum that vests rights surviving the later ordinance. Three entries here document exactly that failure: il-rockford-dc-moratorium-2026 (a pre-existing ANNEXATION AGREEMENT put the Monarch site outside the moratorium), wa-cle-elum-emergency-dc-moratorium-2026 (a 2002 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT may permit the Blue Fern project regardless), and litig-lowell-ma-markley-diesel-generator-injunction-2026 (Markley sued and SETTLED for the right to proceed with pre-moratorium plans). Commerce's formulation forecloses the permit route, the entitlement route and the agreement route together. PROCEDURAL FORM: an interim urgency ordinance under Cal. Gov. Code \\u00a7 65858, whose initial term is 45 days, extendable by 10 months 15 days and then one further year \\u2014 the sequence ca-patterson-dc-moratorium-ord-890-2026 followed through Ordinances 889 and 890. THE SOURCE DOES NOT REPORT ANY EXTENSION, so expires_date is the unextended 45-day endpoint and SHOULD BE PRESUMED SUPERSEDED. JURISDICTION: Commerce is a small, heavily industrial city in Los Angeles County, a profile that makes by-right industrial admission of a data center a live risk absent specific regulation.","who_is_protected":"Commerce, California residents; city air quality, water supply and electrical capacity","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking land-use permits, entitlements or agreements involving data center development anywhere in the City of Commerce","citation":"City of Commerce, Cal. — urgency ordinance imposing a 45-day data center moratorium (adopted August 11, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.loscerritosnews.net/2026/08/13/commerce-halts-data-center-development-with-emergency-45-day-moratorium/","source_title":"Commerce Halts Data Center Development With Emergency 45-Day Moratorium — Los Cerritos Community News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Commerce planning and development / Commerce City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No land-use permit, entitlement or agreement involving data center development may be approved during the 45-day period"},{"id":"ga-forest-park-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Forest Park, Georgia — 90-Day Data Center Moratorium Adopted Because Data Centers Are Currently Allowed BY RIGHT, Which Is How Digital Realty Built One Without Discretionary Review (2026)","short_title":"Forest Park GA 90-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Forest Park, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Clayton County","city":"Forest Park","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-31","enacted_date":"2026-08-31","expires_date":"2026-11-29","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Forest Park City Council approved a NINETY-DAY data center moratorium to give the city time to draft changes to its zoning laws. The reason is stated bluntly by the city manager and is the whole value of this entry: under Forest Park's CURRENT zoning regulations, DATA CENTERS ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT. City Manager Carl Geffken explained that this is precisely why DIGITAL REALTY was able to come to Forest Park and build a new data center — no discretionary approval was required, so the city had no occasion to review power draw, water use, noise or siting, and no opportunity to say no. That is a live and largely invisible exposure. A by-right use is approved administratively against fixed standards; if a code permits data centers by right in industrial zones, a hyperscale operator can build without the council ever voting. Forest Park is one of the few jurisdictions in this dataset to say out loud that a facility already got built that way. The city's posture is notably not oppositional. Geffken said: 'Our goal, frankly, is to not stop data centers' — citing the benefits they bring, including additional funding for city infrastructure, economic development and public safety. This is a jurisdiction seeking REVIEW AUTHORITY, not exclusion, and it is recorded at limited strength because ninety days is short and confers no substantive standard.","summary_technical":"City of Forest Park, Ga. (Clayton County) — 90-DAY data center moratorium approved by the City Council on the 31st, to give the city time to DRAFT CHANGES TO ITS ZONING LAWS. THE STATED DEFECT IS THE POINT OF THIS ENTRY: under Forest Park's current zoning regulations DATA CENTERS ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT. City Manager CARL GEFFKEN stated that the by-right posture is WHY DIGITAL REALTY WAS ABLE TO COME TO FOREST PARK AND BUILD A NEW DATA CENTER. A by-right use is approved administratively against fixed standards with no discretionary review and no council vote; the municipality has no occasion to examine power draw, water consumption, noise, generator siting or buffering, and no lawful basis to refuse. THIS IS THE SINGLE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL AND LEAST VISIBLE CODE CONDITION IN THIS SUBJECT AREA, and Forest Park is among the few jurisdictions in this dataset to state on the record that a facility ALREADY GOT BUILT THAT WAY. Compare tx-north-richland-hills-dc-sup-regulations-2026, which converted data centers FROM by-right TO special-use permit \\u2014 the single most consequential regulatory step short of prohibition \\u2014 and oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026, where the code lacked a definition entirely and a data center could enter as a warehouse. A jurisdiction reviewing its exposure should ask both questions: is the use defined, and is it by right. STATED POSTURE, which distinguishes Forest Park from most entries here: Geffken said 'Our goal, frankly, is to not stop data centers', citing benefits including additional funding for city infrastructure, economic development and public safety. The city seeks REVIEW AUTHORITY rather than exclusion. strength is `limited`: 90 days is among the shortest terms in this dataset, imposes no substantive standard, and will have lapsed or been extended \\u2014 the operative instrument will be the zoning amendment that follows, which is not yet indexed.","who_is_protected":"Forest Park, Georgia residents in Clayton County, for the 90-day drafting window","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to build data centers in Forest Park during the 90-day moratorium","citation":"City of Forest Park, Ga. — 90-day data center moratorium (approved 2026)","source_url":"https://www.news-daily.com/news/forest-park-council-passes-90-day-data-center-moratorium/article_ccfd2184-acbb-445f-8fa5-fe46a172a9f0.html","source_title":"Forest Park Council passes 90-day data center moratorium — Clayton News-Daily","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Forest Park zoning administration / Forest Park City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center approvals are paused for 90 days"},{"id":"ky-nicholasville-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Nicholasville, Kentucky — Six-Month Data Center Moratorium Adopted So the City Commission and Residents Can Learn What Data Centers Are, Amid Utility Bill, Property Tax and Farm-Community Water Concerns (August 2026)","short_title":"Nicholasville KY six-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Nicholasville, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Jessamine County","city":"Nicholasville","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-10","enacted_date":"2026-08-10","expires_date":"2027-02-10","last_verified_date":"2026-10-03","summary_plain":"The City of Nicholasville passed a six-month moratorium on data centers in August 2026. What the record shows about WHY is unusually candid and worth preserving. Residents at the meeting said they supported the moratorium so that they AND THE CITY COMMISSION could learn more about what data centers actually are — and asked commissioners to educate themselves and the community during the six months. That is a different justification from the impact-based recitals most moratoriums carry, and closer to Westerly Rhode Island's admission that the town lacked the capacity to review such an application at all. Residents said the national conversation about data centers had left them concerned about the potential impact on their community, and named three specific worries: UTILITY COSTS, PROPERTY TAXES and WATER USAGE. Resident Nicole Merz put the water point in local terms: 'We worry about water and especially being a farm-type community all around us.' The property tax concern is notable because it runs opposite to the usual economic argument for data centers, which is that they add to the tax base; residents here expected their own bills to rise. Nicholasville is the seat of Jessamine County, immediately south of Lexington-Fayette, whose own data center moratorium is separately indexed — so this sits inside a Bluegrass-region cluster that also includes Woodford County's permanent ban and Logan and Bell Counties' pauses.","summary_technical":"City of Nicholasville, Ky. (Jessamine County) — SIX-MONTH MORATORIUM on data centers, passed in early August 2026. STATED RATIONALE, as recorded at the commission meeting: residents supported the moratorium SO THAT THEY AND THE CITY COMMISSION COULD LEARN MORE ABOUT WHAT DATA CENTERS ARE, and asked commissioners to educate themselves and the community during the six months. This is a CAPACITY-AND-KNOWLEDGE rationale rather than an impact rationale \\u2014 the same footing as ri-westerly-dc-moratorium-2026, where the town cited its own lack of zoning regulations and resources, and a more defensible basis for an interim ordinance than a contested factual claim about harm. RESIDENT CONCERNS ON THE RECORD: UTILITY COSTS, PROPERTY TAXES and WATER USAGE, with the national data center debate cited as the trigger. THE PROPERTY TAX CONCERN CUTS AGAINST THE STANDARD ECONOMIC CASE for data centers, which is tax-base expansion; residents anticipated their own liabilities rising rather than falling \\u2014 a perception issue that appears in the Knoxville recital that data centers 'often provide few jobs' (tn-knoxville-dc-moratorium-emergency-ord-2026) and in the St. Louis decision to pair regulation with a BAN ON CITY TAX INCENTIVES. WATER FRAMING: resident Nicole Merz \\u2014 'We worry about water and especially being a farm-type community all around us' \\u2014 identifying agricultural rather than municipal supply as the exposure. REGIONAL CLUSTER: Nicholasville is the seat of Jessamine County immediately south of Lexington-Fayette, whose moratorium is indexed as ky-lexington-fayette-urban-county-moratorium-on-data-center-permits-development-plans-and-2026. Kentucky measures already indexed include ky-woodford-county-permanent-dc-ban-2026 (the state's first permanent county ban), ky-logan-county-dc-moratorium-2026, ky-bell-county-kentucky-two-year-moratorium-on-data-center-construction-and-ope-2026 and ky-beshear-eo-data-center-development-2026.","who_is_protected":"Nicholasville, Kentucky residents and utility customers; surrounding Jessamine County agricultural water users","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals in Nicholasville during the six-month moratorium","citation":"City of Nicholasville, Ky. — six-month data center moratorium (passed August 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wkyt.com/2026/08/11/nicholasville-passes-six-month-moratorium-data-centers/","source_title":"Nicholasville passes six-month moratorium on data centers — WKYT","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Nicholasville / Nicholasville City Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center approvals are paused for six months"},{"id":"litig-raeden-v-gibraltar-mi-moratorium-challenge-2026","title":"Raeden Acquisitions and Cal Realty v. City of Gibraltar — FEDERAL Lawsuit Claiming a One-Year Data Center Moratorium Unlawfully Halted a 100-Megawatt Application, With the Developer Seeking Review Under the City's EXISTING Code (2026)","short_title":"Raeden v. Gibraltar MI data center moratorium challenge (2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Wayne County","city":"Gibraltar","topics":["data-centers","public-sector","consumer-protection"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Raeden Acquisitions and Cal Realty have filed a FEDERAL lawsuit against the City of Gibraltar, Michigan, claiming that the city's one-year data center moratorium UNLAWFULLY STOPPED their application for a proposed 100-MEGAWATT data center from moving forward. This is the second developer challenge to a municipal data center moratorium indexed in this dataset, after the New Jersey cluster, and it matters because of what the developer says it wants. Raeden President and co-founder Jason Green said the lawsuit is NOT about bypassing the city's review process — it is about GETTING THAT PROCESS MOVING AGAIN and ensuring the application is reviewed UNDER GIBRALTAR'S EXISTING CODE. That framing is the sharpest statement in this dataset of what a moratorium actually does to a pending applicant, and of the legal theory most likely to defeat one. A developer who filed before the pause was adopted has a strong argument that its application vests under the rules in force when it was submitted, and that a municipality cannot change the rules underneath a complete application. The same vesting principle appears repeatedly here from the municipal side: Salem Oregon's moratorium may not reach an application filed days before the vote, Rockford Illinois' does not reach land under a pre-existing annexation agreement, and Cle Elum Washington's may not override a 2002 development agreement. Raeden is asserting that principle affirmatively, in federal court. Nothing has been decided.","summary_technical":"United States federal court — RAEDEN ACQUISITIONS and CAL REALTY v. CITY OF GIBRALTAR, Michigan (Wayne County), a FEDERAL lawsuit claiming the city's ONE-YEAR DATA CENTER MORATORIUM unlawfully stopped the plaintiffs' application for a proposed 100-MEGAWATT data center from moving forward. PLAINTIFFS' STATED OBJECTIVE, per Raeden President and co-founder JASON GREEN: the suit is NOT about bypassing the city's review process but about GETTING THAT PROCESS MOVING AGAIN and ENSURING THE APPLICATION IS REVIEWED UNDER GIBRALTAR'S EXISTING CODE. THAT IS THE VESTED-APPLICATION THEORY STATED PLAINLY, and it is the counterpart to a pattern documented repeatedly from the municipal side in this dataset: or-salem-dc-moratorium-process-2026 (a Verrus application filed days before the council vote, which reporting held the moratorium may not reach), il-rockford-dc-moratorium-2026 (a pre-existing annexation agreement placing the Monarch site outside the pause), wa-cle-elum-emergency-dc-moratorium-2026 (a 2002 development agreement that may permit the Blue Fern project regardless) and litig-lowell-ma-markley-diesel-generator-injunction-2026 (Markley sued over a March 2026 moratorium and settled for the right to proceed with pre-moratorium plans). Raeden asserts the principle affirmatively rather than relying on it defensively. SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE INDEXED COHORT: this is the SECOND developer challenge to municipal data center moratoriums recorded here, after litig-nj-developer-suits-municipal-dc-bans-2026, and the two plead different theories \\u2014 the New Jersey suits attack the ordinances as arbitrary and, in Monroe Township's case, as a First Amendment burden, whereas Raeden's framing is procedural and vesting-based, which is the narrower and historically more successful ground. FEDERAL FORUM: the choice of federal court, rather than Michigan circuit court, implies constitutional claims (due process and/or takings) alongside any state land-use theory; THE SPECIFIC CAUSES OF ACTION ARE NOT STATED in the located source. CONTEXT: Michigan officials elsewhere have expressly designed around this exposure \\u2014 mi-garfield-township-dc-crypto-moratorium-2026 records township officials choosing a zoning-ordinance-amendment route because municipalities enacting 'knee-jerk moratoriums' 'are being challenged and losing in court'. Gibraltar's own moratorium is NOT separately indexed. STATUS: complaint stage, no ruling; strength `unknown`. [2026-10-01] Filed Aug. 17, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by Raeden Acquisitions with CAL Realty LLC (CBS Detroit; News-Herald: 'U.S. District Court in Detroit'). Site: former McLouth steel mill, 27800 W. Jefferson Ave. (CAL owns; Raeden under purchase agreement). City response (Facebook post reported by News-Herald Sept. 30): McKenna hired to draft a data center zoning ordinance; Planning Commission, Ordinance Steering Committee and counsel reviewed the draft; city will vigorously defend. Underlying moratorium: one-year, approved in March (News-Herald). Case number not reported.","who_is_protected":"Not a protective instrument — this is a developer challenge to a protective municipal measure; the interests at stake are Gibraltar residents' in the moratorium's survival","who_must_comply":"The City of Gibraltar, Michigan, which must defend its one-year data center moratorium in federal court","citation":"Raeden Acquisitions and Cal Realty v. City of Gibraltar, Mich. — federal challenge to a one-year data center moratorium (2026)","source_url":"https://www.wxyz.com/news/data-centers/data-center-developer-sues-gibraltar-claiming-moratorium-unlawfully-halted-project","source_title":"Data center developer sues Gibraltar, claiming moratorium unlawfully halted project — WXYZ Detroit","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Plaintiffs seek to have the moratorium set aside and their 100 MW application reviewed under the existing code; no relief has been ordered"},{"id":"in-warrick-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Warrick County, Indiana — Commissioners Unanimously Pause Data Center Development for 180 Days at a Special 9 a.m. Meeting, After the Area Plan Commission Suspended Its Own Rules to Meet the Timeline (August 11, 2026)","short_title":"Warrick County IN 180-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Warrick County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Warrick County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-11","enacted_date":"2026-08-11","expires_date":"2027-02-07","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"The Warrick County Board of Commissioners voted UNANIMOUSLY on Tuesday, August 11, 2026 to pause any data center development for 180 days. The votes came from Sarah Seaton, Stacey Franz and Terry Phillippe at a SPECIAL MEETING held at 9 a.m. The procedural urgency is the part worth recording. The evening before, the Warrick County Area Plan Commission voted to send the regulating ordinance to the commissioners and SUSPENDED ITS OWN RULES in order to meet the timeline for the special meeting. A plan commission suspending its rules and a board of commissioners convening a special morning session on consecutive days is not how routine zoning work proceeds; it is what a jurisdiction does when it believes an application may arrive before the pause is in place. Several entries in this dataset record jurisdictions that moved at ordinary speed and lost the project to a filing, an annexation agreement or a development agreement that landed first. Warrick County moved fast enough. The purpose of the 180 days is specific: to allow the county's DATA CENTER STUDY COMMITTEE to comb through a proposed ordinance regulating data centers in Warrick County and prepare it to come before the Area Plan Commission for recommendation, with the APC set to discuss that ordinance in November. Warrick County is in southwestern Indiana, near Evansville, in a state where nearly a third of counties had moved to restrict data centers by mid-2026.","summary_technical":"Warrick County, Ind. — 180-DAY MORATORIUM on data center development, approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Board of Commissioners at a SPECIAL MEETING at 9 a.m. on TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2026. VOTING COMMISSIONERS: SARAH SEATON, STACEY FRANZ and TERRY PHILLIPPE. PROCEDURAL POSTURE, and the notable feature: on the MONDAY EVENING immediately preceding, the WARRICK COUNTY AREA PLAN COMMISSION voted to send the ordinance to the commissioners and SUSPENDED ITS RULES TO MEET THE TIMELINE of the special meeting. Consecutive-day action, a rules suspension at the plan commission and a special morning commissioners' meeting together indicate a deliberate effort to have the pause in force before an application could be filed. THIS DATASET DOCUMENTS THE COST OF NOT DOING SO: or-salem-dc-moratorium-process-2026 (application filed days before the vote), il-rockford-dc-moratorium-2026 (annexation agreement), wa-cle-elum-emergency-dc-moratorium-2026 (2002 development agreement) and litig-lowell-ma-markley-diesel-generator-injunction-2026 (pre-moratorium plans preserved by settlement) each failed to reach the project that motivated them. Compare tn-gallatin-dc-application-pause-2026, a 60-day holding action adopted for the same reason. PURPOSE OF THE 180 DAYS: to allow the county's DATA CENTER STUDY COMMITTEE to work through a proposed ordinance regulating data centers and prepare it to come before the Area Plan Commission for recommendation; the APC was set to discuss that ordinance in NOVEMBER. STRUCTURE WORTH NOTING: Warrick County had a study committee and a draft ordinance ALREADY IN PROGRESS when it adopted the pause, which is the inverse of the common pattern in which a jurisdiction adopts a moratorium and only then begins drafting \\u2014 the 180-day term is correspondingly short because the work was already underway. STATE CONTEXT: nearly a third of Indiana counties had moved to restrict data centers by July 2026; other indexed Indiana measures include in-portage-technology-campus-district-2026, madison-county-in-dc-mora-2026, putnam-county-in-dc-moratorium-2026 and boone-county-in-dc-moratorium-2026.","who_is_protected":"Warrick County, Indiana residents","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals in Warrick County during the 180-day pause","citation":"Warrick County, Ind. — 180-day data center moratorium (adopted August 11, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.courierpress.com/story/news/local/2026/08/11/warrick-county-board-of-commissioners-votes-on-data-center-moratorium/91250866007/","source_title":"Warrick County approves moratorium on data centers — Evansville Courier & Press","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Warrick County Area Plan Commission / Warrick County Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center development may not be approved during the 180-day moratorium"},{"id":"mi-east-lansing-dc-moratorium-extension-2026","title":"East Lansing, Michigan — City Council Extends Its Data Center Moratorium Six Months to March, With the Mayor Saying the City Will Propose STRICTER Requirements From the Start to Avoid the Backlash Neighbouring Communities Saw (August 11, 2026)","short_title":"East Lansing MI data center moratorium extension (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"East Lansing, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Ingham County","city":"East Lansing","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-11","enacted_date":"2026-08-11","expires_date":"2027-03-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"East Lansing City Council voted on Tuesday, August 11, 2026 to extend the city's moratorium on data center proposals by SIX MONTHS. The original pause would have expired the following month; it now runs until March, while the city plans zoning changes. What distinguishes this entry is the mayor's stated strategy. Mayor Erik Altmann said the city hopes to AVOID THE BACKLASH SEEN IN NEARBY COMMUNITIES when it comes to write zoning ordinances tailored to data center development — and that it will do so by CONSIDERING THE FEEDBACK RECEIVED IN OTHER COMMUNITIES and PROPOSING STRICTER REQUIREMENTS FROM THE START. That is a deliberate inversion of the usual sequence. The pattern visible across this dataset is that a jurisdiction proposes moderate rules, residents pack the chamber and object, and the council either tightens the rules on the floor or adopts them over unanimous opposition — Joplin Missouri tightened noise and setback limits after months of council pushback, Portage Indiana cut its decibel and height caps on the floor, and Canton Ohio passed its zoning chapter 8-3 while more than fifty speakers objected and dozens more stood outside in the rain. East Lansing is proposing to skip that cycle by starting where those jurisdictions ended up. Michigan has been an active state: this dataset separately indexes Garfield Township's ban, Corunna's ordinance, Utica's extension, Ypsilanti Township's electric utility moratorium and a federal developer challenge to Gibraltar's moratorium.","summary_technical":"City of East Lansing, Mich. (Ingham County) — SIX-MONTH EXTENSION of the city's moratorium on data center proposals, approved by City Council on TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2026. TERM: the originally approved pause would have expired the FOLLOWING MONTH (September 2026); the extension carries it UNTIL MARCH. PURPOSE: the city is planning zoning changes tailored to data center development. STATED DRAFTING STRATEGY, which is the substantive content of this entry \\u2014 Mayor ERIK ALTMANN said the city hopes to AVOID THE BACKLASH SEEN IN NEARBY COMMUNITIES, and will do so by CONSIDERING THE FEEDBACK RECEIVED IN OTHER COMMUNITIES and PROPOSING STRICTER REQUIREMENTS FROM THE START. THIS INVERTS THE DOMINANT SEQUENCE DOCUMENTED IN THIS DATASET: jurisdictions typically propose moderate standards, encounter organised opposition, and then either tighten on the floor or adopt over objection. mo-joplin-dc-regulations-2026 records a council publicly refusing to approve rules it considered too weak, then adopting a 45 dB limit and 600-foot setbacks \\u2014 double the 300 feet first proposed. in-portage-technology-campus-district-2026 records the council cutting its noise cap from 65 to 55 dB and its height limit from 75 to 65 feet BY FLOOR AMENDMENT. oh-canton-dc-zoning-chapter-2026 records adoption 8-3 while more than fifty residents spoke in unanimous opposition and dozens were turned away. East Lansing proposes to begin at the end point of that process, using other municipalities' public records as its evidence base. THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATION for a jurisdiction drafting now is that the tightened-on-the-floor figures in this dataset \\u2014 rather than the originally proposed ones \\u2014 represent the realistic starting position. MICHIGAN CONTEXT: mi-garfield-township-dc-crypto-moratorium-2026, mi-corunna-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026, mi-utica-dc-moratorium-extension-2026, mi-ypsilanti-township-electric-utility-moratorium-2026 and litig-raeden-v-gibraltar-mi-moratorium-challenge-2026 are all separately indexed; Michigan legislators were concurrently pressing for a statewide moratorium.","who_is_protected":"East Lansing, Michigan residents in Ingham County","who_must_comply":"Developers submitting data center proposals in East Lansing during the extended moratorium","citation":"City of East Lansing, Mich. — six-month extension of the data center moratorium (approved August 11, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wkar.org/michigans-data-center-divide/2026-08-12/east-lansing-extends-data-center-moratorium-as-it-plans-zoning-changes","source_title":"East Lansing extends data center moratorium as it plans zoning changes — WKAR","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of East Lansing planning and zoning / East Lansing City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center proposals may not proceed during the extended moratorium"},{"id":"wa-mount-vernon-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Mount Vernon, Washington — Six-Month Moratorium on Data Center Applications Citing Water Use AND THE CITY'S HIGH FLOOD RISK, Joining Skagit County and La Conner (2026)","short_title":"Mount Vernon WA six-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Mount Vernon, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"Skagit County","city":"Mount Vernon","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-14","enacted_date":"2026-08-14","expires_date":"2027-02-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Mount Vernon approved a SIX-MONTH moratorium on applications for data centers, joining other Skagit County municipalities in what local reporting called 'pumping the brakes.' Skagit County itself and the Town of La Conner had already made similar moves. The city had NO PENDING APPLICATIONS at the time; Councilmember Melissa Beaton said they were trying to get ahead of the curve — 'We're just kind of pumping the brakes a little bit, making sure we get this issue right, and that we hear from the community and understand all of the pros and cons.' The rationale is the reason this entry is worth having. Mount Vernon cited data centers' significant water use AND THE CITY'S HIGH FLOOD RISK. Flood risk is a rationale that appears nowhere else in this dataset, and it is a real and specific one for Mount Vernon, which sits on the Skagit River floodplain in northwest Washington. The concern is not the familiar one about a facility consuming scarce water; it is about siting critical, hard-to-relocate infrastructure with substantial backup fuel, battery storage and electrical equipment in a place that floods. That is a hazard-siting question rather than a resource-consumption question, and it suggests a line of analysis — floodplain exposure of data center infrastructure — that most of the jurisdictions in this dataset have not considered at all.","summary_technical":"City of Mount Vernon, Wash. (Skagit County) — SIX-MONTH MORATORIUM on applications for data centers, approved by the City Council on the 14th. POSTURE: the city had NO PENDING APPLICATIONS; Councilmember MELISSA BEATON stated the council was trying to get ahead of the curve, quoted as 'We're just kind of pumping the brakes a little bit, making sure we get this issue right, and that we hear from the community and understand all of the pros and cons.' STATED GROUNDS: data centers' SIGNIFICANT WATER USE and THE CITY'S HIGH FLOOD RISK. THE FLOOD-RISK RATIONALE IS UNIQUE IN THIS DATASET and is substantively distinct from the water objections recorded elsewhere. Every other water-based measure indexed here \\u2014 nv-nye-county-dc-ban-basin-162-2026 (over-appropriated basin), ca-patterson-dc-moratorium-ord-890-2026 (standing duty to reduce groundwater pumping), ca-tulare-county-ai-dc-moratorium-2026 (SGMA obligations), ky-logan-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (water supply capacity study) \\u2014 concerns the facility CONSUMING water. Mount Vernon's concern is the inverse: WATER REACHING THE FACILITY. Mount Vernon lies on the Skagit River floodplain, and the siting question is whether critical, effectively non-relocatable infrastructure carrying substantial diesel or fuel storage, battery energy storage and high-voltage electrical equipment should be placed in a high-flood-hazard area at all. THAT IS A HAZARD-SITING ANALYSIS RATHER THAN A RESOURCE-CONSUMPTION ANALYSIS, and it implicates floodplain development regulation, critical-facility siting standards and, in Washington, Growth Management Act critical-areas provisions \\u2014 a line of inquiry not visible in any other entry in this dataset and directly relevant to the many coastal and riverine jurisdictions indexed here. REGIONAL: Mount Vernon follows SKAGIT COUNTY and the Town of LA CONNER, neither of whose measures is separately indexed. Washington state separately regulates ALPRs under RCW 10.130 (wa-elma-alpr-moratorium-2026) and Cle Elum adopted an emergency data center moratorium (wa-cle-elum-emergency-dc-moratorium-2026).","who_is_protected":"Mount Vernon, Washington residents in Skagit County; the Skagit River floodplain","who_must_comply":"Applicants for data centers in Mount Vernon during the six-month moratorium","citation":"City of Mount Vernon, Wash. — six-month data center application moratorium (approved 2026)","source_url":"https://mybellinghamnow.com/news/297792-mount-vernon-adopts-six-month-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Mount Vernon adopts six-month moratorium on data centers — My Bellingham Now","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Mount Vernon Development Services / Mount Vernon City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center applications may not be accepted during the six-month moratorium"},{"id":"oh-school-ai-policy-mandate-2026","title":"Ohio — FIRST STATE IN THE NATION to Require Every Public School District to Adopt a Formal AI Policy, Either Customized or the One Created by the Ohio Department of Education (2026-27 School Year)","short_title":"Ohio statewide school AI policy mandate (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Ohio","state_abbr":"OH","topics":["education","children","public-sector","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-09-30","enacted_date":"2025-09-30","last_verified_date":"2026-09-16","summary_plain":"Under a new state law, every Ohio public school district is REQUIRED to adopt a formal artificial intelligence policy, with the requirement biting as the 2026-27 school year began. Ohio is reported as the FIRST STATE IN THE NATION to impose such a requirement. Districts have a choice of route: they may customize their own guidelines, or they may adopt the policy created by the Ohio Department of Education. That second option is what makes the mandate workable. A requirement that every district write an AI policy from scratch would fall hardest on small and rural districts with no technology staff and no capacity to evaluate vendor claims; offering a state-drafted model means compliance is achievable everywhere, and a district that does nothing else can still adopt the default. Maryland took a similar approach in the same period through its AI Ready Schools Act, which requires every local education agency to adopt a policy within 120 days of state guidance and directs the state to publish an evaluative rubric for AI tools — but Ohio is credited with being first to make the district policy itself mandatory. The state mandate requires districts to set official guidelines governing how STUDENTS AND STAFF use AI in the classroom, and local leaders are described as balancing classroom integration against safeguards for privacy, academic integrity and foundational learning.","summary_technical":"State of Ohio — statutory requirement that ALL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS adopt a formal ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE POLICY, operative as the 2026-27 school year began. REPORTED AS FIRST IN THE NATION to require AI policies in public schools. COMPLIANCE ROUTES: a district must EITHER customize its own guidelines OR ADOPT THE POLICY CREATED BY THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. THE DEFAULT-MODEL OPTION IS THE DESIGN FEATURE THAT MATTERS: a bare mandate to draft an AI policy imposes its heaviest burden on small and rural districts with no technology staff and no capacity to assess vendor claims, and predictably produces either non-compliance or copied text of unknown provenance. Supplying a state-authored model makes compliance achievable at every district size and establishes a floor \\u2014 a district that does nothing else still lands on the state's policy. SCOPE: official guidelines governing how STUDENTS AND STAFF use AI in the classroom, with districts balancing classroom integration against privacy, academic integrity and foundational learning safeguards. COMPARISON: md-sb720-ai-ready-schools-act-2026 (the Maryland AI Ready Schools Act) requires every local education agency to adopt an AI policy within 120 DAYS of MSDE guidance and additionally directs the state to publish a RUBRIC AND EVALUATIVE TOOLS for assessing AI products \\u2014 a procurement-capacity provision Ohio's mandate is not reported to include. Ohio is credited as first; Maryland's is the more elaborate framework. RELATIONSHIP TO THE EXISTING INDEXED ENTRY: oh-state-education-dept-ohio-department-of-education-and-workforce-ai-model-policy-for-ohi records the ODE model policy itself. THIS ENTRY RECORDS THE STATUTORY MANDATE THAT MAKES ADOPTING A POLICY COMPULSORY \\u2014 the two are distinct instruments and should not be merged: the model policy is the content, the mandate is the obligation. DOWNSTREAM: Ohio district AI policies already indexed include blanchester-oh-schools-ai-policy-edec-2026, cleveland-metro-schools-ai-2025, shaker-heights-ai-2025, columbus-oh-ai-2025 and toledo-oh-ai-2025; those predating the mandate were voluntary.","who_is_protected":"Ohio public school students and staff","who_must_comply":"Every Ohio public school district, which must adopt either customized AI guidelines or the Ohio Department of Education's model policy","citation":"Ohio — statutory requirement that public school districts adopt an artificial intelligence policy (effective for the 2026-27 school year)","source_url":"https://www.whio.com/news/local/ohio-becomes-first-state-require-ai-policies-public-schools/SDMIUYPVHRD2ZLIVV6DKMDPULE/","source_title":"Ohio becomes first state to require AI policies in public schools — WHIO TV","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Ohio Department of Education and Workforce","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source; the obligation is to have a policy in place"},{"id":"wa-renton-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Renton, Washington — City Council Unanimously Adopts a One-Year Moratorium on the Filing, Acceptance, Processing AND Approval of Applications for Siting, Establishment or Expansion of Large Data Centers (August 17, 2026)","short_title":"Renton WA one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Renton, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"King County","city":"Renton","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-17","enacted_date":"2026-08-17","expires_date":"2027-08-17","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Renton City Council unanimously approved a one-year moratorium on data centers at its meeting on Monday, August 17, 2026. The operative language is unusually complete: it covers the FILING, ACCEPTANCE, PROCESSING AND APPROVAL of applications and permits for the SITING, ESTABLISHMENT OR EXPANSION of large data centers within the city. Most moratoriums in this dataset reach one or two of those verbs. Covering all four closes the argument that an application already filed may still be processed, or that one already processed may still be approved — and covering EXPANSION as well as siting and establishment means an existing facility cannot grow during the pause, which a new-applications-only pause would permit. Councilmember Kim-Khánh Văn started the process on June 1, 2026, moving to refer the matter to committee and instruct the city administration to begin work. Her stated reasoning is worth recording: 'I am very concerned, given AI is rapidly moving faster than what we can anticipate' — and, as an attorney who wants more data, she moved to refer the matter rather than act immediately. Renton is a substantial city in King County, south of Seattle, and its measure sits alongside a cluster of Washington actions: Snohomish County, Chewelah, Mount Vernon, Skagit County, La Conner, Cle Elum, Spokane County and Yakima County all moved on data centers in 2026.","summary_technical":"City of Renton, Wash. (King County) — ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM approved UNANIMOUSLY by the City Council at its meeting of Monday, AUGUST 17, 2026. OPERATIVE SCOPE, which is more complete than most instruments in this dataset: the moratorium covers the FILING, ACCEPTANCE, PROCESSING AND APPROVAL of APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS for the SITING, ESTABLISHMENT OR EXPANSION of LARGE DATA CENTERS within the city. THE FOUR-VERB FORMULATION MATTERS: a moratorium on 'acceptance' alone leaves already-filed applications processable; one on 'approval' alone leaves the pipeline filling; Renton closed the sequence end to end. AND 'EXPANSION' IS THE OTHER KEY TERM \\u2014 a pause limited to new siting permits an incumbent facility to grow during the moratorium, which is the gap nc-durham-county-dc-moratorium-2026 also closed by covering 'new or expanded' facilities and which most entries here leave open. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: COUNCILMEMBER KIM-KHÁNH VĂN moved on JUNE 1, 2026 to refer the matter of a data center moratorium to committee and instruct the city administration to begin work, stating 'I am very concerned, given AI is rapidly moving faster than what we can anticipate' and identifying herself as an attorney who wants more data \\u2014 a deliberate choice to route through committee rather than seek immediate emergency adoption. THRESHOLD: the moratorium applies to 'LARGE' data centers; NO DEFINITION OR NUMERIC THRESHOLD is stated in the located source, which is the material gap on this entry. WASHINGTON CONTEXT: wa-mount-vernon-dc-moratorium-2026, wa-cle-elum-emergency-dc-moratorium-2026 and wa-elma-alpr-moratorium-2026 are indexed; Snohomish County, Chewelah, Skagit County, La Conner, Spokane County and Yakima County also acted in 2026.","who_is_protected":"Renton, Washington residents in King County","who_must_comply":"Applicants seeking to file, or obtain processing or approval of, permits for the siting, establishment or expansion of large data centers in Renton","citation":"City of Renton, Wash. — one-year data center moratorium (adopted August 17, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.seattleweekly.com/2026/08/19/renton-places-one-year-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Renton places one-year moratorium on data centers — Seattle Weekly","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Renton Community and Economic Development / Renton City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Covered applications and permits may not be filed, accepted, processed or approved during the moratorium year"},{"id":"wa-chewelah-dc-emergency-moratorium-2026","title":"Chewelah, Washington — Six-Month Emergency Data Center Moratorium Under Which Applications Must Be AFFIRMATIVELY REJECTED AND RETURNED to Applicants Rather Than Merely Held (July 1, 2026)","short_title":"Chewelah WA emergency data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chewelah, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"Stevens County","city":"Chewelah","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-07-01","expires_date":"2026-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Chewelah City Council approved a six-month data center moratorium on July 1, 2026 as an EMERGENCY MEASURE, temporarily blocking the city from accepting applications, licenses, permits or approvals for new data centers. It runs through December 2026, and the council held the required public hearing on August 19. One provision sets this apart from nearly every other moratorium in this dataset. Under the ordinance, applications for data center facilities MUST BE REJECTED AND RETURNED TO APPLICANTS during the moratorium. Most pauses simply stop processing — the application sits in a queue, and when the moratorium lifts it is still there, often with its place in line and sometimes with a claim to be judged under the rules in force when it was filed. Chewelah's ordinance refuses the filing outright and hands it back. That eliminates any argument that a pending application vested under the old code, which is precisely the theory a developer is currently pressing against Gibraltar, Michigan in federal court, and the mechanism by which Salem Oregon's moratorium may fail to reach the application filed days before it passed. Chewelah is a small city in Stevens County in northeastern Washington. The emergency designation allowed immediate effect, with the public hearing following adoption rather than preceding it — the standard Washington sequence for interim ordinances.","summary_technical":"City of Chewelah, Wash. (Stevens County) — SIX-MONTH data center moratorium approved by the City Council on JULY 1, 2026 AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE, temporarily blocking the city from accepting APPLICATIONS, LICENSES, PERMITS OR APPROVALS for new data centers, scheduled to remain in effect THROUGH DECEMBER 2026. PUBLIC HEARING held AUGUST 19, 2026 at Chewelah City Hall \\u2014 the hearing follows adoption, which is the standard Washington sequence for an interim or emergency ordinance adopted without prior hearing. PURPOSE: to give city officials time to study the potential impacts of data centers and develop regulations governing their siting and operation. THE DISTINGUISHING PROVISION: under the ordinance, APPLICATIONS FOR DATA CENTER FACILITIES MUST BE REJECTED AND RETURNED TO APPLICANTS during the moratorium. Nearly every other instrument in this dataset merely SUSPENDS PROCESSING, leaving the application pending \\u2014 which preserves the applicant's filing date and, in many jurisdictions, a colourable claim to be reviewed under the standards in force when it was submitted. AFFIRMATIVE REJECTION AND RETURN DESTROYS THAT CLAIM. Its significance is visible in the cases this dataset already records: litig-raeden-v-gibraltar-mi-moratorium-challenge-2026 is a federal suit pressing exactly the vested-application theory, and or-salem-dc-moratorium-process-2026 records a Verrus application filed days before the council vote which reporting held the moratorium may not reach. A jurisdiction drafting now should consider whether its pause holds applications or returns them. SCALE CAVEAT: Chewelah is a small city, and the provision's durability against a well-resourced challenge has not been tested in any located source.","who_is_protected":"Chewelah, Washington residents in Stevens County","who_must_comply":"Applicants for data center applications, licenses, permits or approvals in Chewelah — whose filings must be rejected and returned during the moratorium","citation":"City of Chewelah, Wash. — six-month emergency data center moratorium (approved July 1, 2026; effective through December 2026)","source_url":"https://www.chewelahindependent.com/announcements/chewelah-sets-public-hearing-on-data-center-moratorium/article_abb71aa6-60f3-421f-92e4-519de6c259b7.html","source_title":"Chewelah sets public hearing on data center moratorium — Chewelah Independent","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Chewelah / Chewelah City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Covered applications must be rejected and returned to the applicant during the moratorium"},{"id":"wa-snohomish-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Snohomish County, Washington — Six-Month Data Center Moratorium in Unincorporated Areas, Adopted June 24, 2026 and Tested at an August Public Hearing Where 13 Residents Spoke","short_title":"Snohomish County WA six-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Snohomish County, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"Snohomish County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-24","enacted_date":"2026-06-24","expires_date":"2026-12-24","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"The Snohomish County Council adopted a six-month moratorium on data centers within UNINCORPORATED Snohomish County on June 24, 2026, set to expire in December 2026. The issue first appeared at a June 16, 2026 meeting of the council's Planning and Development Services Committee, so the county moved from committee to adoption in eight days. On Wednesday, August 19, 2026, the council held a public hearing on the already-passed moratorium and heard from thirteen residents; Senior Legislative Analyst Deb Bell briefed the council. The sequence — adopt first, hold the hearing afterwards — is the standard Washington pattern for an interim ordinance, and it is the same order Chewelah followed. It is worth understanding because it looks backwards to anyone expecting a hearing before a vote: Washington law permits a county or city to adopt an interim official control immediately and then hold a public hearing within a set period to justify continuing it. That is what allows a jurisdiction to close the filing window before a developer can react, which several jurisdictions in this dataset failed to do and lost their project over. The territorial limit is the usual one for county authority: unincorporated areas only, so the cities inside Snohomish County legislate for themselves.","summary_technical":"Snohomish County, Wash. — SIX-MONTH MORATORIUM on data centers within UNINCORPORATED Snohomish County, ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL ON JUNE 24, 2026, set to EXPIRE IN DECEMBER 2026. ORIGIN: the issue first appeared at a JUNE 16, 2026 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE meeting \\u2014 eight days from committee to adoption. POST-ADOPTION HEARING: the County Council held a public hearing on WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2026 regarding the existing moratorium, hearing from 13 RESIDENTS, with Senior Legislative Analyst DEB BELL briefing the council. THE ADOPT-THEN-HEAR SEQUENCE IS THE STANDARD WASHINGTON INTERIM-CONTROL PROCEDURE and is worth understanding rather than mistaking for irregularity: Washington law permits a county or city legislative body to adopt an interim official control WITHOUT prior public hearing and then hold a hearing within a prescribed period to justify continuing it. THAT PROCEDURE IS WHAT ALLOWS A JURISDICTION TO CLOSE THE FILING WINDOW IMMEDIATELY \\u2014 the failure this dataset documents repeatedly, where or-salem-dc-moratorium-process-2026, il-rockford-dc-moratorium-2026, wa-cle-elum-emergency-dc-moratorium-2026 and litig-lowell-ma-markley-diesel-generator-injunction-2026 each failed to reach the project that motivated them because a filing, agreement or settlement landed first. wa-chewelah-dc-emergency-moratorium-2026 followed the same order. TERRITORIAL LIMIT: unincorporated county only; incorporated cities within Snohomish County retain their own land-use authority and are unaffected \\u2014 the same boundary recorded on md-dorchester-county-dc-moratorium-2026, ky-logan-county-dc-moratorium-2026 and wi-cottage-grove-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026, where a village had to act because the county pause did not reach it. NO SUBJECT-MATTER THRESHOLD OR DEFINITION is stated in the located source.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Snohomish County, Washington","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals in unincorporated Snohomish County; incorporated cities within the county are unaffected","citation":"Snohomish County, Wash. — six-month data center moratorium in unincorporated areas (adopted June 24, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.goskagit.com/scnews/snohomish-county-holds-public-hearing-on-data-center-moratorium/article_9a4cdbdb-b951-4263-be03-936797832619.html","source_title":"Snohomish County holds public hearing on data center moratorium — goSkagit","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Snohomish County Planning and Development Services / Snohomish County Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center approvals are paused in unincorporated areas for the six-month term"},{"id":"wi-oneida-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Oneida County, Wisconsin — One-Year Data Center Moratorium Enacted by Amending the Zoning Section That Previously Held a Since-Expired LIVESTOCK FACILITY Moratorium (Resolution 56-2026 / Ordinance Amendment 02-2026)","short_title":"Oneida County WI one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Oneida County, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Oneida County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-18","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","expires_date":"2027-08-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-21","summary_plain":"The Oneida County Board of Supervisors voted to impose a ONE-YEAR moratorium on new data center development in the county's zoned areas, giving the Planning and Development Committee time to study the industry's impacts. It was adopted as Resolution 56-2026 / Ordinance Amendment 02-2026, amending Section 9.57 of the county's zoning and shoreland protection ordinance. That section detail is the interesting part, and it is a drafting technique worth knowing: Section 9.57 PREVIOUSLY COVERED A SINCE-EXPIRED LIVESTOCK FACILITY MORATORIUM. Rather than create new authority, the county reused the slot where its last moratorium had lived. A county that has paused something before already has a tested provision, a known procedure and, importantly, a precedent that the mechanism is lawful in that jurisdiction — which is exactly the defensibility question raised elsewhere in this dataset, where Garfield Township Michigan chose a zoning-amendment route because ad hoc moratoriums were losing in court. For twelve months the county will not accept, process or issue permits for new data center development OR EXPANSION in unincorporated, zoned areas, unless the board extends or replaces the moratorium sooner. Two limits are recorded plainly: it does NOT apply retroactively to projects that already held valid permits, and officials said no data center applications were pending at adoption.","summary_technical":"Oneida County, Wis. — ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM on new data center development in the county's ZONED AREAS, adopted by the Board of Supervisors as RESOLUTION 56-2026 / ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 02-2026, AMENDING SECTION 9.57 of the county's ZONING AND SHORELAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE. PURPOSE: to give the Planning and Development Committee time to study the industry's impacts before permanent regulation. THE SECTION REUSE IS THE TRANSFERABLE TECHNIQUE: \\u00a7 9.57 PREVIOUSLY COVERED A SINCE-EXPIRED LIVESTOCK FACILITY MORATORIUM. The county did not create new authority or draft a standalone instrument; it amended the provision where its previous moratorium had sat. A jurisdiction that has lawfully paused a use before has a tested provision, an established procedure and local precedent that the mechanism holds \\u2014 which speaks directly to the defensibility concern recorded on mi-garfield-township-dc-crypto-moratorium-2026, where officials chose a zoning-ordinance-amendment route expressly because municipalities enacting standalone 'knee-jerk moratoriums' 'are being challenged and losing in court'. OPERATIVE EFFECT: for 12 months the county will NOT ACCEPT, PROCESS OR ISSUE PERMITS for new data center DEVELOPMENT OR EXPANSION in unincorporated, zoned areas, unless the board extends or replaces the moratorium sooner \\u2014 note the three-verb formulation and the inclusion of EXPANSION, which most instruments here omit. TWO EXPRESS LIMITS: it DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY to projects already holding valid permits, and officials stated NO DATA CENTER APPLICATIONS WERE PENDING at adoption. TERRITORIAL: unincorporated, ZONED areas \\u2014 a double limitation, since Wisconsin counties zone only the towns that have adopted county zoning, the same gap recorded on wi-chippewa-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (six towns only) and wi-cottage-grove-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026 (Dane County's pause not reaching villages with their own codes). WISCONSIN DURATION CONTEXT: one year is the base statutory allowance described by Bellevue's village administrator (wi-bellevue-dc-moratorium-2026), with one six-month extension available.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated, zoned areas of Oneida County, Wisconsin","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking permits for new data center development or expansion in unincorporated, zoned areas of Oneida County; projects already holding valid permits are unaffected","citation":"Oneida County, Wis. Resolution 56-2026 / Ordinance Amendment 02-2026, amending Zoning and Shoreland Protection Ordinance § 9.57 (2026)","source_url":"http://www.starjournalnow.com/stories/county-board-oks-one-year-data-center-moratorium,350494","source_title":"County board OKs one-year data center moratorium — Northwoods Star Journal","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Oneida County Planning and Development Committee / Oneida County zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"The county will not accept, process or issue permits for covered development or expansion for 12 months"},{"id":"wi-town-of-beloit-dc-moratorium-resolution-2026","title":"Town of Beloit, Wisconsin — Board Votes 4-0 for a 12-Month Data Center Moratorium Resolution, the First of Three Required Steps, After Rejecting a Developer Cost Reimbursement Agreement for a Proposed $1 Billion Campus (July 20, 2026)","short_title":"Town of Beloit WI data center moratorium resolution (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Town of Beloit, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Rock County","city":"Town of Beloit","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"The Town of Beloit Board of Supervisors voted 4-0 on Monday, July 20, 2026 to approve a RESOLUTION calling for a 12-month moratorium on data center projects. An overflow crowd attended to speak against a proposed $1 BILLION data center campus spanning the towns of Beloit and Turtle, put forward by Panattoni Development Co. This entry is recorded as PROPOSED, and the reason is stated in the reporting itself: the Monday vote was THE FIRST OF THREE OFFICIAL STEPS. The town must still hold a public hearing, and then draft and approve an ORDINANCE. A resolution calling for a moratorium is a statement of intent; only the ordinance restricts anything. That distinction is easy to lose — the headline says the town 'officially starts' the moratorium process, which is accurate, but a reader could take it as the moratorium itself. Earlier in the month the board had unanimously instructed staff to draft the resolution, on the same day it REJECTED A COST REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT with the California company behind the campus. Refusing that agreement is significant: such agreements fund a small town's consultant and legal review of a large application, and declining one means declining the money rather than entering a review the town judged it could not control. The neighbouring Town of Turtle has also approved a 12-month moratorium resolution, which together appears to put at least a one-year halt on the Panattoni proposal.","summary_technical":"Town of Beloit, Wis. (Rock County) — RESOLUTION calling for a 12-MONTH data center moratorium, approved 4-0 by the Board of Supervisors on MONDAY, JULY 20, 2026. STATUS IS `proposed` DELIBERATELY: the source states the Monday vote was THE FIRST OF THREE OFFICIAL STEPS \\u2014 the town must still (a) HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING and (b) DRAFT AND APPROVE AN ORDINANCE. A resolution calling for a moratorium imposes no restriction; only the ordinance does. Wisconsin town moratorium procedure requires the ordinance, and a reader taking the resolution as the operative measure would record a restriction that does not exist. TRIGGER: a proposed $1 BILLION DATA CENTER CAMPUS spanning the TOWNS OF BELOIT AND TURTLE, advanced by PANATTONI DEVELOPMENT CO.; an overflow crowd attended the July 20 meeting to speak against it. THE COST REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT REFUSAL IS THE SUBSTANTIVE ACTION AND IS RECORDED HERE BECAUSE IT IS LITTLE UNDERSTOOD: earlier in July the board unanimously instructed staff to draft the moratorium resolution ON THE SAME DAY IT REJECTED A COST REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT with the California company behind the campus. Developers routinely offer to fund a small municipality's consultant, engineering and legal review of a large application \\u2014 costs a town of this size cannot otherwise bear. Accepting creates a reviewed application and an expectation of process; REFUSING declines the funding rather than entering a review the town judged it could not control, and is the clearest available signal that the town does not intend to permit the project. The TOWN OF TURTLE took the same two steps. TOGETHER the two resolutions appear to put at least a one-year halt on the Panattoni proposal, since the campus spans both towns and requires both. ROCK COUNTY CLUSTER, documented more fully on wi-town-of-janesville-dc-moratorium-2026: Janesville, Beloit, Turtle and the Town of Rock were all approached, and Rock County and the City of Janesville were weighing their own measures.","who_is_protected":"Town of Beloit residents in Rock County, Wisconsin — prospectively, if and when the ordinance is adopted","who_must_comply":"Panattoni Development Co. and other data center developers in the Town of Beloit — prospectively; the resolution itself imposes no restriction","citation":"Town of Beloit, Wis. — resolution calling for a 12-month data center moratorium (approved 4-0, July 20, 2026); ordinance not yet adopted","source_url":"https://www.beloitdailynews.com/news/local-news/town-of-beloit-officially-starts-data-center-moratorium-process/article_7b40ce39-f491-400c-9560-818dc93b3f71.html","source_title":"Town of Beloit officially starts data center moratorium process — Beloit Daily News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"Town of Beloit Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None in force — the resolution calls for a moratorium; the ordinance has not been adopted"},{"id":"oh-lima-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Lima, OH — 18-Month Moratorium on Data Center Construction and on New City Water Service to Developments in Outside Municipalities (September 14, 2026)","short_title":"Lima OH 18-month data center + water service moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lima, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Allen","city":"Lima","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-14","enacted_date":"2026-09-14","expires_date":"2028-03-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Lima City Council passed an ordinance on September 14, 2026 enacting an 18-month moratorium with two distinct halves. The first is conventional: no data center construction in Lima. The second is not — the same ordinance also pauses new requests for city-supplied water to developments in outside municipalities. Lima sells water beyond its own borders, and a data center sited in a neighbouring jurisdiction where Lima has no zoning authority would still need that water. Pausing the service request is the only lever the city has over those projects, and it is the same move Lakeland, Florida made through its municipal electric utility six weeks earlier. Mayor Sharetta Smith framed the pause as prudence rather than opposition: Ohio has become one of the fastest-growing states for data center siting, state and federal rules around the facilities are changing, and the city wanted to evaluate its standards before making further large-scale commitments. The 18 months are for the administration to work out appropriate locations, water capacity, electric demand and other impacts. Lima is the seat of Allen County in northwest Ohio.","summary_technical":"City of Lima, Ohio ordinance adopted by City Council September 14, 2026, imposing an 18-month moratorium with two operative components: (1) a pause on data center construction within Lima, and (2) a pause on NEW REQUESTS FOR CITY-SUPPLIED WATER to developments located in outside municipalities. Component (2) is the notable one — it uses control of extraterritorial utility service as a regulatory lever over projects beyond the city's land-use jurisdiction, structurally the same technique as Lakeland, Florida's Ordinance 26-018 of 2026-08-03 (see fl-lakeland-dc-moratorium-ord-26-018), which conditioned Lakeland Electric service the same way. Municipal utilities serving beyond their corporate limits are common; using that service as a data center control is not. Stated evaluation agenda for the term: appropriate locations, water capacity, electric demand and other potential impacts. Context cited by the administration: Ohio's position as one of the fastest-growing data center markets and shifting state and federal regulation. expires_date computed as 18 months from adoption. Ordinance number not obtained. Regional context: Ohio has a dense municipal moratorium cluster — Cleveland, Twinsburg (Ord. 2026-065), Ravenna, Massillon, Grove City, and several Franklin, Trumbull and Mahoning county townships.","who_is_protected":"Lima residents and Lima water customers — including those in outside municipalities served by Lima's water system, who gain protection the city could not otherwise provide because it has no zoning authority there.","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to construct data centers in Lima, and any development in an outside municipality seeking new city-supplied water service; City of Lima utilities and planning staff.","citation":"City of Lima, Ohio — 18-Month Data Center and Water Service Moratorium (Sept. 14, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.limaohio.com/top-stories/2026/09/15/lima-council-passes-18-month-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Lima council passes 18-month data center moratorium — The Lima News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Lima / Lima Utilities Department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center construction is not approved, and new outside-municipality water service requests are not processed, during the moratorium"},{"id":"fl-edgewater-ai-dc-ban-2026","title":"Edgewater, FL — Unanimous Permanent Ban on AI Data Centers, Bridging to a November Charter Amendment (September 14, 2026)","short_title":"Edgewater FL AI data center ban (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Edgewater, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Volusia","city":"Edgewater","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-14","enacted_date":"2026-09-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Edgewater city leaders voted unanimously on September 14, 2026 to ban artificial intelligence data centers, a measure Mayor Diezel DePew described as permanent. It took effect immediately. The ordinance is explicitly a bridge: Charter Amendment 4 goes before Edgewater voters in November 2026 and would write the same prohibition into the city charter, putting it beyond the reach of a future council that might simply repeal an ordinance. Councilmember Eric Rainbird said the city wanted to act before any developer submitted a proposal — no AI data center has been proposed in Edgewater. The mayor had earlier warned about strain on water and power. Edgewater sits in Volusia County on Florida's east coast, and the county is now split in two directions on the same question: Volusia County directed staff to draft a six-month study moratorium while Edgewater inside it moved a permanent voter-ratified ban to the ballot. Edgewater joins other Central Florida communities including Titusville and Flagler County in acting to block AI data centers.","summary_technical":"City of Edgewater, Fla. — ordinance banning artificial intelligence data centers, adopted by unanimous City Council vote September 14, 2026, effective immediately, characterised by the mayor as permanent. TWO-INSTRUMENT STRUCTURE, which is the point of the entry: the ordinance operates as an interim bridge to Charter Amendment 4, a citizen-facing ballot measure going to Edgewater voters in November 2026 that would place the prohibition in the CITY CHARTER. An ordinance binds until a later council repeals it; a charter provision cannot be undone by ordinary council action. The council path secures the prohibition now, the charter path secures it durably. Posture: preemptive — no AI data center had been proposed in Edgewater at adoption, and Councilmember Eric Rainbird stated the intent was to act before any application arrived. Rationale raised by Mayor Diezel DePew: water and power strain. County-level divergence worth noting: Volusia County separately directed staff to draft a six-month moratorium on AI data centers, so the county contains both a study pause and a possible permanent citizen shutdown. Ordinance number not obtained.","who_is_protected":"Edgewater residents, through an immediate prohibition on AI data centers that a November charter vote may make permanent beyond the reach of ordinary council repeal.","who_must_comply":"Any party seeking to develop an AI data center in Edgewater; city planning and permitting officials.","citation":"City of Edgewater, Fla. — AI Data Center Ban (Sept. 14, 2026); Charter Amendment 4 (Nov. 2026 ballot)","source_url":"https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/edgewater-approves-ban-ai-data-centers-orange-county-weighs-moratorium","source_title":"Edgewater approves ban on AI data centers as Orange County weighs moratorium — FOX 35 Orlando","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Edgewater / Edgewater City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"AI data centers are a prohibited use"},{"id":"sc-laurens-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Laurens County, SC — One-Year Data Center Moratorium in Unincorporated County, Third and Final Reading 6-0 (September 14, 2026)","short_title":"Laurens County SC one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Laurens County, SC","state_abbr":"SC","county":"Laurens","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-14","enacted_date":"2026-09-14","expires_date":"2027-09-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Laurens County Council gave a one-year data center moratorium its third and final reading on September 14, 2026, approving it unanimously 6-0. The moratorium stops the county accepting, reviewing, approving or issuing permits for data center development. County officials were careful about the framing: the goal is not necessarily to keep data centers out, but to buy time to work out how they should be regulated, hearing from residents, planners and industry experts along the way. During the year the Laurens County Planning Commission and Council will evaluate regulations covering zoning districts, setbacks, buffering and landscaping, noise, water and wastewater, electrical infrastructure, emergency services, environmental impacts, traffic and decommissioning — an unusually complete list for a moratorium's study agenda. One limit matters: the moratorium applies only to unincorporated Laurens County. The cities of Laurens and Clinton keep control over data centers inside their own limits and are not covered. Laurens County is in the South Carolina upstate between Greenville and Columbia.","summary_technical":"Laurens County, S.C. County Council ordinance imposing a one-year moratorium on data center development, adopted 6-0 on third and final reading September 14, 2026. South Carolina counties require three readings; the measure had been in progress since roughly mid-July 2026, when local coverage first reported the county imposing a year-long pause on first reading. Operative scope: suspends acceptance, review, approval and issuance of permits for data center development. JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT: unincorporated Laurens County only — the municipalities of Laurens and Clinton retain their own authority and are outside the moratorium. Study agenda enumerated in the measure: zoning districts, setbacks, buffering and landscaping, noise, water and wastewater, electrical infrastructure, emergency services, environmental impacts, traffic and decommissioning. Part of a South Carolina county wave through 2026 that also includes Spartanburg County, whose own moratorium had received first approval, and others catalogued by the SC Daily Gazette. Ordinance number not obtained; expires_date computed as one year from final adoption.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Laurens County, through a one-year permit freeze while the county writes data center regulations. Residents of Laurens and Clinton are NOT covered by this measure.","who_must_comply":"Applicants seeking permits for data center development in unincorporated Laurens County; county planning and permitting staff.","citation":"Laurens Cnty., S.C. — One-Year Data Center Moratorium (Sept. 14, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.foxcarolina.com/2026/09/14/laurens-county-council-votes-approve-one-year-data-center-pause/","source_title":"Laurens County Council votes to approve one-year data center pause — FOX Carolina","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Laurens County Planning Commission / Laurens County Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center permits are not accepted, reviewed, approved or issued in unincorporated areas during the moratorium"},{"id":"nc-southport-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Southport, NC — Board of Aldermen Unanimous 15-Month Moratorium on New Data Center Approvals (September 10, 2026)","short_title":"Southport NC 15-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Southport, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Brunswick","city":"Southport","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-10","enacted_date":"2026-09-10","expires_date":"2027-12-10","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"The Southport Board of Aldermen unanimously approved a 15-month moratorium on new data center approvals on September 10, 2026. Fifteen months is longer than the six- to twelve-month terms most towns reach for, and it was the Planning Board that asked for it: on July 17, 2026 the board voted unanimously to request the longer period, with Planning Director Maureen Meehan explaining the town needed time to evaluate impacts and build land use categories and standards for data centers and similar uses from scratch, inside the unified development ordinance. No data center is proposed or planned within Southport town limits — the measure is preemptive, and the town's stated aim is to gain control over where such facilities could go and to publish clear guidelines before any proposal arrives, rather than to react to one. A public hearing was held in August before the September vote. Southport is a small coastal town in Brunswick County at the mouth of the Cape Fear River.","summary_technical":"Town of Southport, N.C. — 15-month moratorium on new data center approvals, adopted unanimously by the Board of Aldermen September 10, 2026. Procedural chain: Southport Planning Board voted unanimously on July 17, 2026 to request a 15-month moratorium from the Board of Aldermen; the matter went to the aldermen in August 2026 with a public hearing; final unanimous adoption September 10. Term length is the distinguishing feature — 15 months exceeds the typical six-to-twelve-month municipal pause, and was requested at that length specifically because the town's unified development ordinance contains no land use category or standards for data centers, so the work is drafting from a blank page rather than amending existing provisions. Posture: preemptive, with no data center proposed or planned within town limits at adoption. Stated objective beyond the pause itself: give the board control over where data centers could be sited and establish clear guidelines for future proposals. Part of a dense North Carolina 2026 cluster alongside Greensboro, Alamance County, Yadkin County, Waxhaw, Jackson County and Statesville. Ordinance number not obtained; expires_date computed as 15 months from adoption.","who_is_protected":"Southport residents, through a 15-month pause on new data center approvals while the town creates land use categories and standards that do not currently exist in its unified development ordinance.","who_must_comply":"Applicants seeking data center approvals within Southport town limits; town planning staff.","citation":"Town of Southport, N.C. — 15-Month Data Center Moratorium (Sept. 10, 2026)","source_url":"https://portcitydaily.com/local-news/2026/09/14/temporary-moratorium-on-data-centers-pass-in-southport/","source_title":"Temporary moratorium on data centers passes in Southport — Port City Daily","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Southport Planning Department / Board of Aldermen","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"New data center approvals are not granted during the moratorium"},{"id":"ca-gilroy-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026","title":"Gilroy, CA — Interim Urgency Ordinance Pausing New Data Center Applications (September 14, 2026)","short_title":"Gilroy CA interim urgency data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Gilroy, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Santa Clara","city":"Gilroy","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-14","enacted_date":"2026-09-14","expires_date":"2026-10-29","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Gilroy City Council took up a temporary citywide moratorium on new data center applications at its September 14, 2026 meeting, structured as an interim urgency ordinance so it would take effect immediately on approval. The pause is to let the city review and update design and development standards for data centers and other industrial development. It does not touch the Amazon data center already approved and under construction in northeast Gilroy — which is the project that generated the pressure in the first place. Community groups had objected that the Amazon development was approved through the administrative permit process rather than through public hearings or a council vote, and a petition titled 'NO MORE SECRET DATA CENTERS IN GILROY!' circulated locally. The mechanism matters for how long this lasts: under California Government Code an interim urgency ordinance runs 45 days unless the council renews it, may then be extended by 10 months and 15 days, and can be extended once more by a further 12 months. So the initial window is short by design and the council must act again within weeks to keep it alive.","summary_technical":"City of Gilroy, Cal. — interim urgency ordinance imposing a temporary citywide moratorium on new data center applications, considered and reported approved at the September 14, 2026 City Council meeting, effective immediately on adoption. STATUTORY CLOCK, per Cal. Gov't Code § 65858: an interim urgency ordinance is effective for 45 days from adoption; the council may extend it once by 10 months and 15 days after notice and hearing, and once more by 12 months, for a maximum of two years. expires_date is therefore recorded as approximately 2026-10-29 — the initial 45-day term — NOT a one- or two-year horizon; the entry must be rechecked for the extension vote. EXCLUSION: the Amazon data center already approved and under construction in northeast Gilroy is unaffected. Political trigger: community objection that the Amazon project was approved via administrative permit rather than public hearing or council vote, and an associated local petition campaign. Purpose of the pause: review and update design and development standards applicable to data centers and other industrial development.","who_is_protected":"Gilroy residents, through an immediate pause on new data center applications while the city updates design and development standards — though the Amazon project that prompted it is exempt.","who_must_comply":"Applicants for new data center approvals in Gilroy; city planning staff.","citation":"City of Gilroy, Cal. — Interim Urgency Ordinance (Sept. 14, 2026); Cal. Gov't Code § 65858","source_url":"https://gilroydispatch.com/gilroy-city-council-adopts-moratorium-on-new-data-centers/","source_title":"Gilroy City Council adopts moratorium on new data centers — Gilroy Dispatch","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Gilroy Community Development Department / City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"New data center applications are not accepted during the interim ordinance's term"},{"id":"ky-beshear-eo-data-center-development-2026","title":"Kentucky — Governor's Executive Order on Data Center Development: Ratepayer and Environmental Proof, Tax Fair Share, Community Engagement (August 6, 2026)","short_title":"Kentucky Beshear data center executive order (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Kentucky","state_abbr":"KY","topics":["data-centers","public-sector","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-06","enacted_date":"2026-08-06","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear issued an executive order on August 6, 2026 setting statewide conditions on data center development. It requires developers to demonstrate three things before Kentucky welcomes them. First, no detrimental impact on ratepayers or the environment — a developer must submit an energy plan to the Energy and Environment Cabinet showing ratepayers are protected. Second, payment of a fair share of local and school taxes. Third, genuine engagement with the local community. The sharpest provision is directed not at developers but at the regulator: the Public Service Commission is barred from allowing a utility to raise rates to recover costs created by data centers. That converts a general worry about who pays for the grid into a standing prohibition on shifting those costs onto other customers. Beshear was explicit that the order does not decide whether any given project proceeds — 'ultimately a very local decision on whether to welcome them' — but sets a floor every company must clear first. The order landed in the middle of Kentucky's municipal moratorium wave; Woodford County had banned data centers outright, and Winchester, Mercer County, Ludlow, London and Louisville Metro all adopted pauses in the same period.","summary_technical":"Commonwealth of Kentucky executive order on data center development, issued by Gov. Andy Beshear and effective August 6, 2026. Three demonstration requirements on developers: (1) no detrimental impact on ratepayers or the environment, evidenced by submission of an energy plan to the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet; (2) payment of a fair share of local and school taxes; (3) engagement with local communities. SEPARATE REGULATORY PROHIBITION, the operative teeth: the order bars the Public Service Commission from allowing a utility to increase rates to recover costs created by data centers — a cost-allocation rule addressed to the regulator rather than a disclosure duty addressed to the applicant, and therefore enforceable without any individual developer's cooperation. Scope limitation acknowledged by the governor: siting remains a local decision; the order sets a statewide minimum standard rather than an approval or denial power. Instrument type is executive order, not statute, so it is revocable by a successor governor and is weaker on that axis than the Oklahoma or Delaware legislation of the same period. Relationship to local measures: operates alongside, and does not preempt, the 2026 Kentucky municipal wave — Woodford County's permanent ban, and moratoriums in Winchester, Mercer County, Ludlow, London, Jessamine County and Louisville Metro.","who_is_protected":"Kentucky utility ratepayers, protected by the bar on the PSC permitting rate increases to recover data-center-created costs; Kentucky communities and school districts, through the tax fair-share and engagement requirements; the environment, through the energy plan requirement.","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking to operate in Kentucky, who must submit an energy plan to the Energy and Environment Cabinet and satisfy the tax and community-engagement requirements; the Kentucky Public Service Commission; regulated utilities.","citation":"Ky. Exec. Order (Aug. 6, 2026) (data center development requirements)","source_url":"https://kentuckylantern.com/2026/08/06/beshear-to-issue-executive-order-to-protect-against-harmful-impacts-of-data-centers/","source_title":"Beshear issues executive order to protect against 'harmful impacts' of data centers — Kentucky Lantern","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet; Kentucky Public Service Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"The PSC may not approve rate increases recovering data-center-created costs; developers failing the demonstration requirements do not satisfy the state framework"},{"id":"ok-hb2992-data-center-ratepayer-protection-act-2026","title":"Oklahoma — HB 2992, the Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act of 2026 (Signed August 6, 2026)","short_title":"Oklahoma HB 2992 data center ratepayer protection (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Oklahoma","state_abbr":"OK","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-06","enacted_date":"2026-08-06","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Oklahoma enacted the Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act of 2026, House Bill 2992, authored by Rep. Brad Boles and Sen. Grant Green. Governor Stitt marked the signing on August 6, 2026 together with a companion groundwater law. The Act's purpose is to keep Oklahoma families, small businesses and ordinary utility customers from carrying the utility and infrastructure costs that large-scale energy users create. The Senate added transparency requirements before passage, so the law does disclosure work as well as cost allocation. Oklahoma passed it alongside Senate Bill 259, the Groundwater Modernization Act, and legislators presented the two together as a package: one law addressing who pays for power and infrastructure, the other addressing water. That pairing is notable — most states in 2026 addressed electricity or water, rarely both in the same session, and Oklahoma is one of the few to legislate on the two constraints at once.","summary_technical":"Oklahoma House Bill 2992, the Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act of 2026, authored by Rep. Brad Boles (R-Marlow) and Sen. Grant Green (R-Wellston), ceremonially signed by Gov. Kevin Stitt on August 6, 2026. Core purpose: prevent Oklahoma families, small businesses and traditional utility customers from bearing utility and infrastructure costs created by large-scale energy users — a cost-allocation statute directed at the treatment of hyperscale load. The Senate added transparency requirements to the bill before final passage, so the enacted text combines cost protection with disclosure. Enacted as part of a two-law package with SB 259, the Groundwater Modernization Act (see ok-sb259-groundwater-modernization-act-2026), which handles water reporting and enforcement; Oklahoma is among the few states in 2026 to legislate on both the electricity and water constraints in the same session. Statutory effective date not established from available coverage — the August 6 date is the signing event, and Oklahoma bills commonly carry a November 1 effective date as SB 259 does, so effective_date here should be treated as the signing date pending confirmation of the operative date in the enrolled text.","who_is_protected":"Oklahoma families, small businesses and traditional utility ratepayers, protected from bearing the utility and infrastructure costs created by large-scale energy users including data centers.","who_must_comply":"Large-scale energy users including data center operators in Oklahoma; regulated utilities and the Oklahoma Corporation Commission in allocating costs.","citation":"Okla. H.B. 2992 (2026) (Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act of 2026)","source_url":"https://www.okhouse.gov/posts/news-20260806_2","source_title":"Lawmakers Mark Signing of Landmark Data Center Protections — Oklahoma House of Representatives","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Oklahoma Corporation Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not established from available coverage"},{"id":"ok-sb259-groundwater-modernization-act-2026","title":"Oklahoma — SB 259, the Groundwater Modernization Act: Annual Water-Use Reporting and Penalties for Overuse (Effective November 1, 2026)","short_title":"Oklahoma SB 259 Groundwater Modernization Act (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Oklahoma","state_abbr":"OK","topics":["data-centers","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-11-01","enacted_date":"2026-08-06","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Oklahoma's Groundwater Modernization Act, Senate Bill 259, was signed on August 6, 2026 and takes effect November 1, 2026. It requires water permit holders to file annual water-use reports with the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, and directs the Board to write rules for reviewing those reports, investigating complaints of waste, and imposing penalties for overuse. The structure matters: reporting alone produces data nobody acts on, so the Act pairs the disclosure duty with an investigation power and a penalty power in the same statute. It was signed as half of a package with House Bill 2992, the Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act — legislators presented the two together as addressing the two resources data centers strain hardest. The Act is not limited to data centers; it reaches all water permit holders, which makes it broader in application than most 2026 data-center-driven measures while still being the instrument Oklahoma chose to answer data center water use.","summary_technical":"Oklahoma Senate Bill 259, the Groundwater Modernization Act, authored by Sen. Brent Howard (R-Altus) and Rep. Carl Newton (R-Cherokee), signed August 6, 2026, effective November 1, 2026. Operative provisions: (1) water permit holders must submit annual water-use reports to the Oklahoma Water Resources Board; (2) the OWRB is directed to promulgate rules governing review of those reports, investigation of complaints of waste, and imposition of penalties for overuse. Design note: the statute pairs a reporting mandate with investigative and penalty authority in one instrument, avoiding the common failure mode where disclosure requirements create data without consequence. SCOPE: applies to water permit holders generally, not solely to data centers — broader in application than most 2026 data-center-driven legislation, though it was enacted and presented as Oklahoma's answer to data center water demand. Enacted as a package with HB 2992, the Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act (see ok-hb2992-data-center-ratepayer-protection-act-2026), covering electricity and infrastructure cost allocation. Status recorded as `enacted` rather than `effective` because the November 1 2026 operative date had not arrived at verification.","who_is_protected":"Oklahoma groundwater users and communities dependent on aquifers, through mandatory annual water-use reporting by permit holders and Water Resources Board authority to investigate waste and penalise overuse.","who_must_comply":"All Oklahoma water permit holders, including data center operators holding permits; the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, which must promulgate the implementing rules.","citation":"Okla. S.B. 259 (2026) (Groundwater Modernization Act) (eff. Nov. 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.okhouse.gov/posts/news-20260806_2","source_title":"Lawmakers Mark Signing of Landmark Data Center Protections — Oklahoma House of Representatives","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Oklahoma Water Resources Board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"The Water Resources Board is directed to establish rules imposing penalties for overuse; specific amounts to be set by rule"},{"id":"ny-safe-for-kids-act-final-rules-2026","title":"New York — SAFE for Kids Act Final Rules: Quantified Age-Assurance Accuracy Minimums for Addictive Feeds (Rules July 28, 2026; Act Effective January 25, 2027)","short_title":"New York SAFE for Kids Act final rules (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["children","privacy","biometrics","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"enacted","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2027-01-25","enacted_date":"2026-07-28","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"New York's Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act got its final implementing rules on July 28, 2026, released jointly by Attorney General Letitia James and Governor Kathy Hochul. The Act itself takes effect January 25, 2027. What makes these rules significant is that they put numbers on age assurance where almost every other regime says only that a method must be 'reasonable.' The rules set an Accuracy Minimum: a method's false positive rate must be no more than 0.1% for minors aged 0 to 7, 1% for ages 8 to 13, 2% for ages 14 to 15, 8% for age 16 and 15% for age 17, excluding cases where a user refuses or fails to provide data and cases where the result is inconclusive. The method must also detect attempts to circumvent it at a rate of 98% or better. A second standard, the Total Accuracy Minimum, applies the same percentage ceilings to false positives and inconclusive outcomes combined — closing the obvious gap, since a method could otherwise hit its accuracy target by returning 'inconclusive' whenever it was unsure. Social media companies must pick a method meeting these rates, test it annually, and keep the test results for at least five years. The graduated thresholds are the design insight: being wrong about a seven-year-old is treated as far more serious than being wrong about a seventeen-year-old.","summary_technical":"New York Office of the Attorney General final rules implementing the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act, released July 28, 2026; the Act takes effect January 25, 2027. QUANTIFIED ACCURACY STANDARDS, which is what distinguishes this from 'reasonable age assurance' regimes elsewhere. Accuracy Minimum — maximum false positive rate by age band: 0.1% (ages 0-7), 1% (8-13), 2% (14-15), 8% (16), 15% (17), computed excluding user failures or refusals to provide requested data and excluding inconclusive outcomes; plus a circumvention-detection rate of at least 98%. Total Accuracy Minimum — the same age-banded ceilings applied to false positives AND inconclusive outcomes COMBINED, plus the same 98% circumvention-detection floor. The second standard forecloses the gaming route the first would otherwise leave open, where a method meets its false-positive ceiling by classifying uncertain cases as inconclusive rather than wrong. Compliance obligations on covered social media companies: select an age assurance method meeting the accuracy rates, conduct annual testing, and retain testing results for a minimum of five years. Regulatory significance: the graduated thresholds scale tolerance for error inversely with the vulnerability of the age band, and the retention requirement makes the testing auditable after the fact rather than self-attested at a point in time. Final rule published by the Attorney General at ag.ny.gov/safe-for-kids-act-final-rule.","who_is_protected":"New York minors, especially the youngest age bands where the permitted false-positive rate is most stringent — protected from addictive social media feeds by age assurance that must meet quantified, annually tested accuracy floors rather than an undefined reasonableness standard.","who_must_comply":"Social media companies covered by the SAFE for Kids Act operating in New York, which must select a qualifying age assurance method, test it annually and retain results for five years; age assurance vendors supplying those methods.","citation":"N.Y. Off. of the Att'y Gen., SAFE for Kids Act Final Rules (July 28, 2026) (Act eff. Jan. 25, 2027)","source_url":"https://ag.ny.gov/safe-for-kids-act-final-rule","source_title":"SAFE for Kids Act Final Rule — New York State Attorney General","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"New York State Office of the Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Enforcement by the Attorney General under the SAFE for Kids Act; specific penalty provisions not captured from the rules summary"},{"id":"de-hb233-large-load-rate-class-2026","title":"Delaware — HB 233: Separate Utility Rate Class for Large Energy-Use Facilities, Paying Full Infrastructure Upgrade Costs (Signed August 26, 2026)","short_title":"Delaware HB 233 large-load rate class (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Delaware","state_abbr":"DE","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-26","enacted_date":"2026-08-26","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Delaware House Bill 233 creates a separate utility rate class for large energy-use facilities such as data centers, and requires them to pay the full cost of the infrastructure upgrades they make necessary rather than spreading those costs across residential and small-business customers. This is the core cost-allocation move: once a hyperscale customer sits in its own rate class, the arithmetic that would otherwise socialise its grid costs no longer applies to it. Governor Matt Meyer signed it on August 26, 2026 as part of a four-bill Energy Consumer Protection package, alongside HB 445's clean-generation requirement, HB 310's removal of tax credits for these facilities, and SB 326's limits on what Delmarva Power can recover from ratepayers. All four took effect immediately. Delaware's approach is notable for treating the problem as four separate levers pulled at once — cost class, power supply, tax treatment and utility capital recovery — rather than a single omnibus statute.","summary_technical":"Delaware House Bill 233 (153rd General Assembly), signed by Gov. Matt Meyer August 26, 2026, effective immediately. Creates a SEPARATE UTILITY RATE CLASS for large energy-use facilities, including data centers, and requires facilities in that class to bear the full cost of infrastructure upgrades attributable to them rather than shifting those costs onto residential and small-business customers. Mechanism is rate-class segregation rather than a project-by-project cost study, which removes the recurring dispute about allocation from each individual interconnection. Enacted as one of four bills in the Energy Consumer Protection package signed the same day: HB 233 (this entry), HB 445 (bring-your-own-generation, see de-hb445-byog-clean-energy-2026), HB 310 (tax credit disqualification, see de-hb310-large-load-tax-credit-bar-2026) and SB 326 (utility capital expenditure oversight, see de-sb326-utility-capex-oversight-2026). Comparison: Virginia established a separate large data center rate class in 2025 by regulatory action and legislated the no-adverse-effect principle in 2026 via SB 253/HB 1393; Delaware reached the rate-class result by statute in a single session.","who_is_protected":"Delaware residential and small-business utility customers, protected from absorbing the infrastructure upgrade costs created by large energy-use facilities.","who_must_comply":"Large energy-use facilities including data centers operating in Delaware; Delmarva Power and other regulated utilities; the Delaware Public Service Commission in setting rates.","citation":"Del. H.S. 1 for H.B. 233, 153rd Gen. Assemb., 85 Del. Laws c. 440 (2026)","source_url":"https://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?LegislationId=143381","source_title":"DE Delaware HB 233 large-load rate class (2026) — official record (legis.delaware.gov)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Delaware Public Service Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Cost responsibility is assigned by rate class; specific penalty provisions not established from available coverage"},{"id":"de-hb445-byog-clean-energy-2026","title":"Delaware — HB 445: Bring-Your-Own-Generation Mandate Requiring Large Energy Users to Secure 100% of Their Power, Including a Clean Energy Share (Signed August 26, 2026)","short_title":"Delaware HB 445 bring-your-own-generation mandate (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Delaware","state_abbr":"DE","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-26","enacted_date":"2026-08-26","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Delaware House Bill 445 requires large energy-use facilities to produce or secure 100 percent of the power they need, including a share of clean or renewable energy, so they do not strain the public grid. The Sierra Club called it a first-of-its-kind clean energy mandate for hyperscale data centers, and the distinguishing feature is that it does not merely charge large users more for grid power — it requires them to bring their own. That changes the question from who pays for new generation to who builds it. A facility cannot satisfy the requirement by accepting a higher tariff; it has to arrange supply. Combined with HB 233, which puts large users in their own rate class and makes them pay the full cost of infrastructure upgrades, Delaware has closed both the cost-shifting route and the capacity-strain route in the same package. Governor Matt Meyer signed it on August 26, 2026 with three companion bills, all effective immediately.","summary_technical":"Delaware House Bill 445, signed by Gov. Matt Meyer August 26, 2026, effective immediately. Imposes a BRING-YOUR-OWN-GENERATION requirement on large energy-use facilities: the facility must produce or secure 100 percent of its required power, including a share of clean or renewable energy, to prevent strain on the public grid. Structurally distinct from the cost-allocation approach dominant elsewhere in 2026 — a tariff or rate class determines who pays for grid capacity, whereas a BYOG mandate determines who must procure it, and cannot be satisfied by paying more. Characterised by the Sierra Club as the first clean energy mandate of its kind for hyperscale data centers. Operates together with HB 233 (separate rate class and full infrastructure cost responsibility), HB 310 (tax credit disqualification) and SB 326 (utility capital expenditure oversight), all signed the same day. Statutory definition of 'large energy-use facility', the required clean/renewable percentage, and the compliance and verification mechanism are NOT established from available coverage and should be read from the enrolled text before this entry is relied on for specifics.","who_is_protected":"Delaware ratepayers and the public grid, protected from the capacity strain of hyperscale load by requiring large users to procure their own power rather than draw on shared capacity.","who_must_comply":"Large energy-use facilities including hyperscale data centers operating in Delaware, which must produce or secure 100% of their power requirement including a clean/renewable share.","citation":"Del. H.B. 445, 153rd Gen. Assemb. (2026)","source_url":"https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2026/08/delaware-governor-signs-first-its-kind-bill-power-data-centers-clean-energy","source_title":"Delaware Governor Signs First-of-its-Kind Bill to Power Data Centers with Clean Energy — Sierra Club","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Delaware Public Service Commission; Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (clean energy component)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not established from available coverage"},{"id":"de-hb310-large-load-tax-credit-bar-2026","title":"Delaware — HB 310: Large Energy-Use Facilities Barred from Job-Creation Tax Credits and License Fee Reductions (Signed August 26, 2026)","short_title":"Delaware HB 310 large-load tax credit bar (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Delaware","state_abbr":"DE","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-26","enacted_date":"2026-08-26","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Delaware House Bill 310 prohibits large energy-use facilities from qualifying for job-creation business tax credits and license fee reductions. The logic is straightforward and rarely legislated: incentives designed to reward employment should not flow to facilities whose defining characteristic is enormous resource consumption and comparatively few permanent jobs. Rather than argue the point project by project, Delaware removed the eligibility. It was signed by Governor Matt Meyer on August 26, 2026 as one of four bills in the Energy Consumer Protection package, effective immediately. Most states in 2026 addressed data centers through moratoriums, zoning or utility cost allocation; disqualifying them from economic development incentives is a distinct lever, and one that operates on the state's own fiscal exposure rather than on siting or rates.","summary_technical":"Delaware House Bill 310, signed August 26, 2026, effective immediately. Prohibits large energy-use facilities from qualifying for job-creation business tax credits and for license fee reductions. Lever type: state fiscal-incentive eligibility, distinct from the siting (moratorium/zoning), cost-allocation (rate class) and supply (bring-your-own-generation) levers used elsewhere — it withdraws a subsidy rather than imposing an obligation, and so operates without any enforcement mechanism against the facility. One of four bills in the Energy Consumer Protection package: HB 233, HB 445, HB 310 (this entry) and SB 326. Definition of 'large energy-use facility' and whether the bar applies prospectively only are not established from available coverage.","who_is_protected":"Delaware taxpayers, through removal of job-creation tax credit and license fee reduction eligibility for facilities that consume heavily while employing comparatively few people.","who_must_comply":"Large energy-use facilities including data centers seeking Delaware business tax credits or license fee reductions; the Delaware Division of Revenue and economic development agencies administering those programmes.","citation":"Del. H.B. 310, 153rd Gen. Assemb. (2026)","source_url":"https://news.delaware.gov/2026/08/26/governor-matt-meyer-signs-energy-consumer-protection-legislation/","source_title":"Governor Matt Meyer Signs Energy Consumer Protection Legislation — State of Delaware News","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Delaware Division of Revenue; Delaware Prosperity Partnership / Division of Small Business","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Ineligibility for the specified credits and fee reductions"},{"id":"de-sb326-utility-capex-oversight-2026","title":"Delaware — SB 326: Limits and Oversight on Non-Mandatory Utility Capital Expenditures Recoverable from Residential Ratepayers (Signed August 26, 2026)","short_title":"Delaware SB 326 utility capital expenditure oversight (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Delaware","state_abbr":"DE","topics":["consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-26","enacted_date":"2026-08-26","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Delaware Senate Bill 326 places limits and enhanced oversight on the non-mandatory capital expenditures that for-profit monopoly utilities such as Delmarva Power can recover from standard residential ratepayers. It is the broadest of the four bills Governor Matt Meyer signed on August 26, 2026, because it is not confined to data centers — it constrains what a regulated monopoly can charge households for discretionary capital spending generally. Its inclusion in the Energy Consumer Protection package reflects the underlying concern: if large-load customers drive a utility's capital programme, the recovery question reaches every residential bill, and limiting discretionary recovery closes a route that a data-center-specific rule would leave open.","summary_technical":"Delaware Senate Bill 326, signed August 26, 2026, effective immediately. Places limits and enhanced oversight on NON-MANDATORY capital expenditures that for-profit monopoly utilities — Delmarva Power is named in coverage — may recover from standard residential ratepayers. Scope is general utility-regulation reform rather than data-center-specific: it operates on the recovery side of the utility's capital programme irrespective of what drives the spending. Included in the Energy Consumer Protection package with HB 233, HB 445 and HB 310 because large-load-driven capital programmes ultimately reach residential bills through recovery, a route that facility-specific rules do not close. Distinction between mandatory and non-mandatory expenditure, the oversight procedure, and the applicable standard of review are not established from available coverage.","who_is_protected":"Delaware standard residential ratepayers, through limits and oversight on discretionary utility capital spending recoverable from their bills.","who_must_comply":"For-profit monopoly utilities operating in Delaware including Delmarva Power; the Delaware Public Service Commission in reviewing capital cost recovery.","citation":"Del. S.B. 326, 153rd Gen. Assemb. (2026)","source_url":"https://news.delaware.gov/2026/08/26/governor-matt-meyer-signs-energy-consumer-protection-legislation/","source_title":"Governor Matt Meyer Signs Energy Consumer Protection Legislation — State of Delaware News","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Delaware Public Service Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disallowance of recovery for expenditures failing the statutory limits; specifics not established"},{"id":"va-scc-dominion-transmission-direct-assignment-2026","title":"Virginia — SCC Order Directing Dominion to Develop Direct Assignment of Transmission Costs to Large-Load Data Centers (2026)","short_title":"Virginia SCC data center transmission cost order (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-15","enacted_date":"2026-07-15","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"The Virginia State Corporation Commission ordered Dominion Energy to develop a policy directly assigning the cost of transmission infrastructure to data centers and other large-load customers that connect to it — with the stated goal of an acceptable and symmetrical approach to assigning costs in those circumstances. The order came out of Dominion's proposed change to Rider T-1, the line item recovering transmission investment, which the utility wanted increased to recover roughly $1.5 billion. The numbers make the effect legible: under Dominion's original filing a residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours would have paid about $2.90 more per month. Under the new allocation methodology that falls to about $0.94. The Piedmont Environmental Council described it as a first step toward requiring large-load data centers to pay for transmission facilities built solely to serve them. Virginia had already established a separate rate class for large data centers by regulatory action in 2025, and the 2026 General Assembly passed SB 253 and HB 1393 requiring that large load customers have no adverse effect on other customers' rates. This order is the SCC applying that principle to transmission specifically, in the state with by far the largest data center concentration in the country.","summary_technical":"Virginia State Corporation Commission order in Dominion Energy Virginia's Rider T-1 proceeding, argued July 14, 2026. Directs Dominion to develop a policy — reported elsewhere as a new tariff — directly assigning the cost of transmission infrastructure to data centers and other large-load customers interconnecting to those facilities, with the stated objective of an acceptable and symmetrical cost-assignment approach. Quantified effect on residential bills: Dominion's original filing sought recovery of more than $1.5 billion in transmission costs, which would have added approximately $2.90 per month for a residential customer at 1,000 kWh; the revised allocation methodology reduces that to approximately $0.94 per month. Regulatory lineage: Virginia regulators established a separate rate class for large data centers with stronger long-term payment requirements in 2025; the 2026 General Assembly enacted SB 253 / HB 1393 mandating that large load customers have no adverse effect on rates paid by other customers (see va-sb253-ratepayer, effective 2026-07-01). This order applies that statutory principle to transmission cost allocation. Distinct from va-public-utility-commission-virginia-state-corporation-commission-dominion-energy-v-new-g (2025-11-25), an earlier SCC matter already indexed. Case number and the precise order date were not obtained; effective_date is recorded as the day after the July 14 argument and should be confirmed against the docket.","who_is_protected":"Virginia residential and general-service ratepayers on the Dominion system, whose transmission rider exposure is reduced from roughly $2.90 to roughly $0.94 per month at 1,000 kWh by assigning large-load transmission costs directly.","who_must_comply":"Dominion Energy Virginia, which must develop the direct-assignment policy; data centers and other large-load customers interconnecting to transmission facilities.","citation":"Va. State Corp. Comm'n, Dominion Energy Va. Rider T-1 proceeding (2026)","source_url":"https://www.pecva.org/resources/press/press-release-the-virginia-state-corporation-commission-takes-important-first-step-of-requiring-large-load-data-centers-to-pay-for-transmission-facilities-constructed-solely-to-serve-them/","source_title":"The Virginia SCC takes important first step of requiring large-load data centers to pay for transmission facilities constructed solely to serve them — Piedmont Environmental Council","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Virginia State Corporation Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Cost assignment is enforced through the approved tariff; no separate penalty provision"},{"id":"ut-hb76-data-center-water-transparency-2026","title":"Utah — HB 76, Data Center Water Transparency Amendments: Pre-Construction Water Plans and Annual Reporting Above 75 Acre-Feet (Signed March 23, 2026)","short_title":"Utah HB 76 data center water transparency (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["data-centers","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-03-23","enacted_date":"2026-03-23","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"Utah House Bill 76 (2026 General Session), Data Center Water Transparency Amendments, signed March 23, 2026; third substitute (Cherry) enacted. COVERED FACILITY: at least 10,000 square feet, using network servers, withdrawing 75 acre-feet of water or more annually. TWO OBLIGATIONS: (1) pre-construction submission of projected water use together with discharge, treatment and water reuse plans — a front-loaded disclosure that attaches before the design is fixed; (2) annual reporting by covered facilities of water use and conservation efforts, including water sources, intended uses, conservation measures and water quality. PUBLICATION REGIME: information is published online, with individual facility data anonymised and totals aggregated for public release — preserving a public aggregate figure while withholding facility-level identification. Design contrast worth noting: Oklahoma's SB 259 (Groundwater Modernization Act, eff. 2026-11-01) pairs annual reporting with investigation and penalty authority, whereas Utah HB 76 pairs reporting with pre-construction planning disclosure and public aggregation — transparency-forward rather than enforcement-forward. Legislative provenance: coverage credits an academic paper on data center water consumption with prompting the bill. Enrolled text at le.utah.gov/Session/2026/bills/enrolled/HB0076.pdf.","who_is_protected":"Utah water users and the public, through mandatory pre-construction water planning by large data centers, annual use and conservation reporting above 75 acre-feet, and public release of aggregated statewide totals.","who_must_comply":"Data centers in Utah of at least 10,000 sq ft using network servers and withdrawing 75+ acre-feet annually, both before construction and annually thereafter.","citation":"Utah H.B. 76 (2026 Gen. Sess.) (Data Center Water Transparency Amendments)","source_url":"https://le.utah.gov/~2026/bills/static/HB0076.html","source_title":"HB 76 Data Center Water Transparency Amendments — Utah Legislature","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Utah Division of Water Rights / Utah Department of Natural Resources","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not established from available coverage"},{"id":"ne-lb1261-behind-the-meter-generation-2026","title":"Nebraska — LB 1261: Behind-the-Meter Generation Requirement So Large Load Does Not Fall on Ratepayers (Signed June 2026)","short_title":"Nebraska LB 1261 behind-the-meter generation (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Nebraska","state_abbr":"NE","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-07-17","enacted_date":"2026-06-03","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Nebraska Legislative Bill 1261 requires large energy users to generate their own electricity behind the meter, so that increased power demand is not paid for by Nebraska ratepayers. Governor Jim Pillen signed it in June 2026 and his office described it as landmark behind-the-meter legislation aimed at preserving the state's existing energy production. Nebraska is unusual in that its electricity is entirely publicly owned — it is the only all-public-power state in the country — which makes the cost-shifting question sharper than elsewhere: there are no shareholders to absorb a mismatch, so any unfunded load lands directly on other public power customers. LB 1261 sits alongside Governor Pillen's July 20, 2026 executive order suspending state tax incentives for large-scale data centers and creating a resource-protection task force, and the two together are Nebraska's answer to hyperscale demand: bring your own generation, and do not expect a subsidy.","summary_technical":"Nebraska Legislative Bill 1261, signed by Gov. Jim Pillen in June 2026. Imposes a behind-the-meter generation requirement on large energy users: covered entities must create their own electricity so that increased power consumption is not borne by Nebraska ratepayers. Characterised by the governor's office as preserving current state energy production. STRUCTURAL CONTEXT that makes this distinctive: Nebraska is the only state in which all electricity is publicly owned, so there is no investor-owned utility equity to absorb a cost mismatch — unfunded large load falls directly on other public power customers, which is why the state reached for a generation mandate rather than a rate class. Comparable instrument: Delaware HB 445 (bring-your-own-generation, signed 2026-08-26), which additionally mandates a clean/renewable share; LB 1261 as reported addresses generation responsibility without that component. Operates alongside the Pillen executive order of 2026-07-20 suspending state tax incentives for large-scale data centers and directing creation of a resource-protection task force (indexed as ne-gov-pillen-imagine-act-suspension-2026). DATES NULL: the signing is reported only as 'June 2026' with no day given, and no effective date was located; last_action_date is a month-end placeholder for ordering, not a verified date. Covered-entity threshold and enforcement mechanism not established.","who_is_protected":"Nebraska public power ratepayers, protected from funding the generation capacity that large energy users require.","who_must_comply":"Large energy users including data centers locating in Nebraska, which must generate their own power behind the meter; Nebraska public power districts.","citation":"Neb. L.B. 1261 (2026)","source_url":"https://governor.nebraska.gov/data-center-development-protecting-nebraska-resources","source_title":"Data Center Development & Protecting Nebraska Resources — Office of Governor Jim Pillen","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Nebraska Power Review Board; Nebraska public power districts","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not established from available coverage"},{"id":"tx-abbott-twdb-water-reporting-penalties-2026","title":"Texas — Governor's Directive to the Water Development Board to Penalize Data Centers That Fail to Report Water Use (September 14, 2026)","short_title":"Texas TWDB data center water reporting penalties (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["data-centers","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-14","enacted_date":"2026-09-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Governor Greg Abbott directed the Texas Water Development Board on September 14, 2026 to penalize data centers that do not report their water usage. The reason is a compliance failure rather than a policy gap: over the past three years, as few as 28% of data centers responded to the state's mandated water usage survey. A reporting requirement that three-quarters of its subjects ignore is not a reporting requirement, and this directive supplies the consequences that were missing. Non-compliance can carry criminal consequences and can make a data center ineligible for water permits, amendments or renewals under Chapter 11 of the Texas Water Code. Abbott instructed the Board to refer violations to the appropriate county or district attorney, and to notify the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality about potential permit disqualification. He also directed the Board to coordinate with the Public Utility Commission of Texas, the state's water utilities and ERCOT on the separate data center audit he ordered in August — which requires projects moving through ERCOT's interconnection queue to verify their water consumption, water sources and cooling technologies before proceeding, with non-compliant projects denied a grid connection. The Board must report back on enforcement by October 14, 2026.","summary_technical":"Directive from Gov. Greg Abbott to the Texas Water Development Board, issued September 14, 2026, requiring enforcement against data centers failing to report water usage. TRIGGER: response to the state-mandated water usage survey has run as low as 28% of data centers over three years. ENFORCEMENT ROUTES specified: (1) criminal consequences for non-compliance; (2) ineligibility for water permits, permit amendments and renewals under Chapter 11 of the Texas Water Code; (3) TWDB referral of violations to the appropriate county or district attorney; (4) TWDB notification to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality regarding potential permit disqualification. COORDINATION MANDATE: TWDB to work with the Public Utility Commission of Texas, state water utilities and ERCOT on the separate data center audit ordered in August 2026 (indexed as tx-gov-abbott-dc-audit-directive-2026, eff. 2026-08-03), which conditions advancement through the ERCOT interconnection process on verification of water consumption, water sources and cooling technologies, with denial of grid connection for non-compliant projects. REPORTING: TWDB must update the Governor's office on enforcement by October 14, 2026, with further updates after the audit concludes. Significance: this is the enforcement layer on an existing disclosure duty rather than a new duty — the contrast with Utah HB 76 and Oklahoma SB 259 is that Texas already had the survey and is now attaching permit and criminal consequences to ignoring it.","who_is_protected":"Texas water users and communities, through enforcement that makes the existing data center water usage survey consequential — permit ineligibility and prosecutorial referral for non-reporters.","who_must_comply":"Data centers operating in or seeking to operate in Texas, which must report water usage to the TWDB; data centers in the ERCOT interconnection queue, which must verify water consumption, sources and cooling technology.","citation":"Tex. Governor's Directive to the Tex. Water Dev. Bd. (Sept. 14, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.texastribune.org/2026/09/14/texas-data-centers-abbott-water-survey-enforcement/","source_title":"Texas could penalize data centers for not reporting water use — The Texas Tribune","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Texas Water Development Board; Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; county and district attorneys; Public Utility Commission of Texas and ERCOT for the interconnection audit","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Criminal consequences; ineligibility for water permits, amendments or renewals under Chapter 11 of the Texas Water Code; denial of ERCOT grid connection for audit non-compliance"},{"id":"wv-responsible-data-center-development-plan-2026","title":"West Virginia — 20-Year Responsible Data Center Development Plan Under HB 2014, the Power Generation and Consumption Act (August 11, 2026)","short_title":"West Virginia 20-year data center development plan (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"West Virginia","state_abbr":"WV","topics":["data-centers","public-sector","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-11","enacted_date":"2026-08-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"West Virginia announced a 20-year Responsible Data Center Development Plan on August 11, 2026, presented jointly by Governor Patrick Morrisey, Senate President Randy Smith and House Speaker Roger Hanshaw. It uses the authority of House Bill 2014, the Power Generation and Consumption Act, to set state-level oversight and development criteria for hyperscale data centers, built around seven core principles and administered by a Data Economy Office. Developers must demonstrate baseline financial capacity, committed capital and clear power load projections, and developers and utilities are made responsible for electrical infrastructure upgrades and energy capacity needs. The fiscal design is the unusual part: revenue generated through the High Impact Data Center designation does not enter the state general revenue fund, host county budgets cannot be negatively impacted, and 50 percent of project revenue is dedicated to reducing and ultimately eliminating the state personal income tax. West Virginia is starting from zero active hyperscale facilities, so the plan is prospective rather than remedial. It has drawn substantive criticism: Mountain State Spotlight reported in September that despite the plan's promise of a community voice, locals say they remain shut out, and the Charleston Gazette-Mail argued it doubles down on existing industry regulation gaps. Recorded here at limited strength for that reason — it is a planning framework and revenue structure, not a set of enforceable resource limits.","summary_technical":"West Virginia Responsible Data Center Development Plan, announced August 11, 2026, exercising the legislative authority of HB 2014, the Power Generation and Consumption Act, to establish state-level oversight and development criteria for hyperscale data centers over a 20-year horizon. Administration: a Data Economy Office manages the comprehensive plan. Developer criteria: demonstrated baseline financial capacity, committed capital, and clear power load projections. Cost responsibility: developers and utilities are made responsible for electrical infrastructure upgrades and energy capacity needs. FISCAL ARCHITECTURE via the High Impact Data Center (HIDC) designation: HIDC revenue does not enter the state general revenue fund; host county budgets cannot be negatively impacted; 50% of project revenue is dedicated to reducing and ultimately eliminating the State Personal Income Tax. Stated focus areas: ratepayer protection, tax reduction, grid modernisation, national security, water usage, and local community involvement. Baseline: zero active hyperscale facilities in the state at announcement. STRENGTH RECORDED AS LIMITED, deliberately: this is a planning framework and revenue-allocation structure rather than an enforceable constraint on resource use, and independent reporting contests its community-involvement claims — Mountain State Spotlight (2026-09-13) reports locals saying they remain shut out of the process, and the Charleston Gazette-Mail characterises the plan as doubling down on industry regulation gaps. Reason magazine frames the income-tax-elimination goal as the plan's organising purpose, which bears on how it should be read.","who_is_protected":"West Virginia ratepayers and host counties, nominally — through developer and utility responsibility for infrastructure upgrades, a bar on negative host county budget impact, and ring-fencing of HIDC revenue from the general fund. Community-level protection is contested by independent reporting.","who_must_comply":"Hyperscale data center developers seeking High Impact Data Center designation in West Virginia; utilities serving them; the Data Economy Office administering the plan.","citation":"W. Va. Responsible Data Center Development Plan (Aug. 11, 2026) (under H.B. 2014, Power Generation and Consumption Act)","source_url":"https://governor.wv.gov/article/governor-morrisey-legislative-leaders-announce-unified-plan-responsible-data-center-0","source_title":"Governor Morrisey, Legislative Leaders Announce Unified Plan for Responsible Data Center Development in West Virginia — WV Office of the Governor","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"West Virginia Data Economy Office; West Virginia Department of Commerce","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not established; the plan operates through designation criteria rather than penalties"},{"id":"nj-s3379-a4096-data-center-transparency-2026","title":"New Jersey — S3379/A4096 Data Center Energy and Water Transparency, Completing the Four-Pillar State Plan (August 27, 2026)","short_title":"New Jersey S3379/A4096 data center transparency (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Jersey","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["data-centers","transparency","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-27","enacted_date":"2026-08-27","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill signed S3379/A4096 on August 27, 2026 (P.L.2026, c.75), requiring data centers in the state to report their energy and water use to the Board of Public Utilities twice a year. Reports cover total energy use (including for cooling), IT-equipment energy use, the serving utility and service agreements, on-site and backup power supplies and their permits, total and peak daily water use, and water sources. The Board must publish the reports online within 30 days. Data centers that receive state financial incentives must also report efficiency and sustainability metrics, which the Board keeps confidential except in anonymized, aggregated form. Reporting runs for three years from each data center's first report, after which the Board decides whether to make it permanent. The law took effect immediately. The Governor presented the signing as delivering all four pillars of her May 2026 data center plan: data centers paying their fair share for energy and the grid (July 2026 laws requiring them to bring their own clean energy and creating a separate rate class), transparency about energy and water use (this law), meaningful community investments, and good union jobs during construction. The same day she announced Department of Community Affairs guidance (sent to towns August 25) to help municipalities negotiate community benefits agreements with developers, backed by technical assistance teams at the Economic Development Authority, the Board of Public Utilities and the Department of Environmental Protection.","summary_technical":"N.J. S3379 (Ruiz, Mukherji) / A4096 (Venezia, Haider, Bagolie), P.L.2026, c.75, approved Aug. 27, 2026, effective immediately; supplements Title 48. Senate passed 34-2 (Mar. 23, 2026); Assembly substituted S3379 for A4096 and passed it 76-3-0 (June 30, 2026); Senate concurred 39-0 (June 30, 2026). Applies to the owner or operator of any 'data center' in the State (no megawatt threshold in the enacted text; facilities used primarily for internal operations of licensed health care providers are excluded). Semi-annual water and energy usage report to BPU (first due within 6 months, or 3 months for data centers operating at least a year); BPU publishes within 30 days; incentive recipients also report PUE, WUE, energy reuse factor, renewable energy factor and related indicators, kept confidential except anonymized aggregates of at least five facilities; 60-day advance notice of substantial operational changes; reporting applies for three years from a facility's first report, after which BPU decides whether to continue it permanently by rule; BPU coordinates with DEP. The enacted text contains no penalty provision. Signed alongside DCA community-benefits-agreement guidance (Local Finance Notice, Aug. 25, 2026) and EDA/BPU/DEP technical assistance. Related July 2026 legislation (bring-your-own clean energy; separate rate class) is tracked as nj-new-jersey-s731-a796-data-center-ratepayer-protection-and-grid-dem-2026.","who_is_protected":"New Jersey residents and ratepayers, through mandatory public reporting of data center energy and water use; and New Jersey municipalities, through state guidance and technical assistance strengthening their position in community benefits negotiations.","who_must_comply":"Large-scale data center facilities in New Jersey, which must report energy and water use; the EDA, DEP and BPU in providing municipal technical assistance.","citation":"P.L.2026, c.75 (N.J. S. 3379 / A. 4096, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.nj.gov/governor/news/2026/20260827a.shtml","source_title":"Governor Sherrill Delivers All Four Pillars of Data Center Plan, Puts Power Back in the Hands of Communities — State of New Jersey","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New Jersey Board of Public Utilities; Department of Environmental Protection; Economic Development Authority","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None specified in the enacted text"},{"id":"il-urbana-surveillance-technology-oversight-ordinance-2026","title":"Urbana, IL — Surveillance Technology Oversight Ordinance Requiring Council Approval for New AND Existing Surveillance Tech (July 3, 2026)","short_title":"Urbana IL surveillance technology oversight ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Urbana, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Champaign","city":"Urbana","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","facial-recognition","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-07-03","enacted_date":"2026-07-03","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Urbana adopted a surveillance technology oversight ordinance on July 3, 2026 by a 6-1 vote, after nearly 19 months of discussion and an earlier tabling. It governs how city departments may buy and use surveillance technology and databases that monitor, track or identify individuals or groups. The provision that gives it real force is that council approval is required not only for new surveillance technologies but for those already in use — most ordinances of this type grandfather existing deployments, which is how a city ends up with oversight that never reaches the tools it actually operates. Before any technology can be adopted, the department must publicly explain what it is, why it is needed, how much it will cost, and how it could affect residents' privacy and civil liberties. The scope is broad: police drones, facial recognition software, gunshot detection systems, social media monitoring software, and privately owned security cameras such as Ring doorbells where the city can access them remotely. Vehicle and body cameras are exempt. Ward 3 Alderwoman Shirese Hursey cast the lone no vote. Urbana sits beside Champaign in central Illinois and is home to the University of Illinois.","summary_technical":"City of Urbana, Ill. surveillance technology oversight ordinance, adopted 6-1 by City Council July 3, 2026 (dissent: Ward 3 Alderwoman Shirese Hursey). Governs municipal acquisition and use of surveillance technology and databases used to monitor, track or identify individuals or groups. KEY PROVISION: council approval is required for surveillance technologies ALREADY IN USE as well as new acquisitions — the ordinance does not grandfather existing deployments, which distinguishes it from the common pattern where an oversight regime binds only future purchases and therefore never reaches the department's current inventory. PRE-ADOPTION DISCLOSURE DUTY: departments must publicly state what the technology is, the justification for it, its cost, and its potential effect on residents' privacy and civil liberties before it may be adopted. ENUMERATED SCOPE: police drones, facial recognition software, gunshot detection systems, social media monitoring software, and privately owned security cameras including Ring-type doorbell devices where remotely accessible by the city. EXEMPTIONS: vehicle cameras and body-worn cameras. Procedural history: under discussion roughly 19 months; the council had previously tabled a version of the measure before adoption.","who_is_protected":"Urbana residents, through public justification and council approval requirements before any surveillance technology may be acquired or continued in use, including technologies the city already operates.","who_must_comply":"All City of Urbana departments including the police department; vendors supplying covered surveillance technology; the city in its access to privately owned remotely accessible cameras.","citation":"City of Urbana, Ill. — Surveillance Technology Oversight Ordinance (July 3, 2026)","source_url":"https://ipmnewsroom.org/urbana-enacts-ordinance-to-require-council-approval-for-use-of-surveillance-technology/","source_title":"Urbana enacts ordinance to require council approval for use of surveillance technology — Illinois Public Media","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Urbana City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Surveillance technology may not be acquired or continued in use without council approval"},{"id":"mi-grand-rapids-alpr-under-surveillance-policy-2026","title":"Grand Rapids, MI — Administrative Order Bringing Police ALPR and Flock Cameras Under the City Surveillance Technology Policy (September 2026)","short_title":"Grand Rapids MI ALPR under surveillance policy (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Grand Rapids, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Kent","city":"Grand Rapids","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Grand Rapids moved its police automated license plate reader system, including Flock cameras, under the city's Surveillance Technology Policy by administrative order from City Manager Mark Washington, announced August 28 and due by mid-September 2026. The gap it closes is a chronological accident: the City Commission first approved an ALPR system in 2012, three years before Grand Rapids adopted its Surveillance Technology Policy in 2015, so the department's plate readers had operated outside the framework built to govern exactly that kind of technology for over a decade. GRPD added Flock cameras in June 2024. Under the order, all governance, oversight, reporting, complaint, audit and transparency rules now apply to any future purchase, renewal or expansion. The 31 existing units may keep operating, but renewal requires Public Safety Committee review and City Commission approval. GRPD's August 25 presentation is accepted as the 2026 annual report, and from 2027 ALPR is folded into regular annual surveillance reporting. The move followed pointed questioning of GRPD and Flock officials over data sharing and ICE access.","summary_technical":"City of Grand Rapids, Mich. — administrative order by City Manager Mark Washington placing the Grand Rapids Police Department's automated license plate reader system, including Flock Safety cameras, under the city's Surveillance Technology Policy. Announced August 28, 2026 for issuance by mid-September 2026. GAP CLOSED: the City Commission approved an ALPR system in 2012; the city adopted its Surveillance Technology Policy in 2015. The pre-existing deployment therefore sat outside the governing framework for over a decade — the same grandfathering problem Urbana IL addressed by ordinance in July 2026 (see il-urbana-surveillance-technology-oversight-ordinance-2026). GRPD began using Flock cameras in June 2024. OPERATIVE EFFECT: all governance, oversight, reporting, complaint, audit and transparency rules of the Surveillance Technology Policy apply to future purchase, renewal or expansion of ALPR systems; the 31 existing units continue operating, with subsequent renewal conditioned on Public Safety Committee review and City Commission approval. REPORTING: GRPD's August 25, 2026 presentation is accepted as the 2026 annual ALPR report; from 2027 ALPR is incorporated into regular annual surveillance reporting. INSTRUMENT TYPE: administrative order by the city manager, not an ordinance — revocable by a successor administration without council action, which is why strength is moderate. Context: the order followed public questioning of GRPD and Flock officials over data sharing and ICE access (Michigan Advance, 2026-08-28), and GRPD separately opened Flock camera searches to public view. DATES NULL: the order was announced for issuance 'by mid-September' and no source confirms the signing date.","who_is_protected":"Grand Rapids residents and anyone driving in the city, through extension of the Surveillance Technology Policy's governance, reporting, complaint, audit and transparency rules to a plate reader system that had operated outside it since 2012.","who_must_comply":"Grand Rapids Police Department; the city in any future purchase, renewal or expansion of ALPR systems; Flock Safety as vendor.","citation":"City of Grand Rapids, Mich. — Administrative Order on ALPR under the Surveillance Technology Policy (Sept. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.grandrapidsmi.gov/city-news/posts/city-brings-automated-license-plate-reader-technology-under-surveillance-policy-to-boost-transparency","source_title":"City brings automated license plate reader technology under surveillance policy to boost transparency — City of Grand Rapids, Michigan","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Grand Rapids City Manager; Public Safety Committee; Grand Rapids City Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Future ALPR purchase, renewal or expansion cannot proceed without committee review and commission approval"},{"id":"ca-lausd-student-genai-moratorium-2026","title":"Los Angeles Unified, CA — Moratorium on Student Generative AI Access on District-Issued Devices for All Grades (2026-27 School Year)","short_title":"LAUSD student generative AI moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Los Angeles, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Los Angeles","city":"Los Angeles","topics":["education","children","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-02","enacted_date":"2026-09-02","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Los Angeles Unified has blocked student access to generative AI tools on district-issued devices for all grades, beginning with the 2026-27 school year. Administrators confirmed it at a committee meeting on September 2, 2026. The change is significant in scale — roughly 378,000 students in the second-largest school district in the United States — and it is a reversal: before 2026-27, students aged 13 and over could use generative AI after completing a guidelines course. Two things distinguish it from New York City's restriction announced days earlier. First, NYC's moratorium covers 2-K through 8th grade with carve-outs; LAUSD's covers all students on district devices. Second, LAUSD's arrived administratively rather than by board policy: officials implemented it to comply with the district's new screen time policy, and board members and parents learned of it afterwards. Board member Nick Melvoin said it was not well publicised and encouraged the district to do more. That procedural route matters for how durable the measure is — it was an implementation decision, not a governing-board vote, and could be revisited the same way.","summary_technical":"Los Angeles Unified School District moratorium on student access to generative artificial intelligence tools on district-issued devices, effective for the 2026-27 school year, confirmed by administrators at a September 2, 2026 committee meeting. SCOPE: all students, all grades, on district-issued devices. Estimated population affected: approximately 378,000 students; LAUSD is the second-largest school district in the United States. PRIOR REGIME: students aged 13 or older could access generative AI after completing a guidelines course; the moratorium removes that pathway. ORIGIN — material to durability: the restriction was implemented ADMINISTRATIVELY as a consequence of the district's new screen time policy rather than adopted as a standalone board policy, and district board members and parents were not aware of it in advance. Board Member Nick Melvoin stated it was not well publicised. This is an implementation decision by administration, revisable by the same route, which is why strength is recorded as moderate despite universal scope. COMPARISON: New York City's contemporaneous measure (nyc-doe-ai-moratorium-2026, eff. 2026-09-02) is a one-year moratorium covering 2-K through 8th grade with express carve-outs for students with disabilities, multilingual learners and career-readiness/computer science contexts, adopted and announced by the Mayor and Chancellor. LAUSD's is broader in grade coverage but weaker in provenance. DISTINCT from lausd-ai-policy-2024 (eff. 2024-04-08), the district's earlier AI policy, which this supersedes in practical effect for student access.","who_is_protected":"Approximately 378,000 Los Angeles Unified students, through removal of generative AI access on district-issued devices — and, indirectly, from the data exposure that student use of third-party AI tools entails.","who_must_comply":"LAUSD students using district-issued devices; district IT and instructional administration implementing the block.","citation":"L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. — Student Generative AI Moratorium (2026-27 school year)","source_url":"https://laist.com/news/education/lausd-students-barred-artificial-intelligence-tools","source_title":"LAUSD students barred from AI use, in a surprise to school board and parents — LAist","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Los Angeles Unified School District administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Technical block on district-issued devices; no separate disciplinary penalty established"},{"id":"ca-sb813-independent-ai-verification-organizations-2026","title":"California — SB 813: Framework for Independent Verification Organizations to Assess AI Systems for Compliance with State Law (Signed September 9, 2026)","short_title":"California SB 813 independent AI verification (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["automated-decisions","transparency","employment","consumer-protection"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-09","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"California Senate Bill 813, by Senator Jerry McNerney, sets up a voluntary system for independent organizations that check the risks of AI systems and models. Governor Gavin Newsom signed it on September 9, 2026, alongside Assembly Bill 1405, which creates a state registry of AI auditors. By January 1, 2028, the state's Government Operations Agency must set the rules for which organizations can be designated as 'independent verification organizations': how to apply, what expertise and independence they need (including limits on being paid in ways that depend on the result), and when a designation can be suspended or taken away. The agency must gather input from working groups that include AI company engineers and AI safety experts and report to the Legislature, and designated organizations must file yearly reports. The law does not require any AI company to use one of these organizations and does not create new liability. It takes effect January 1, 2027.","summary_technical":"SB 813 (McNerney; coauthors Asm. Bauer-Kahan and Lowenthal), Stats. 2026 ch. 179, approved Sept. 9, 2026; non-urgency, effective Jan. 1, 2027. Adds Gov. Code ch. 14 (§§ 8898-8898.4), 'California Artificial Intelligence Safety Independent Verification Organizations.' On or before Jan. 1, 2028, the Government Operations Agency must (a) develop application requirements for designation as an independent verification organization (IVO), covering qualifications and the benchmarks, metrics and methodologies the IVO proposes to use; (b) develop procedures to suspend or terminate a designation (for failures to adhere to standards, material misrepresentations, etc.); and (c) publish designation criteria drawing on existing standards and frameworks, including independence and conflict-of-interest requirements (an IVO may be paid by the assessed party at market rates but not on terms contingent on results). The agency must consult stakeholders, convene working groups that include competing AI companies' engineers and AI safety experts, and report to the Legislature under Gov. Code § 9795. Designated IVOs report annually to the agency and Legislature, with permitted redactions for trade secrets, cybersecurity, public safety and national security. § 8898.4: the chapter creates no liability solely for failure to comply with a standard, is not a state endorsement of any AI system, and does not require any developer, deployer or operator to engage an IVO. Signed as a package with AB 1405 (Bauer-Kahan), which creates a state registry for AI auditors.","who_is_protected":"Californians subject to decisions made or assisted by AI systems — including job applicants assessed by hiring tools — through a mechanism for independent third-party verification of compliance rather than developer self-attestation.","who_must_comply":"Developers and deployers of AI systems and models subject to California law; independent verification organizations performing assessments under the framework.","citation":"Stats. 2026, ch. 179 (SB 813); Cal. Gov. Code §§ 8898-8898.4","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB813","source_title":"CA California SB 813 independent AI verification (2026) — official record (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"State of California (implementing agency not established from available coverage); independent verification organizations as assessors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None. The law expressly does not create liability for failing to comply with a standard under it and does not require anyone to use an independent verification organization."},{"id":"ca-ab1405-ai-auditor-registry-2026","title":"California — AB 1405: State Registry of AI Auditors with Independence, Transparency and Integrity Standards (Signed September 9, 2026)","short_title":"California AB 1405 AI auditor registry (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["automated-decisions","transparency","employment","consumer-protection"],"status":"enacted","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-09","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"California Assembly Bill 1405 creates a state registry for AI auditors and sets standards for their independence, transparency and integrity. Governor Newsom signed it on September 9, 2026, the same day he signed Senate Bill 813, which sets up a framework for independent organizations to assess AI systems. The law takes effect January 1, 2027, and the Government Operations Agency must have the registry running by January 1, 2029, after which AI auditors must be registered. Registered auditors must be independent of the companies they audit, may not audit their own work or seek jobs with the company during an audit, and may not block or punish employee whistleblowers. An auditor who breaks the rules can be removed from the registry and referred to the Attorney General. Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan authored the bill.","summary_technical":"California Assembly Bill 1405 (2026), authored by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, approved by Gov. Gavin Newsom September 9, 2026 (Ch. 178, Stats. 2026); adds Chapter 5.9.5 (commencing with Section 11549.80) to the Government Code. Statute effective January 1, 2027; the Government Operations Agency must establish the AI auditor registry, and the prohibition on unregistered AI auditing commences, January 1, 2029. Registrants supply business name and contact information, applicable California laws, certifications, a service description and standard operating procedures referencing industry standards, and pay annual fees (capped at reasonable administrative cost) into the AI Auditors' Registration Fund. Independence standards: registered auditors must be independent of the auditee, may not evaluate their own work, may not seek employment with the auditee during an audit, must possess the necessary expertise, and may not prevent employee whistleblowing or retaliate against employees. CPA firms licensed by the California Board of Accountancy performing attestation engagements comply through existing professional standards. Enforcement: violations are grounds for removal from the registry and referral to the Attorney General or other enforcement authorities, after written notice and an opportunity to cure. Companion to SB 813 (McNerney; Ch. 179, Stats. 2026), which establishes the framework for independent verification organizations to assess AI systems and models. RECONCILIATION: duplicate legiscan-ca-ab1405 removed.","who_is_protected":"Californians relying on AI compliance assessments, through auditor independence, transparency and integrity requirements that guard against assessments captured by the parties being assessed.","who_must_comply":"Organizations and individuals seeking to act as AI auditors in California, who must register and meet the independence standards; developers and deployers procuring audits.","citation":"Cal. A.B. 1405, Ch. 178, Stats. 2026 (approved Sept. 9, 2026)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1405","source_title":"CA California AB 1405 AI auditor registry (2026) — official record (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"State of California registering agency (not established from available coverage)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Violations are grounds for removal from the registry and referral to the Attorney General or other enforcement authorities, after written notice and an opportunity to cure."},{"id":"oh-puco-aep-default-service-notice-order-2026","title":"Ohio — PUCO Order Requiring Data Centers to Give AEP Ohio 180 Days' Notice Before Returning to Default Service (August 2026)","short_title":"Ohio PUCO data center default service notice order (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Ohio","state_abbr":"OH","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-05","enacted_date":"2026-08-05","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio ordered AEP Ohio to put protections in place against data center energy costs falling on other customers. The mechanism addresses a specific and easily overlooked risk: a data center that has been buying power on the competitive market can decide to return to the utility's default service, and if it does so without warning, the utility must find that energy on short notice — at whatever price the market happens to be, with the cost landing on everyone. Under the order, data centers must give AEP Ohio 180 days' notice of an intent to return to default service, and AEP Ohio will then secure the energy through separate auctions or spot-market purchases rather than folding it into the general supply. This builds on the tariff PUCO ordered in July 2025, under which data center customers above 25 megawatts must pay for at least 85% of their subscribed monthly capacity for twelve years, with a four-year ramp-up and an exit fee equal to three years of minimum charges. Ohio has been among the most active states on data center cost allocation, and the 2025 tariff was widely treated as a national template.","summary_technical":"Public Utilities Commission of Ohio order, reported August 5, 2026, directing AEP Ohio to implement protections against data center energy costs being borne by other customers. OPERATIVE MECHANISM: data centers must provide AEP Ohio 180 days' notice of intent to RETURN TO DEFAULT SERVICE; AEP Ohio will then secure the energy to serve that customer through separate auctions or spot-market purchases rather than through general default service procurement. Risk addressed: an unannounced return to default service by a very large load forces short-notice procurement at prevailing prices, with the cost socialised across the default service class — a switching risk distinct from the initial interconnection and minimum-take questions. BUILDS ON the PUCO order of July 9, 2025 (indexed as oh-public-utility-commission-...-aep-ohio-data-ce, eff. 2025-07-09) adopting a settlement among AEP Ohio, PUCO staff, the Ohio Consumers' Counsel and others, under which data center customers above 25 MW must pay for at least 85% of subscribed monthly capacity for 12 years, with a 4-year ramp-up and an exit fee equal to three years' minimum charges. Case number for the 2026 order not obtained; effective_date recorded as the reporting date and should be confirmed against the PUCO docket.","who_is_protected":"AEP Ohio default service customers, protected from bearing short-notice energy procurement costs when a large data center load returns to default service.","who_must_comply":"Data center customers of AEP Ohio contemplating a return to default service, who must give 180 days' notice; AEP Ohio in procuring the associated energy separately.","citation":"Pub. Utils. Comm'n of Ohio, Order re AEP Ohio data center default service notice (Aug. 2026)","source_url":"https://puco.ohio.gov/news/puco-orders-aep-ohio-to-create-data-center-specific-tariff","source_title":"PUCO orders AEP Ohio to create data center specific tariff — Public Utilities Commission of Ohio","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Public Utilities Commission of Ohio","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Enforced through the approved tariff and service terms"},{"id":"az-acc-cooperative-large-load-process-2026","title":"Arizona — Corporation Commission Large-Load Process Keeping Electric Cooperative Ratepayers from Subsidizing Data Centers (August 2026)","short_title":"Arizona ACC cooperative large-load process (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arizona","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-01","enacted_date":"2026-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"The Arizona Corporation Commission unanimously approved rule changes in August 2026 creating a standardised process for electric cooperatives to bring data centers and other large-load customers online without their existing members paying for it. When a large load arrives, the commission must now determine whether the application is in the public interest, whether its rates are reasonable, and whether other customer classes of the Arizona Electric Power Cooperative would be adversely affected. The co-op context is what makes this distinctive. Rural electric cooperatives are owned by their members and typically have small, fixed customer bases — a single hyperscale customer can represent a larger share of load than the entire residential membership, so an unfunded transmission or infrastructure commitment does not get diluted the way it would at a large investor-owned utility. Chairman Nick Myers framed the process as letting rural Arizona capture economic growth responsibly without being subsidised by other customers. The affected utilities are Mohave, Graham County, Trico, Sulphur Springs Valley and Duncan Valley Electric Cooperatives, together with the Arizona Electric Power Cooperative. Separately, the Arizona legislature responded to data centers in its 2026 session with a three-year pause on tax incentives.","summary_technical":"Arizona Corporation Commission rule changes, unanimously approved August 2026, establishing a standardised large-load customer service agreement process for Arizona electric cooperatives. DETERMINATION REQUIRED of the ACC on each application: whether it is in the public interest, whether its rates are reasonable, and whether it prevents other Arizona Electric Power Cooperative customer classes from being adversely affected. Purpose: prevent cooperative members from bearing the costs of new transmission and infrastructure investment undertaken to serve large-load customers such as data centers. WHY THE COOPERATIVE CONTEXT MATTERS: member-owned rural cooperatives have small fixed customer bases, so a single hyperscale load can exceed the entire residential class in consumption terms and an unfunded commitment cannot be diluted across a large ratepayer pool as at an investor-owned utility — the exposure per existing member is structurally higher than the equivalent at a large IOU. Affected entities named in coverage: Mohave Electric Cooperative, Graham County Electric Cooperative, Trico Electric Cooperative, Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Duncan Valley Electric Cooperative and Arizona Electric Power Cooperative. ACC Chairman Nick Myers is quoted on the framework's purpose. Parallel state action: the Arizona legislature's 2026 session produced a three-year pause on data center tax incentives (not covered by this entry). Docket number not obtained; effective_date is a month placeholder and should be confirmed.","who_is_protected":"Member-owners and existing customer classes of Arizona's rural electric cooperatives, protected from funding transmission and infrastructure investment made to serve data centers and other large loads.","who_must_comply":"Data centers and other large-load customers seeking service from Arizona electric cooperatives; the named cooperatives and the Arizona Electric Power Cooperative in submitting large-load service agreements for ACC review.","citation":"Ariz. Corp. Comm'n — Large-Load Customer Service Agreement Process for Electric Cooperatives (Aug. 2026)","source_url":"https://azfreenews.com/2026/08/arizona-commission-moves-to-prevent-ratepayers-from-subsidizing-data-centers-large-power-users/","source_title":"Arizona Commission Moves To Prevent Ratepayers From Subsidizing Data Centers, Large Power Users — AZ Free News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Arizona Corporation Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Large-load service agreements not meeting the public interest, reasonable rate and no-adverse-effect criteria are not approved"},{"id":"il-chicago-mayoral-eo-data-center-review-2026","title":"Chicago, IL — Mayoral Executive Order Creating Enhanced Regulatory Review for Data Centers and Calling for a Temporary Moratorium (August 2026)","short_title":"Chicago data center executive order (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chicago, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Cook","city":"Chicago","topics":["data-centers","public-sector","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-11","enacted_date":"2026-08-11","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an executive order in August 2026 creating enhanced regulatory review for data centers, and called on the City Council to enact a temporary moratorium on new data centers and material expansions of existing ones while a comprehensive framework is developed. The order works through permitting rather than zoning. It requires enhanced evaluation of air pollution control permits to reduce emissions from diesel backup generators, new data-center-specific rules for noise from cooling equipment, generators and other mechanical systems, and a cross-departmental review process for Planned Developments involving data centers that assesses electricity demand, water use, generator noise and pollution, air emissions, cumulative environmental burdens and neighborhood effects. The planning and development commissioner must weigh environmental effects, air pollution, and water and energy use when reviewing proposals. Two things are worth noting about the framing. First, Chicago approached data centers primarily as an air quality and cumulative-burden problem — diesel generators and noise — where most cities have led with water or ratepayer costs. Second, the mayor cannot impose a moratorium himself; the order asks the Council to do it, so the moratorium component is a request rather than a rule. Separately, the Council's Committee on Environment amended a municipal code provision that had specifically excluded data centers from reporting their water and electricity usage, and Alderman Maria Hadden introduced an ordinance to require that reporting. The order followed a city working group's final report in July 2026.","summary_technical":"City of Chicago mayoral executive order signed August 2026 by Mayor Brandon Johnson, creating enhanced regulatory review for data centers and formally calling on the City Council to enact a temporary moratorium on new data centers and material expansions of existing facilities pending a comprehensive regulatory framework. OPERATIVE COMPONENTS, all permitting-based: (1) enhanced evaluation of air pollution control permits directed at emissions from diesel backup generators; (2) new data-center-specific noise regulation covering cooling equipment, generators and other mechanical systems; (3) a cross-departmental Planned Development review process assessing electricity demand, water use, generator noise and pollution impacts, air emissions, cumulative environmental burdens and neighborhood effects; (4) a duty on the planning and development commissioner to weigh environmental effects, air pollution, and water and energy use in reviewing new proposals. LIMIT OF THE INSTRUMENT: a mayoral executive order cannot itself impose a moratorium; that component is a request to the City Council and is not in force by virtue of this order. FRAMING CONTRAST: Chicago leads on air quality, diesel generator emissions, noise and cumulative environmental burden, where the dominant 2026 municipal framing nationally has been water consumption and ratepayer cost allocation. COMPANION COUNCIL ACTION: the Committee on Environment amended a municipal code provision that had EXCLUDED data centers from mandatory water and electricity usage reporting, and Ald. Maria Hadden introduced an ordinance to require it — a separate instrument not covered by this entry. Antecedent: a city working group issued a final report in July 2026 recommending a comprehensive policy framework. Exact signing date not established; effective_date reflects the reporting window and should be confirmed.","who_is_protected":"Chicago residents near existing and proposed data centers, through enhanced air permit scrutiny of diesel generators, new noise rules for mechanical systems, and cumulative environmental burden assessment in development review.","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking Planned Development approval or air pollution control permits in Chicago; the Department of Planning and Development, Department of Public Health and other reviewing departments.","citation":"City of Chicago — Mayoral Executive Order on Data Center Regulatory Review (Aug. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2026/august/data-center-order.html","source_title":"Mayor Brandon Johnson Signs Executive Order Creating Enhanced Regulatory Review for Data Centers in Chicago and Calls for a Temporary Data Center Moratorium — City of Chicago","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Chicago Department of Planning and Development; Chicago Department of Public Health (air permits)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Permits and Planned Development approvals may be conditioned or denied on the enhanced review criteria"},{"id":"mo-st-louis-data-center-zoning-tax-ordinance-2026","title":"St. Louis, MO — Board of Aldermen Data Center Zoning, Renewable Energy and Buffer Rules Plus a Ban on City Tax Incentives (September 11, 2026)","short_title":"St. Louis MO data center zoning and tax incentive ban (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"St. Louis, MO","state_abbr":"MO","county":"St. Louis City","city":"St. Louis","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"strong","enacted_date":"2026-09-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"The St. Louis Board of Aldermen unanimously passed comprehensive data center regulations on September 11, 2026, after months of contested negotiation, and sent them to Mayor Cara Spencer. The package does four things at once. It classifies data centers by size and restricts where they can be built, confining major facilities to industrial areas. It sets a 600-foot buffer from homes. It imposes renewable energy requirements along with limits on noise, heat, light and sound emissions. And a companion bill bans city tax incentives for data center projects outright. That last element is what makes the package unusual: most municipalities regulate where a data center may go and how it must behave, while continuing to offer incentives to attract one. St. Louis did both at once — tightening the siting rules and removing the subsidy. The path there was not smooth: in July, bill sponsors publicly objected that amendments were weakening the rules, and the final version emerged only after weeks of further negotiation. St. Louis city is distinct from St. Louis County and from St. Charles County and Wentzville, all of which have their own separate measures.","summary_technical":"City of St. Louis, Mo. — comprehensive data center regulation package passed unanimously by the Board of Aldermen September 11, 2026, transmitted to Mayor Cara Spencer. COMPONENTS: (1) classification of data centers by size, with zoning restrictions confining major facilities to industrial areas; (2) a 600-foot buffer from residential properties; (3) renewable energy requirements; (4) limits on noise, heat, light and sound emissions; (5) a COMPANION BILL prohibiting city tax incentives for data center projects. The combination of siting restriction with incentive prohibition is the distinguishing feature — the common municipal pattern regulates siting and conduct while retaining incentives to attract facilities, whereas St. Louis removed the subsidy in the same package. Procedural history: the St. Louis planning body advanced regulations restricting major data centers to industrial areas; in July 2026 bill sponsors publicly stated that amendments 'weaken' the rules (STLPR, 2026-07-20); final passage followed weeks of further negotiation. STATUS RECORDED AS `enacted` NOT `effective`: the measure had passed the Board and gone to the mayor at verification, and no source confirms signature or an effective date. JURISDICTIONAL DISAMBIGUATION: the City of St. Louis is a separate jurisdiction from St. Louis County (which was separately considering guidelines), and distinct from the already-indexed st-charles-county-mo-dc-moratorium-2026 and wentzville-mo-dc-moratorium-2026. Ordinance/board bill numbers not obtained.","who_is_protected":"St. Louis city residents, through size-based zoning restriction of major data centers to industrial areas, a 600-foot residential buffer, renewable energy requirements, emission limits, and removal of city tax subsidies for such projects.","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking to build in the City of St. Louis or seeking city tax incentives; city planning and zoning staff.","citation":"City of St. Louis, Mo. — Data Center Zoning and Tax Incentive Ordinances (passed Sept. 11, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.stlpr.org/government-politics-issues/2026-09-11/st-louis-data-center-rules-finally-head-to-mayor","source_title":"After months of debate, St. Louis data center rules finally head to mayor — St. Louis Public Radio","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of St. Louis Planning and Urban Design Agency / Board of Aldermen","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Non-conforming data center development is not permitted; city tax incentives are unavailable to data center projects"},{"id":"ct-sb4-surveillance-pricing-ban-2026","title":"Connecticut — SB 4 (Public Act 26-64): Ban on Retail and Delivery Surveillance Pricing Using Personal Data (Signed May 27, 2026)","short_title":"Connecticut SB 4 surveillance pricing ban (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Connecticut","state_abbr":"CT","topics":["consumer-protection","privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-10-01","enacted_date":"2026-05-27","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed Senate Bill 4 on May 27, 2026 (Public Act 26-64), and its surveillance-pricing rules take effect October 1, 2026. The law bars retail sellers and third-party delivery services from 'surveillance pricing' — setting a customized price for a particular shopper based on personal data gathered through tracking technology such as cameras, sensors, biometric monitoring or device tracking. Ordinary discounts, loyalty programs, cost-based differences and supply-and-demand price changes are still allowed. Separately, any business that uses a 'price setting device' to raise online prices must tell shoppers: 'THIS PRICE WAS INCREASED BY A PRICE SETTING DEVICE USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA.' Only the Attorney General can enforce it, under the state's unfair trade practices law; shoppers cannot sue. The ban arrived as part of a broader overhaul of the state's privacy law rather than as a standalone measure. It is broader in reach than Maryland's Protection from Predatory Pricing Act signed weeks earlier: Maryland's applies to food retailers above 15,000 square feet and third-party delivery services, whereas Connecticut's covers retail sellers generally alongside delivery services.","summary_technical":"Connecticut Public Act 26-64 (Substitute SB 4, 'An Act Concerning Consumer Privacy and Protection'), approved May 27, 2026; all sections effective October 1, 2026. Sec. 11 defines 'surveillance pricing' as establishing a customized price for a consumer good or service specific to a consumer based in whole or part on personal data collected through technology (biometric monitoring, cameras, device tracking, sensors) by the price-setter directly or via third-party data acquisition. Sec. 11(c): no RETAIL SELLER (a retailer under § 12-407 making retail sales of tangible personal property, including retail food establishments) or THIRD-PARTY DELIVERY SERVICE doing business in the state shall engage in surveillance pricing; carve-outs for retention discounts on services, justifiable cost or temporal (supply-and-demand) differences, and discounts under publicly posted uniform terms, broadly defined groups (veterans, seniors, students, etc.) or opt-in loyalty programs. Sec. 11(b): any person using a 'price setting device' for other than a discount in online transactions must disclose 'THIS PRICE WAS INCREASED BY A PRICE SETTING DEVICE USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA.' Sec. 11(d) exempts insurance licensees, GLBA financial institutions and CT-supervised banks. Sec. 11(e): violations are CUTPA unfair or deceptive trade practices enforced solely by the Attorney General; no private right of action. SCOPE COMPARISON: Maryland's Protection from Predatory Pricing Act (HB 895, signed 2026-04-28, indexed as md-hb895-predatory-pricing-act-2026) reaches food retailers with at least 15,000 square feet plus third-party delivery services; Connecticut reaches retail sellers generally plus delivery services. The rest of PA 26-64 covers data-broker registration, a deletion mechanism and Connecticut Data Privacy Act amendments.","who_is_protected":"Connecticut consumers purchasing from retail sellers and third-party delivery services, protected from being charged individually customized prices derived from their personal data.","who_must_comply":"Retail sellers operating in Connecticut and third-party delivery services setting consumer prices.","citation":"Conn. Pub. Act 26-64, § 11 (Substitute S.B. 4, 2026) — approved May 27, 2026; effective October 1, 2026","source_url":"https://www.cga.ct.gov/2026/ACT/PA/PDF/2026PA-00064-R00SB-00004-PA.PDF","source_title":"CT Connecticut SB 4 surveillance pricing ban (2026) — official record (www.cga.ct.gov)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Connecticut Office of the Attorney General; Department of Consumer Protection","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Violation is an unfair or deceptive trade practice under CUTPA (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a)), enforced solely by the Attorney General; no private right of action."},{"id":"pa-eo-2026-05-data-center-grid-requirements-2026","title":"Pennsylvania — Executive Order 2026-05: Data Center Permits Conditioned on GRID Requirements and Local Approval, Fast Track Removed, NDAs Prohibited (August 18, 2026)","short_title":"Pennsylvania EO 2026-05 data center restrictions (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pennsylvania","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["data-centers","public-sector","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-18","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro signed Executive Order 2026-05 on August 18, 2026, sharply restricting data center development in the state. The order conditions state environmental permitting on two things a developer previously did not need. First, the Department of Environmental Protection may only review a permit application if the developer has made a legally binding commitment to meet the Governor's Responsible Infrastructure Development requirements — the GRID Requirements — which impose limits on electricity and water usage. Second, and more unusual, the developer must already have local approval before the state will look at the application. That inverts the normal sequence, in which a developer can arrive at a township holding state permits and considerable momentum; here the community goes first. The order also removes all AI data center proposals from Pennsylvania's Fast Track permitting process, and prohibits the use of nondisclosure agreements for data center projects — directly addressing the pattern where municipalities negotiate with developers under NDAs and residents learn the details only after decisions are made. The reversal is striking. Shapiro had been an early champion of data center development, including a $20 billion Amazon commitment to build at least two facilities in Bucks and Luzerne Counties. He said he had 'no other choice than but to take this executive action to protect the good people of Pennsylvania from these predatory developers.'","summary_technical":"Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Executive Order 2026-05, signed by Gov. Josh Shapiro August 18, 2026. THREE OPERATIVE COMPONENTS: (1) the Department of Environmental Protection may review a data center permit application ONLY IF the developer has made a legally binding commitment to satisfy the Governor's Responsible Infrastructure Development (GRID) Requirements, which set limits on electricity and water usage, AND has already obtained LOCAL APPROVAL — state permit review is thus gated on prior municipal consent, inverting the usual sequence in which state permitting precedes or runs parallel to local land-use approval and gives the developer leverage at the township; (2) all AI data center proposals are REMOVED from Pennsylvania's Fast Track permitting process; (3) NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS for data center projects are PROHIBITED — a direct response to the practice of municipalities negotiating with developers under NDAs, which has been a recurring transparency complaint nationally and is the subject of separate debate in New York and elsewhere. POLICY REVERSAL: Shapiro had been an early champion of data center development, including a $20 billion Amazon commitment for at least two facilities in Bucks and Luzerne Counties; he characterised the order as protecting Pennsylvanians from 'predatory developers'. INSTRUMENT TYPE: executive order, revocable by a successor governor — the same durability limitation as the Kentucky and Nebraska executive actions, and weaker on that axis than the Delaware or Oklahoma statutes. Pennsylvania municipalities had separately been pursuing their own moratoriums (see the indexed pa-pennsylvania-...-municipal-data-center-moratorium-bills and SB 1345), and PA HB 1924 on data center reporting is separately enacted.","who_is_protected":"Pennsylvania residents and communities, through state permit review gated on prior local approval and on binding electricity and water limits, removal of AI data centers from expedited permitting, and a prohibition on the NDAs that have kept residents from learning project terms.","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking Pennsylvania environmental permits, who must make a legally binding GRID commitment and obtain local approval first; the Department of Environmental Protection in accepting applications; parties to data center project negotiations, who may not use NDAs.","citation":"Pa. Exec. Order 2026-05 (Aug. 18, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.pa.gov/governor/newsroom/2026-press-releases/governor-shapiro-signs-executive-order-on-data-center-developmen","source_title":"Governor Shapiro Signs Executive Order on Data Center Development in PA — Commonwealth of Pennsylvania","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; Office of the Governor","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Permit applications are not reviewed absent a binding GRID commitment and local approval; AI data center proposals are ineligible for Fast Track permitting"},{"id":"tva-data-center-capacity-commitment-charge-2026","title":"Tennessee Valley Authority — Capacity Commitment Charge on Data Center Loads Above 5 MW, About $1.5M per Megawatt (Approved August 20, 2026; Effective October 1, 2026)","short_title":"TVA data center capacity commitment charge (2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"Tennessee Valley Authority","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-10-01","enacted_date":"2026-08-20","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"Tennessee Valley Authority Board of Directors approval, August 20, 2026, of a new wholesale rate structure for data centers, adopted within the recommendations of TVA's Integrated Resource Plan; effective October 1, 2026. MECHANISM: new or expanding data center loads above 5 MW are subject to a CAPACITY COMMITMENT CHARGE attached to TVA's data center rate schedules, structured to recover the incremental capacity costs attributable to those customers. QUANTUM: upfront capacity commitment charges of approximately $1.5 million per megawatt, payable over three to five years; projected all-in average billing impact on data center customers of approximately 10%, phased across three consecutive fiscal years. STATED OBJECTIVE: hold residential rates down while continuing to serve data center growth. INSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE: TVA is a federal corporate agency, not a state-regulated utility, and supplies power across seven states, so this is a regional cost-allocation decision rather than a single-state rate case — it reaches a materially larger footprint than any state PUC order in this dataset. TVA is reported as among the first large US utilities to adopt a dedicated tariff targeting AI-driven load. INSTRUMENT CLASS: a demand-side price signal, distinct from the siting restrictions (moratoriums, zoning, bans) that dominate the 2026 municipal record and from the procurement mandates (Delaware HB 445, Nebraska LB 1261) that require large users to bring their own generation. Status recorded as `enacted` because the October 1, 2026 effective date had not arrived at verification.","who_is_protected":"Residential and general-service ratepayers across TVA's seven-state service territory, protected from absorbing the incremental capacity costs of data center load through a charge assigned to those customers directly.","who_must_comply":"New or expanding data center customers with loads above 5 MW taking power from TVA; local power companies distributing TVA power.","citation":"Tenn. Valley Auth. Bd. of Dirs. — Data Center Capacity Commitment Charge (approved Aug. 20, 2026; eff. Oct. 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2026/aug/20/tva-to-charge-data-centers-more-for-power-under/","source_title":"TVA to charge data centers more for power under separate rate — Chattanooga Times Free Press","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Tennessee Valley Authority","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Capacity commitment charges are assessed through the applicable data center rate schedules"},{"id":"va-botetourt-wvwa-google-water-cap-2026","title":"Botetourt County, VA — Western Virginia Water Authority Caps Google Data Center at 2 Million Gallons Per Day Until Infrastructure Is Upgraded at Google's Cost (August 2026)","short_title":"Botetourt VA Google data center 2 MGD water cap (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Botetourt County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Botetourt","topics":["data-centers","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-19","enacted_date":"2026-08-19","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Officials at the Western Virginia Water Authority confirmed in August 2026 that they will not approve Google requests for more than 2 million gallons of water per day for its planned data center in Botetourt County — even though the underlying contract permits Google to request up to 8 million gallons daily. The reason is physical rather than discretionary: the infrastructure to deliver more than 2 million gallons per day from Carvins Cove does not exist, and local officials say they are not prepared for that level of demand. Two features make this worth recording rather than treating as an ordinary utility contract. First, Google is contractually required to pay for the system upgrades needed to raise that ceiling, so the cost of expanding capacity sits with the customer creating the demand rather than with ratepayers. Second, the funding agreement requires the Water Authority to meet with Google every six months to review and project the facility's water needs — a recurring reassessment rather than a one-time approval. By projected water use, the Botetourt site would be Google's eighth-largest data center complex in the world.","summary_technical":"Western Virginia Water Authority determination, confirmed August 2026, that it will not approve requests exceeding 2 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY for Google's planned Botetourt County data center, against a contractual ceiling permitting requests up to 8 million gallons per day. BASIS: the physical delivery infrastructure from Carvins Cove to the site does not exist above 2 MGD, and the Authority states it is not currently prepared for that demand. TWO OPERATIVE FEATURES: (1) COST ALLOCATION — Google is contractually obliged to fund the system upgrades required to deliver above the current ceiling, placing expansion cost on the demand-creating customer rather than the ratepayer base; (2) PERIODIC REVIEW — the funding agreement requires the Water Authority to meet with Google every six months to review and project the facility's water needs, converting a static approval into a recurring reassessment. Trajectory: initial use of 2 MGD rising toward 8 MGD as infrastructure permits. Scale context: Cardinal News reported that by water use the Botetourt site would be Google's eighth-largest data center complex globally. INSTRUMENT CLASS: this is a public water authority's service determination under a funding agreement, not an ordinance or statute — enforceable as contract and capacity rather than as regulation, which is why strength is moderate. It is nonetheless a binding, quantified constraint of the kind most jurisdictions in this dataset only aspire to through reporting requirements.","who_is_protected":"Botetourt County and Roanoke Valley water customers served by the Western Virginia Water Authority, protected by a hard 2 MGD ceiling, by Google bearing the cost of any capacity expansion, and by six-monthly reassessment of projected demand.","who_must_comply":"Google, as the data center customer, which must fund delivery infrastructure upgrades and participate in six-monthly reviews; the Western Virginia Water Authority in approving service requests.","citation":"W. Va. Water Auth. — Botetourt County data center service determination (Aug. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wdbj7.com/2026/08/19/google-data-center-capped-2m-gallons-water-until-infrastructure-upgrades/","source_title":"Google data center capped at 2M gallons of water a day until infrastructure upgraded — WDBJ7","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Western Virginia Water Authority","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Service requests above the approved ceiling are not granted"},{"id":"ma-eo-658-responsible-data-center-development-2026","title":"Massachusetts — Executive Order No. 658: 100% Clean Energy for Data Centers Above 25 MW, Local Approval Before State Permits, Community Benefits Agreements and a Ratepayer Protection Fund (September 8, 2026)","short_title":"Massachusetts EO 658 responsible data center development (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Massachusetts","state_abbr":"MA","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-08","enacted_date":"2026-09-08","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey signed Executive Order No. 658 on September 8, 2026, titled Establishing Requirements for Responsible Data Center Development and Operations in Massachusetts to Protect and Support Ratepayers, Communities, and the Environment. It is the most comprehensive single data center instrument in this dataset, because it combines four mechanisms that other states adopted separately. First, any data center with peak demand above 25 megawatts must meet 100% of its electricity demand with clean energy. Second, developers must obtain local approval before they can seek state construction permits — the same inversion Pennsylvania adopted three weeks earlier, and for the same reason: it stops a developer arriving at a town already holding state authorisations. Third, applicants must demonstrate conformance with state standards on air quality and public health, water use and community engagement, and must submit a community benefits agreement with key stakeholders. Fourth, and the part that gives the clean energy requirement teeth, a developer who does not procure enough incremental clean electricity to cover annual consumption must make an alternative compliance payment, and those funds are credited to a Ratepayer Protection Fund that offsets electricity supply costs for all ratepayers. Compliance with the clean energy requirement can be met by generating onsite, funding construction of nearby new generation, or paying into that fund. The Department of Environmental Protection must stand up the payment mechanism by the end of 2026.","summary_technical":"Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Order No. 658, signed by Gov. Maura Healey September 8, 2026: 'Establishing Requirements for Responsible Data Center Development and Operations in Massachusetts to Protect and Support Ratepayers, Communities, and the Environment.' FOUR OPERATIVE MECHANISMS: (1) CLEAN ENERGY MANDATE — data centers with peak demand above 25 MW must meet 100% of electricity demand with clean energy generation, satisfiable by onsite generation, funding construction of nearby new generation, or alternative compliance payment; (2) LOCAL APPROVAL PRECONDITION — developers must obtain local approval before seeking state construction permits, inverting the customary sequence and matching Pennsylvania EO 2026-05 of 2026-08-18 (see pa-eo-2026-05-data-center-grid-requirements-2026); (3) STATE STANDARDS DEMONSTRATION — applicants must show conformance with standards covering air quality and public health, water use, and community engagement, and must submit a COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT with key stakeholders, a requirement New Jersey approached through guidance rather than mandate; (4) ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE PAYMENT — a developer failing to procure sufficient incremental clean electricity against annual consumption pays into an ACP mechanism, with proceeds credited to a RATEPAYER PROTECTION FUND used to mitigate electricity supply costs for all ratepayers. Implementation: the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection must establish the ACP mechanism by the end of 2026. COMPARATIVE NOTE: this is the only instrument in this dataset combining a clean-energy procurement mandate (cf. Delaware HB 445, Nebraska LB 1261), a local-approval-first gate (cf. Pennsylvania EO 2026-05), a mandatory community benefits agreement (cf. New Jersey's fourth pillar, which is guidance) and a compliance-payment fund in one order. Instrument type is an executive order, revocable by a successor governor. Massachusetts municipalities had separately been acting — Holyoke banned data centers outright in June 2026 (see ma-holyoke-ai-data-center-ban-2026) and Westfield adopted a one-year moratorium.","who_is_protected":"Massachusetts ratepayers, through the clean energy mandate and the Ratepayer Protection Fund that offsets supply costs; host communities, through the local approval precondition and mandatory community benefits agreements; and residents, through air quality, public health and water use standards.","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers with peak demand above 25 MW in Massachusetts; state permitting agencies, which may not issue construction permits absent local approval; MassDEP, which must establish the alternative compliance payment mechanism by end of 2026.","citation":"Mass. Exec. Order No. 658 (Sept. 8, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.mass.gov/executive-orders/no-658-establishing-requirements-for-responsible-data-center-development-and-operations-in-massachusetts-to-protect-and-support-ratepayers-communities-and-the-environment","source_title":"No. 658: Establishing Requirements for Responsible Data Center Development and Operations in Massachusetts — Mass.gov","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection; Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs; state permitting agencies","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Alternative compliance payments for failure to procure sufficient incremental clean electricity; state construction permits unavailable absent local approval"},{"id":"ma-holyoke-ai-data-center-ban-2026","title":"Holyoke, MA — Zoning Ordinance Banning AI Data Centers Above 12 MW Citywide, With a Carve-Out for the Existing Green High Performance Computing Center (June 2026)","short_title":"Holyoke MA AI data center ban (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Holyoke, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Hampden","city":"Holyoke","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-06-17","enacted_date":"2026-06-17","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Holyoke became the first community in Massachusetts to ban AI data centers. The City Council voted 9-4 in June 2026 to amend the city's zoning ordinance, adding a definition of 'Data Center' and providing that the use is not allowed anywhere in the city; Mayor Joshua Garcia signed it the following day. The prohibition reaches AI data center development above 12 megawatts. What makes the ordinance interesting is the carve-out. Holyoke is home to the Massachusetts Green High Performance Computing Center, founded more than a decade ago by a consortium of universities for scientific research and running almost entirely on carbon-free power. Rather than ban the category and force an awkward conflict with a facility the city values, the ordinance lets that center continue operating under the same 12-megawatt cap. So the measure is not opposition to computing infrastructure as such — it distinguishes between a research facility on clean power at modest scale and speculative hyperscale AI development, and permits only the former. Holyoke's own electricity comes largely from municipal hydropower, which is part of why the city attracted the computing center in the first place.","summary_technical":"City of Holyoke, Mass. — amendment to the Holyoke Zoning Ordinance adopted by City Council 9-4 on June 16, 2026 and signed by Mayor Joshua Garcia on June 17, 2026. Adds a definition of 'Data Center' to the zoning ordinance and provides that the use is NOT ALLOWED ANYWHERE in the city; the prohibition reaches AI data center development above 12 MW. GRANDFATHER CARVE-OUT: the existing Massachusetts Green High Performance Computing Center — established over a decade earlier by a university consortium for scientific research and operating almost entirely on carbon-free power — may continue operating, subject to a 12 MW cap. DRAFTING SIGNIFICANCE: the measure is calibrated rather than categorical. By pairing a use prohibition with a capped exception for an existing clean-powered research facility, it distinguishes between modest-scale carbon-free research computing and speculative hyperscale AI development, permitting only the former. Most municipal bans in this dataset either prohibit the use outright (New Jersey's wave) or pause it temporarily (the dominant moratorium pattern); a permanent ban with a defined capped exception is uncommon. FIRST IN STATE: reported as the first Massachusetts municipality to enact a citywide AI data center ban. Context: Holyoke operates municipal hydropower, which is a principal reason the Green High Performance Computing Center located there. State-level companion: Massachusetts EO 658 of 2026-09-08 (see ma-eo-658-responsible-data-center-development-2026); Westfield MA separately adopted a one-year moratorium.","who_is_protected":"Holyoke residents, through a citywide prohibition on AI data center development above 12 MW, while preserving an existing clean-powered university research computing facility under a capped exception.","who_must_comply":"Any party seeking to develop an AI data center in Holyoke; the Massachusetts Green High Performance Computing Center, which must remain within its 12 MW cap; city zoning officials.","citation":"City of Holyoke, Mass. — Zoning Ordinance amendment banning data centers (June 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/09/11/holyoke-massachusetts-ai-data-center-ban-green-center","source_title":"Holyoke banned new data centers. But it likes the eco-conscious one it already has — WBUR","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Holyoke zoning enforcement / Holyoke City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data centers are not an allowed use anywhere in the city; the grandfathered facility is limited to 12 MW"},{"id":"va-virginia-beach-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Virginia Beach, Virginia — 12-Month Moratorium on New Data Center Applications Pending Zoning Regulations (August 18, 2026)","short_title":"Virginia Beach 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Virginia Beach, VA","state_abbr":"VA","city":"Virginia Beach","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-18","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","expires_date":"2027-08-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"On August 18, 2026 the Virginia Beach City Council voted 10-0 to stop accepting applications for new data centers for one year, or until the city adopts zoning rules that specifically govern them, whichever comes first. The pause followed months of public opposition to a proposed data center and a June 2026 direction from Council telling city staff to draft rules prohibiting new data center development. Staff advised that permanent restrictions would take longer to write and are expected back before Council in October 2026. In practical terms this means a developer cannot file, and the city will not process, a new large-scale data center application in Virginia Beach during the pause. It does not undo approvals already granted, and it does not by itself create any permanent limit — that depends on the ordinance Council adopts next.","summary_technical":"City of Virginia Beach, Va. — City Council resolution establishing a temporary moratorium on the filing, acceptance and processing of applications for new data center development, adopted 10-0 on August 18, 2026. DURATION: 12 months from adoption, or until the City Council adopts an ordinance regulating data centers, whichever occurs first. TRIGGER: a June 2026 Council directive to staff to develop regulations prohibiting new data center development, issued after public opposition to a specific proposal; staff advised that a permanent zoning framework required additional drafting time and scheduled a return to Council for October 2026. SCOPE: new applications only — the measure is a processing pause, not a use prohibition, and does not revoke previously granted approvals. Virginia Beach acted in the same week as neighboring Chesapeake, which moved separately to restrict data center development through its zoning ordinance rather than a moratorium.","who_is_protected":"Virginia Beach residents and ratepayers, and neighborhoods near sites that could host large-scale data centers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and applicants seeking permits or site plan approval in Virginia Beach; the city departments that would otherwise accept and process those applications","citation":"City of Virginia Beach, Va. — 12-month data center moratorium (adopted August 18, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wtkr.com/news/in-the-community/virginia-beach/virginia-beach-city-council-approves-12-month-moratorium-on-new-data-center-applications","source_title":"Virginia Beach city council approves 12-month moratorium on new data center applications — WTKR","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Virginia Beach Planning Department / Virginia Beach City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No new data center application may be filed, accepted or processed during the moratorium"},{"id":"nv-nye-county-dc-ban-basin-162-2026","title":"Nye County, Nevada — Bill No. 2026-11: Outright Ban on Data Center Construction and Operation in Over-Appropriated Hydrographic Basin 162 (Pahrump Valley) (August 18, 2026)","short_title":"Nye County NV data center ban in Basin 162 (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Nye County, NV","state_abbr":"NV","county":"Nye County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-18","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"On August 18, 2026 the Nye County Board of Commissioners voted 5-0 to ban the construction and operation of data centers anywhere in Nevada Hydrographic Basin 162 — the Pahrump Valley groundwater basin, which covers more than 500,000 acres across most of southern Nye County and runs east toward the Clark County line. This is not a pause: it is a permanent zoning prohibition, adopted as Bill No. 2026-11 amending Title 17 of the county code. Nye County is the first local government in Nevada to ban data centers outright rather than temporarily. The stated reason is water. Basin 162 is already over-appropriated, meaning the state has granted rights to more water than the basin reliably produces, and commissioners concluded that adding a large new industrial water user would deepen the shortfall. The ban blocks the proposed 900-acre Manse Technology Campus from Gigawatt Development Partners LLC, even though that company says it had already secured water rights for the project. Elsewhere in Nye County a separate county-wide moratorium adopted in June 2026 still applies until the county writes permanent data center regulations.","summary_technical":"Nye County, Nev. — Bill No. 2026-11, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners 5-0 on August 18, 2026, amending Nye County Code Title 17 (zoning) to prohibit the construction and operation of data centers within Nevada Hydrographic Basin 162. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE: Basin 162 (Pahrump Valley) exceeds 500,000 acres and encompasses the large majority of southern Nye County including the town of Pahrump, extending east toward the Clark County boundary. LEGAL CHARACTER: a permanent use prohibition, distinguishable from the temporary county-wide moratorium the same board adopted in June 2026 covering new data center applications county-wide pending adoption of local data center regulations — that moratorium continues to govern the balance of the county. RATIONALE: Basin 162 is designated over-appropriated; the Nye County Water District Governing Board issued an emergency order in May 2026 recommending a pause on data centers in the Pahrump Valley, which the commissioners' June moratorium and this August ban followed. PRACTICAL EFFECT: bars the proposed 900-acre Manse Technology Campus (Gigawatt Development Partners LLC), which had reportedly secured the water rights it needed. FIRST-IN-STATE: no other Nevada local government had previously banned data centers outright. Procedural note: an earlier proposal to put a data center ban before Nye County voters did not advance.","who_is_protected":"Nye County residents and groundwater users in the Pahrump Valley, and the over-appropriated Basin 162 aquifer itself","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators proposing facilities anywhere within Hydrographic Basin 162, including Gigawatt Development Partners LLC","citation":"Nye County, Nev. Bill No. 2026-11, amending Nye County Code Title 17 (adopted August 18, 2026)","source_url":"https://nevadacurrent.com/2026/08/20/nye-county-totally-bans-data-centers-in-over-appropriated-water-basin/","source_title":"Nye County totally bans data centers in over-appropriated water basin — Nevada Current","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Nye County Planning Department / Nye County Board of Commissioners (Nye County Code Title 17)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data centers are a prohibited use within Basin 162; no permit may be issued"},{"id":"wi-chippewa-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Chippewa County, Wisconsin — 12-Month Moratorium on New Large-Scale Data Centers in the Six Towns Under County Zoning (August 11, 2026)","short_title":"Chippewa County WI 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Chippewa County, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Chippewa County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-11","enacted_date":"2026-08-11","expires_date":"2027-08-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"The Chippewa County Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a 12-month moratorium on new large-scale data centers at its August 11, 2026 meeting, extending it from the 10 months originally proposed so staff would have enough time to write zoning rules. The moratorium's stated basis is the electrical, water and other infrastructure demand that large data centers place on a rural county. An important limit: Chippewa County does not zone its entire territory. The moratorium reaches only the six towns that have adopted the county's zoning ordinance — Anson, Eagle Point, Hallie, Lafayette, Wheaton and Woodmohr. Towns that zone themselves are unaffected. No data center had actually been proposed in Chippewa County when the board acted; the county describes the pause as time to put land use regulations in place to protect public health, safety and general welfare, not as a permanent bar on data centers. Neighbouring Barron County moved in the same direction, and Eau Claire County began work on its own moratorium in September 2026.","summary_technical":"Chippewa County, Wis. — County Board of Supervisors resolution/ordinance imposing a 12-month moratorium on new large-scale data centers, adopted unanimously at the August 11, 2026 board meeting. DURATION: extended from the 10 months originally noticed to 12 months on the floor, to allow adequate time for zoning research and drafting. JURISDICTIONAL SCOPE — MATERIAL LIMIT: applies only within the six towns that have adopted the Chippewa County zoning ordinance: Anson, Eagle Point, Hallie, Lafayette, Wheaton and Woodmohr. Wisconsin towns that exercise their own zoning authority are outside the county ordinance and therefore outside the moratorium. STATED BASIS: extensive electrical, water and other infrastructure demands of new data centers. DIRECTION TO STAFF: the board directed county staff to research and create data center regulations to be in place when the moratorium lapses. POSTURE: no data center project was pending in the county at adoption; the county frames the measure as prospective land-use preparation rather than opposition to development. REGIONAL CONTEXT: Chippewa and Barron Counties joined a regional push for data center moratoriums; Eau Claire County began drafting its own in September 2026.","who_is_protected":"Residents of the six Chippewa County towns under county zoning, and county electric and water infrastructure","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to site large-scale data centers in the towns of Anson, Eagle Point, Hallie, Lafayette, Wheaton or Woodmohr","citation":"Chippewa County, Wis. — 12-month large-scale data center moratorium (adopted August 11, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wkow.com/news/chippewa-county-passes-12-month-moratorium-on-data-centers/article_f7540bb1-76b3-51d9-baa1-fd037bf05df7.html","source_title":"Chippewa County passes 12-month moratorium on data centers — WKOW","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Chippewa County Department of Land Conservation and Forest Management (zoning) / Chippewa County Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No permit or approval for a new large-scale data center may issue in the covered towns during the moratorium"},{"id":"fl-levy-county-dc-moratorium-ord-2026-05","title":"Levy County, Florida — Ordinance 2026-05: One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers, Large-Scale Data Centers and Large Load Customer Facilities (September 8, 2026)","short_title":"Levy County FL data center moratorium Ord. 2026-05 (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Levy County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Levy County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-08","expires_date":"2027-09-30","last_verified_date":"2026-09-16","summary_plain":"Levy County commissioners approved Ordinance 2026-05 on September 8, 2026, temporarily halting the submission, acceptance, processing, review and approval of any application for a data center, large-scale data center, large load customer facility or associated facility. The pause takes effect October 1, 2026 — or whenever the ordinance is filed with the Florida Department of State, if that is later — and runs through September 30, 2027. During that year county staff will study the impacts of these facilities and draft permanent rules on where and how they may be built. The ordinance itself lists the concerns driving it: continuous electric demand, water and cooling systems, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, backup generators, fuel and battery storage, fire protection and telecommunications infrastructure, plus noise, vibration, lighting, heat, construction traffic and added strain on roads, utilities and emergency services. Commissioners had signaled the moratorium in late June 2026 and residents had circulated a petition for a one-year pause. Levy was one of three Florida counties moving on one-year data center moratoriums at the same time.","summary_technical":"Levy County, Fla. — Ordinance 2026-05, approved by the Board of County Commissioners at its September 8, 2026 meeting. OPERATIVE EFFECT: temporarily halts the submission, acceptance, processing, review and approval of applications for data centers, large-scale data centers, large load customer facilities and associated facilities. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2026, or upon filing with the Florida Department of State, whichever occurs later (Fla. Stat. ch. 125 county ordinance filing requirement). SUNSET: September 30, 2027. NOTE THE 'LARGE LOAD CUSTOMER FACILITY' TERM — the ordinance reaches beyond data centers proper to any large electrical load customer facility, which is broader than most local moratoriums in this dataset. RECITALS: continuous electric demand; water and cooling systems; wastewater and stormwater infrastructure; backup generators, fuel and battery storage; fire protection; telecommunications infrastructure; and impacts involving noise, vibration, lighting, heat, construction traffic and increased demands on roads, utilities and emergency services. PURPOSE: during the moratorium staff will study impacts and develop proposed siting and operating regulations. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: commissioners publicly sought a moratorium at the end of June 2026 following a citizen petition drive.","who_is_protected":"Levy County residents, ratepayers, and county road, utility and emergency-service capacity","who_must_comply":"Applicants for data centers, large-scale data centers, large load customer facilities and associated facilities in unincorporated Levy County; county departments that would accept or process those applications","citation":"Levy County, Fla. Ordinance 2026-05 (adopted September 8, 2026; effective October 1, 2026 through September 30, 2027)","source_url":"https://www.chronicleonline.com/news/local/levy-county-approves-moratorium-on-data-centers/article_177dad48-7ddc-55b8-a945-cedb2a3a0013.html","source_title":"Levy County approves moratorium on data centers — Citrus County Chronicle","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Levy County Department of Planning and Zoning / Levy County Board of County Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No covered application may be submitted, accepted, processed, reviewed or approved while the ordinance is in effect"},{"id":"mn-carlton-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Carlton County, Minnesota — One-Year Moratorium Barring Approval of New Data Center Developments in All County Townships (August 24, 2026)","short_title":"Carlton County MN 1-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Carlton County, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Carlton County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-24","enacted_date":"2026-08-24","expires_date":"2027-08-24","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Carlton County's Board of Commissioners unanimously adopted a one-year moratorium on data centers on August 24, 2026. The ordinance prohibits approval of new data center developments in any of the county's townships, and it is written broadly: it covers facilities used for servers, computers, digital storage, cryptocurrency mining and artificial intelligence operations. Residents drove the outcome. The Carlton County Land Stewards pressed the issue through three separate meetings before the board scheduled a hearing, warning among other things that a single hyperscale campus could take up to 1,000 acres of farmland out of production. The board room applauded when the vote passed. The county's Planning Commission must report back to the board on its progress toward permanent regulations by February 2027. Carlton joins a growing group of Minnesota counties adopting moratoriums while state and federal rules lag behind the pace of data center development.","summary_technical":"Carlton County, Minn. — interim ordinance (moratorium) adopted unanimously by the Board of Commissioners on August 24, 2026, prohibiting approval of new data center developments in all Carlton County townships for one year. DEFINITIONAL BREADTH: the freeze covers facilities used for servers, computers, digital storage, cryptocurrency mining and artificial intelligence operations — the cryptocurrency-mining inclusion is significant, since moratoriums limited to 'data centers' alone have been read not to reach mining operations. Minnesota counties act here under the interim-ordinance authority of Minn. Stat. § 394.34, which permits a moratorium while a comprehensive plan or official controls are being studied. REPORTING REQUIREMENT: the Planning Commission must deliver a progress report to the Board by February 2027, an intermediate checkpoint rather than an expiry. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: the Carlton County Land Stewards raised the request across three board meetings in July 2026 before a hearing was scheduled; the board advanced the pause on July 7, 2026 and adopted it August 24, 2026. CONTEXT: part of a broader wave of Minnesota county-level data center regulation.","who_is_protected":"Carlton County township residents, agricultural landowners, and county electric and water infrastructure","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking approval for data centers, cryptocurrency mining facilities or AI computing facilities in any Carlton County township","citation":"Carlton County, Minn. — one-year data center interim ordinance (adopted August 24, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kaxe.org/local-news/2026-08-26/carlton-county-approves-1-year-data-center-moratorium","source_title":"Carlton County approves 1-year data center moratorium — KAXE","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Carlton County Zoning and Environmental Services / Carlton County Planning Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No approval may be granted for a new covered development during the moratorium year"},{"id":"me-eastport-underwater-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Eastport, Maine — 180-Day Moratorium on Data Center Approvals, Halting the DeepGreen Underwater AI Data Center Proposal in the Western Passage (August 12, 2026)","short_title":"Eastport ME 180-day underwater data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Eastport, ME","state_abbr":"ME","county":"Washington County","city":"Eastport","topics":["data-centers","public-sector","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-12","enacted_date":"2026-08-12","expires_date":"2027-02-08","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Eastport's City Council voted unanimously on August 12, 2026 to enact a 180-day moratorium halting all local approvals for data center development. The target is unusual: DeepGreen Holdings LLC has proposed a tidal-powered underwater artificial intelligence data center in the waters of the Western Passage off Eastport. Councilors said the pause gives them time to work with the Planning Board on two citizen-initiated ordinances that would amend the city's Zoning and Shoreland Zoning ordinances to prevent data center projects in Eastport. Residents and Passamaquoddy tribal officials had opposed the project since DeepGreen filed a 48-month preliminary permit application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in February 2026. The limits of a local moratorium showed quickly: one week after Eastport acted, FERC accepted the DeepGreen application for filing, and on September 8, 2026 Eastport residents asked for a formal role in the federal review. A city moratorium governs local permits and zoning; it does not control FERC's licensing of a project in federal waters.","summary_technical":"City of Eastport, Me. — 180-day moratorium on data center development approvals, adopted unanimously by the City Council on August 12, 2026. STATED PURPOSE: to allow the Council to consult the Eastport Planning Board on the zoning implications of two citizen-initiated ordinances that would amend the city's Zoning Ordinance and Shoreland Zoning Ordinance to prevent data center projects in the city. TARGET PROJECT: DeepGreen Western Passage SVP, a tidal-powered underwater AI data center proposed by DeepGreen Holdings LLC (managing member Louis Wolfson, a Needham, Mass. real estate developer; the entity was formed in Delaware one month before its FERC filing). FEDERAL POSTURE — THE MATERIAL LIMIT ON THIS ENTRY: DeepGreen filed a 48-month FERC preliminary permit application in February 2026; FERC accepted that application for filing roughly one week after the moratorium passed, and on September 8, 2026 Eastport residents sought formal public-input standing in the federal proceeding. A municipal moratorium reaches local permits, zoning and shoreland approvals; it does not displace FERC jurisdiction over a hydrokinetic project. OPPOSITION: Eastport residents and Passamaquoddy tribal officials. SUNSET: 180 days from August 12, 2026, i.e. on or about February 8, 2027, unless extended or superseded by the citizen-initiated zoning amendments.","who_is_protected":"Eastport residents, Passamaquoddy tribal interests in the Western Passage, and the shoreland and marine environment of the Western Passage","who_must_comply":"DeepGreen Holdings LLC and any other data center developer seeking city approvals in Eastport during the moratorium","citation":"City of Eastport, Me. — 180-day data center moratorium (adopted August 12, 2026)","source_url":"https://themainemonitor.org/eastport-adopts-moratorium-underwater-data-center-proposal/","source_title":"Eastport adopts moratorium on underwater data center proposal — The Maine Monitor","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Eastport code enforcement / Eastport Planning Board / Eastport City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No city approval for data center development may issue during the 180-day moratorium"},{"id":"ny-town-of-tonawanda-dc-moratorium-ll2-2026","title":"Town of Tonawanda, New York — Local Law 2-2026: One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers With Peak Demand of 20 MW or More, Stricter Than the State Threshold (August 3, 2026)","short_title":"Town of Tonawanda NY data center moratorium LL 2-2026","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Town of Tonawanda, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"Erie County","city":"Town of Tonawanda","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-03","enacted_date":"2026-08-03","expires_date":"2027-08-03","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"The Town of Tonawanda Town Board adopted Local Law 2-2026, a one-year moratorium on data center development that took effect Monday, August 3, 2026 after a public hearing. During the moratorium no application for a building permit or site plan approval may be filed, accepted or processed for any data center with peak demand of 20 megawatts or more. The Village of Kenmore, which sits inside the town but has its own government, is expressly excluded. The point of the law is that it is stricter than the state's. New York had already imposed a statewide pause, but the state threshold is 50 megawatts of peak electrical demand; Supervisor John Flynn said the town deliberately lowered its own threshold to 20 megawatts, so facilities too small to trigger the state pause are still caught locally. During the year the Town Board will consider and, if appropriate, enact permanent zoning regulations for data centers.","summary_technical":"Town of Tonawanda, N.Y. — Local Law No. 2 of 2026, adopted by the Town Board after public hearing, effective August 3, 2026, establishing a one-year moratorium on data center development. OPERATIVE TEXT: no application for a building permit or site plan approval for development of any data center with peak demand of 20 megawatts or more may be filed, accepted or processed by the Town of Tonawanda. TERRITORIAL EXCLUSION: the Village of Kenmore, an incorporated village within the town with independent land-use authority, is expressly carved out. RELATIONSHIP TO STATE LAW — THE REASON THIS ENTRY MATTERS SEPARATELY: New York's statewide data center pause applies at a 50 MW peak-electrical-demand threshold. Local Law 2-2026 lowers the local trigger to 20 MW, so the town captures mid-sized facilities the state measure does not reach. Supervisor John Flynn stated this design intent publicly. FORWARD WORK: during the moratorium the Town Board will consider and enact, if appropriate, new zoning regulations. NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH: the City of North Tonawanda (Niagara County), a separate municipality which adopted its own Local Law No. 3 of 2026 extending an AI data center moratorium and adding a special use permit requirement.","who_is_protected":"Town of Tonawanda residents and ratepayers in Erie County, excluding the Village of Kenmore","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking a building permit or site plan approval for any data center of 20 MW peak demand or more in the Town of Tonawanda","citation":"Town of Tonawanda, N.Y. Local Law No. 2 of 2026 (effective August 3, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.btpm.org/local/2026-08-04/tonawanda-town-board-passes-data-center-moratorium","source_title":"Tonawanda Town Board passes data center moratorium — Buffalo Toronto Public Media","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Tonawanda Building and Planning Department / Town of Tonawanda Town Board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No covered application may be filed, accepted or processed during the moratorium year"},{"id":"nyc-doe-generative-ai-school-moratorium-2026","title":"New York City Public Schools — One-Year Moratorium on Student Use of Generative AI and Companion Chatbots from 2-K Through Eighth Grade (September 2, 2026)","short_title":"NYC schools generative AI moratorium through 8th grade (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York City, NY","state_abbr":"NY","city":"New York City","topics":["education","children","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-02","enacted_date":"2026-09-02","expires_date":"2027-09-02","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"On September 2, 2026 New York City announced a one-year ban on student use of generative artificial intelligence in its public schools from 2-K through eighth grade. It is the broadest generative AI moratorium adopted by any school system in the United States, and because New York City runs the country's largest school district it reaches roughly 600,000 students — about two-thirds of the district's enrollment. Student-facing AI tools and companion chatbots are prohibited for those grades while a coalition of educators, parents, experts and elected officials studies what the technology does to children and recommends what should happen next. The policy is not a blanket prohibition. There are carve-outs for students with disabilities and multilingual learners, and for settings such as career readiness programs and computer science. High school is treated differently again: public high schoolers will take two AI critical thinking classes during the 2026-27 school year, and a small number of high school classrooms will be allowed to use AI pilot platforms under a teacher's direct supervision. The same announcement set new limits on classroom screen time. The distinction worth holding onto is that the district paused AI use by young students while requiring older students to study AI — a restriction paired with a literacy requirement rather than a simple ban.","summary_technical":"New York City Public Schools — citywide generative AI moratorium announced September 2, 2026 by Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Chancellor Samuels, operative for the 2026-27 school year. PROHIBITED: student use of generative AI tools and companion chatbots in grades 2-K through 8. DURATION: one year, pending recommendations from a convened coalition of educators, parents, experts and elected officials studying the technology's impact. REACH: approximately 600,000 students, roughly two-thirds of NYC public school enrollment; NYC is the largest school district in the United States, which is why this measure is treated nationally as a template. EXCEPTIONS: students with disabilities; multilingual learners; environments involving career readiness programs such as computer science. HIGH SCHOOL TRACK (not a ban): two AI critical thinking courses for public high schoolers during 2026-27, plus a small number of high school classrooms with access to AI pilot platforms under direct teacher supervision. COMPANION MEASURE: classroom screen time limits announced at the same time. INSTRUMENT CLASS: an executive/administrative district policy, not a statute or council ordinance — it can be revised by the Chancellor or a successor administration without legislative action, and that is the principal limit on its durability. Edtech vendors selling student-facing generative AI into the district are the practical compliance population.","who_is_protected":"New York City public school students in grades 2-K through 8 (approximately 600,000 children), and their families","who_must_comply":"New York City Public Schools staff and school leaders; edtech vendors supplying student-facing generative AI tools or companion chatbots to NYC schools","citation":"New York City Public Schools — generative AI moratorium for grades 2-K through 8 (announced September 2, 2026, effective school year 2026-27)","source_url":"https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/09/mayor-mamdani-and-chancellor-samuels-put-students-first-with-nat","source_title":"Mayor Mamdani and Chancellor Samuels Put Students First with Nation's Broadest Generative AI Moratorium in Schools — NYC Mayor's Office","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New York City Public Schools (NYCPS) / Office of the Chancellor","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Student-facing generative AI tools and companion chatbots may not be used in the covered grades; district procurement and classroom use are governed accordingly"},{"id":"va-chesapeake-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026","title":"Chesapeake, Virginia — Data Center Zoning Ordinance Requiring a Conditional Use Permit Citywide, Confining Data Centers to Industrial Districts and Mandating Public Water and Electricity Connections (August 18, 2026)","short_title":"Chesapeake VA data center zoning ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chesapeake, VA","state_abbr":"VA","city":"Chesapeake","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-18","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Chesapeake City Council voted 9-0 on August 18, 2026 to adopt a data center zoning ordinance, after months of debate and public comment in which the large majority of nearly forty speakers opposed data centers on noise, environmental and quality-of-life grounds. Under the ordinance, a data center anywhere in Chesapeake needs a Conditional Use Permit — meaning a developer must seek special approval rather than build by right — with one exception: the Coastal Virginia Commerce Park, where data centers remain permitted by right. Data centers are otherwise confined to the Industrial M-1 and M-2 districts. Applicants must submit detailed information about utility connections, water usage and cooling systems; must connect to public water and electricity rather than drawing their own; and must meet fire code and noise mitigation standards. Councilwoman Amanda Newins moved the amendment that shaped the final version, closing by-right loopholes and addressing groundwater use. This is a permanent zoning framework, and it sits alongside a separate temporary measure: on July 21, 2026 the Council imposed an eight-month pause on considering data center applications so it could gather public input and research the industry, and the city is running a public survey from September 1 to October 30, 2026. Chesapeake and neighboring Virginia Beach acted in the same week by different means — Chesapeake through zoning, Virginia Beach through a 12-month moratorium.","summary_technical":"City of Chesapeake, Va. — data center zoning ordinance adopted by City Council 9-0 on August 18, 2026. OPERATIVE STRUCTURE: (1) data centers require a Conditional Use Permit citywide, EXCEPT within the Coastal Virginia Commerce Park (CoVAC), where they remain permitted by-right; (2) permitted zoning districts limited to Industrial M-1 and M-2, plus CoVAC; (3) application submittal requirements covering utility connections, water usage and cooling systems; (4) mandatory connection to public water and public electricity systems; (5) fire code compliance and noise mitigation requirements. AMENDMENT HISTORY: Councilwoman Amanda Newins moved an amendment removing an exception that would have allowed data centers in the Fentress Overlay district, closing by-right loopholes, restricting groundwater use and preserving further discussion during the application pause; the amended ordinance carried unanimously. COMPANION TEMPORARY MEASURE: on July 21, 2026 Council imposed an 8-month pause on considering data center applications, which remains in force; a public survey runs September 1 – October 30, 2026. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: the Chesapeake Planning Commission recommended approval of the data center policy on July 9, 2026 and separately recommended against a Great Bridge data center proposal. REGIONAL CONTEXT: adopted the same day Virginia Beach enacted a 12-month application moratorium (va-virginia-beach-dc-moratorium-2026) — the two Hampton Roads cities chose different instruments for the same problem.","who_is_protected":"Chesapeake residents, particularly neighborhoods adjacent to industrial districts, and the city's groundwater and public utility systems","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators siting facilities anywhere in Chesapeake, who must obtain a Conditional Use Permit outside CoVAC, site within M-1/M-2 or CoVAC, disclose utility, water and cooling details, and connect to public water and electricity","citation":"City of Chesapeake, Va. — Data Center Zoning Ordinance (adopted August 18, 2026); 8-month application pause (adopted July 21, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.cityofchesapeake.net/3783/Data-Center-Ordinance-and-Policy","source_title":"Data Center Ordinance and Policy — City of Chesapeake, VA","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Chesapeake Department of Planning / Chesapeake City Council (Conditional Use Permit review)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data centers may not be established outside the permitted districts or without a Conditional Use Permit where one is required"},{"id":"sc-anderson-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Anderson County, South Carolina — Six-Month Data Center Moratorium Adopted 7-0 on Third and Final Reading (August 18, 2026)","short_title":"Anderson County SC six-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Anderson County, SC","state_abbr":"SC","county":"Anderson County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-18","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","expires_date":"2027-02-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Anderson County Council approved a six-month moratorium on data centers, passing the third and final reading 7-0 on August 18, 2026. County Administrator Rusty Burns confirmed the final reading had carried. The ordinance's own findings say that inadequately regulated development of multiple data centers may harm neighboring property owners, and that exponential growth in the industry could strain essential county resources including the electric power grid, water supply and local infrastructure. It also states plainly that Anderson County has no regulatory framework or zoning ordinance structure capable of managing the scale or impact of the industry — which is the reason for the pause. One detail makes this ordinance unusual among the local moratoriums in this dataset: it explains itself partly by reference to two bills in the South Carolina legislature, H.5286 and H.5526, which would have barred counties from approving new data center projects until January 1, 2028. Neither bill passed, and the ordinance says they will likely be reintroduced next year. In other words, the county acted locally because the state did not act — and said so on the record. Anderson County is one of several South Carolina counties that enacted data center moratoriums during 2026.","summary_technical":"Anderson County, S.C. — six-month data center moratorium ordinance, adopted 7-0 on third and final reading August 18, 2026 (confirmed by County Administrator Rusty Burns). South Carolina county ordinances require three readings; this entry records the completed third reading, not first-reading advancement. ORDINANCE FINDINGS: inadequately regulated development of multiple data centers may have negative impacts on neighboring property owners; exponential data center growth could strain essential public resources including the electric power grid, water supply and local infrastructure; the county lacks a regulatory framework or zoning ordinance structure to manage the scale or impact of the industry. STATE-LAW NEXUS — the distinguishing feature: the ordinance expressly references South Carolina H.5286 and H.5526, which would have restricted counties from granting approval for new data center projects until January 1, 2028. Neither bill passed, and the ordinance anticipates their reintroduction in the next session. The county therefore adopted a local pause as an explicit substitute for absent state authority, and tied its own timeline to the legislature's. CONTEXT: several South Carolina counties enacted data center moratoriums during 2026 (SC Daily Gazette, 2026-06-26). NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH anderson-county-tn-data-center-moratorium-2026, an entry for Anderson County, TENNESSEE.","who_is_protected":"Anderson County, SC residents and property owners near potential data center sites; county electric, water and road infrastructure","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking county approvals in Anderson County, South Carolina during the six-month moratorium","citation":"Anderson County, S.C. — six-month data center moratorium (third and final reading adopted August 18, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.foxcarolina.com/2026/08/20/anderson-county-council-approves-final-reading-six-month-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Anderson County council approves final reading of six-month data center moratorium — FOX Carolina","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Anderson County Planning and Development / Anderson County Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No new data center approval may issue during the six-month moratorium"},{"id":"co-aurora-dc-regulations-resolution-2026","title":"Aurora, Colorado — Council Rejects a Six-Month Data Center Moratorium 6-5 on the Mayor’s Tie-Breaking Vote and Instead Adopts 7-4 a Resolution DIRECTING Data-Center Regulations (Evaporative-Cooling Ban and Residential Setbacks) Within 35 Days (August 11, 2026)","short_title":"Aurora CO resolution directing data center regulations, moratorium rejected (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Aurora, CO","state_abbr":"CO","county":"Arapahoe County","city":"Aurora","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-08-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Aurora took the opposite path from most of its Front Range neighbors. On August 11, 2026 the City Council voted 6-5 — with the mayor breaking the tie — to reject a six-month moratorium on new data center construction, leaving Aurora the only major Front Range city still accepting data center approvals while Denver, Boulder County, Broomfield and Jefferson County had already paused. But the council did not do nothing. By 7-4 it adopted a resolution directing the creation of data-center-specific regulations, and that resolution names two substantive requirements: a prohibition on evaporative cooling, the water-intensive cooling method data centers commonly use, and mandatory setbacks and buffers for data centers sited near residences. A separate measure gave the city manager 35 days to write the regulations. Councilmembers Alison Coombs, Alli Jackson, Ruben Medina and Amy Wiles opposed the resolution; Wiles had proposed the broader moratorium instead. What this entry records is therefore a direction with named content, not yet an enforceable code provision — the regulations implementing it were due in mid-September 2026 and should be checked for.","summary_technical":"City of Aurora, Colo. — August 11, 2026 City Council session, two related votes. VOTE 1 (FAILED): a six-month moratorium on new data center construction was rejected 6-5, the mayor casting the tie-breaking vote. Aurora thereby became the only major Front Range municipality keeping data center approvals open, against pauses already in place in Denver, Boulder County, Broomfield and Jefferson County. VOTE 2 (ADOPTED 7-4): a resolution directing the creation of data-center-specific regulations, identifying two requirements by name — (a) a PROHIBITION ON EVAPORATIVE COOLING, a water-intensive cooling technology, and (b) SETBACKS AND BUFFERS for data centers in areas near residences. A separate measure directed the city manager to develop the regulations within 35 days, i.e. by roughly September 15, 2026. DISSENT: Councilmembers Alison Coombs, Alli Jackson, Ruben Medina and Amy Wiles voted against the resolution; Wiles had advanced the broader moratorium as the alternative. STATUS AND STRENGTH, stated precisely: this is a RESOLUTION DIRECTING REGULATION, not the regulation itself. effective_date is null and strength is `limited` because no enforceable code text is confirmed adopted. The entry is included because the resolution specifies operative content — an outright ban on a named cooling technology is a stronger substantive commitment than most 'direct staff to study' motions — but it must not be read as an in-force restriction until the implementing regulations are confirmed.","who_is_protected":"Aurora residents, especially those living near sites zoned for data centers, and Colorado Front Range water supplies","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Aurora, once the directed regulations are adopted — prospectively barred from evaporative cooling and subject to residential setbacks and buffers","citation":"City of Aurora, Colo. — resolution directing data center regulations (adopted 7-4, August 11, 2026); six-month moratorium rejected 6-5 the same night","source_url":"https://www.cpr.org/2026/08/11/aurora-city-council-rejects-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Aurora City Council rejects data center moratorium, approves new rules, water regs — Colorado Public Radio","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Aurora City Manager's office / Aurora Planning and Development Services","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None yet enforceable; the resolution directs regulations rather than imposing requirements directly"},{"id":"ky-woodford-county-permanent-dc-ban-2026","title":"Woodford County, Kentucky — First County in the State to PERMANENTLY Ban Data Center Construction, Together With Landfills and Large Battery Storage (September 8, 2026)","short_title":"Woodford County KY permanent data center ban (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Woodford County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Woodford County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-08","enacted_date":"2026-09-08","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"On September 8, 2026 the Woodford County Fiscal Court voted unanimously to permanently ban the construction of data centers in the county — the first Kentucky county to do so. This is not a moratorium. Where almost every other local measure in this dataset pauses development for six months, a year, or three years while the jurisdiction writes rules, Woodford County simply prohibited the use. The ordinance also bans landfills and large battery storage systems, which are frequently paired with hyperscale data centers to smooth their electricity demand — so the ban reaches the supporting infrastructure as well as the facility itself. The county framed the decision around farmland rather than electricity or water bills. Judge-Executive James Kay put it as 'Woodford County's future is rooted in our land and water. Our future is farming,' and the county described the ordinance as protecting farmland, honoring farming families and safeguarding the quiet character of the countryside. Woodford County sits in the Bluegrass region, where the land at stake is horse and crop farmland. Kentucky already has a separate two-year moratorium in Bell County and a governor's executive order on data center development; this is the first permanent prohibition.","summary_technical":"Woodford County, Ky. — county ordinance adopted unanimously by the Fiscal Court on September 8, 2026, permanently prohibiting the construction of DATA CENTERS, LANDFILLS and LARGE BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS within the county. FIRST-IN-STATE: no other Kentucky county had adopted a permanent data center ban; the state's existing local instrument is a two-year moratorium in Bell County (ky-bell-county-kentucky-two-year-moratorium-on-data-center-construction-and-ope-2026). INSTRUMENT CLASS — the material distinction: this is a PERMANENT USE PROHIBITION, not a time-limited moratorium. It has no sunset, requires no follow-on regulation to take effect, and can only be undone by a subsequent Fiscal Court ordinance. THE BATTERY STORAGE COVERAGE IS DELIBERATE AND UNUSUAL: large battery energy storage systems are commonly co-located with hyperscale data centers to firm their load, and a ban naming only 'data centers' can leave the associated storage build permissible. Woodford County closed that gap in the same instrument. STATED RATIONALE: agricultural land preservation and rural character rather than the ratepayer-cost and water-scarcity framings that dominate the 2026 municipal record — Judge-Executive James Kay: 'Woodford County's future is rooted in our land and water. Our future is farming.' Woodford County lies in Kentucky's Bluegrass region. RELATED STATE ACTION, tracked separately: ky-beshear-eo-data-center-development-2026.","who_is_protected":"Woodford County residents, farmland owners and farming families, and the county's land and water resources","who_must_comply":"Any developer proposing a data center, landfill or large battery storage system in Woodford County, Kentucky","citation":"Woodford County, Ky. — ordinance permanently banning data centers, landfills and large battery storage (adopted September 8, 2026)","source_url":"https://kentuckylantern.com/2026/09/10/a-kentucky-county-becomes-first-in-state-to-permanently-ban-data-center-construction/","source_title":"A Kentucky county becomes first in state to permanently ban data center construction — Kentucky Lantern","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Woodford County Fiscal Court / Woodford County planning and zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data centers, landfills and large battery storage systems are prohibited uses; no construction approval may issue"},{"id":"or-kotek-state-land-dc-transaction-pause-2026","title":"Oregon — Governor Kotek Orders State Agencies to Pause All Unapproved Land Transactions and Permits for New Data Centers on Public Land Through July 1, 2027 (September 8, 2026)","short_title":"Oregon state-land data center transaction pause (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Oregon","state_abbr":"OR","topics":["data-centers","public-sector","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-08","enacted_date":"2026-09-08","expires_date":"2027-07-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-16","summary_plain":"Governor Tina Kotek ordered Oregon state agencies to immediately stop processing unapproved land transactions and permits for new data center projects on public land, a pause that runs through July 1, 2027. It covers easements, leases, rentals, land-use permits, and sales or transfers of state-owned property for data centers. The reach of this measure is specific and should not be overstated: it governs what the state does with land it owns. It is not a statewide moratorium on data centers, and it does not restrict a developer who buys private land and goes to a city or county for approval. What it does is remove the state itself as a supplier of data center sites for nearly a year. Kotek's stated reason is that rapid data center growth should not shift utility and infrastructure costs onto Oregonians. The order follows her earlier decision to block the sale of 32 acres of state land at the Mill Creek Corporate Center in Salem that had been proposed for a data center, and it sits on top of the 2025 POWER Act, which raised electricity rates for data center corporations while lowering them for other Portland General Electric customers. An advisory committee formed in January 2026 is due to deliver recommendations by the end of the year, which the Governor plans to turn into legislation in the 2027 session. Demonstrators at the Capitol the same week pressed her to go further than state land.","summary_technical":"State of Oregon — Governor's order directing state agencies to immediately pause all UNAPPROVED land transactions and permits for new data center projects on public land, issued on or about September 8, 2026 and running through July 1, 2027. COVERED TRANSACTIONS: easements, leases, rentals, land-use permits, and sales or transfers of state-owned property for data centers. SCOPE LIMIT — STATED EXPLICITLY SO THIS ENTRY IS NOT MISREAD: this is a PROPRIETARY action governing the state's own land holdings, not a police-power moratorium. It does not restrict data center development on private land, does not preempt or supersede municipal or county approvals, and does not reach projects whose state land transactions were already approved ('unapproved' is the operative qualifier). RATIONALE: preventing rapid data center growth from shifting utility and infrastructure costs onto Oregon residents. ANTECEDENT: the Governor previously blocked the sale of 32 acres of state land at the Mill Creek Corporate Center in Salem proposed for a data center. POLICY PIPELINE: an advisory committee convened January 2026 delivers recommendations by end of 2026; the Governor intends to draft 2027 session legislation from them, and the pause's July 1, 2027 end date is set to run past that session. RELATED OREGON MEASURES ALREADY INDEXED: or-power-act (2025 Protecting Oregonians With Energy Responsibility Act, raising data center electricity rates ~29% while lowering rates for other PGE customers), or-puc-data-center-rate-class-2024, or-hb-4084-data-center-tax-moratorium-2026. INSTRUMENT NUMBER NOT PUBLISHED in any located source — see notes.","who_is_protected":"Oregon residents and utility ratepayers; publicly owned Oregon land","who_must_comply":"Oregon state agencies holding or transacting in state-owned property; data center developers seeking easements, leases, rentals, land-use permits or purchases of state land","citation":"Oregon — Governor's directive pausing state land transactions and permits for new data centers (issued on or about September 8, 2026; effective through July 1, 2027)","source_url":"https://www.kptv.com/2026/09/08/oregon-governor-pauses-state-land-requests-data-centers/","source_title":"Oregon governor pauses state land requests for data centers — KPTV","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Office of the Governor of Oregon; Oregon Department of State Lands and other state agencies managing public property","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"State agencies may not approve covered land transactions or permits for new data center projects during the pause"},{"id":"ar-madison-county-dc-moratorium-3yr-2026","title":"Madison County, Arkansas — Three-Year Moratorium on Data Centers, Digital Asset Mining and Large-Scale Server Operations, Adopted With an Emergency Clause (August 17, 2026)","short_title":"Madison County AR three-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Madison County, AR","state_abbr":"AR","county":"Madison County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-17","enacted_date":"2026-08-17","expires_date":"2029-08-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"The Madison County Quorum Court voted unanimously on August 17, 2026 to impose a three-year moratorium on data centers, running through August 31, 2029. The court attached an emergency clause, which meant the moratorium took effect immediately rather than after the usual waiting period — a detail that matters, because a developer cannot file in the gap. The moratorium is written broadly, covering data centers, digital asset mining businesses and other large-scale computer or server operations, so a cryptocurrency mining operation cannot be argued to fall outside it. The stated purpose is to give county officials time to study data centers and develop regulations addressing their potential costs and benefits. Three years is long for a local pause. Madison County is one of five Arkansas counties that adopted three-year moratoriums, and its is the second-longest in the state after Independence County's. Arkansas saw a cluster of these in August 2026.","summary_technical":"Madison County, Ark. — Quorum Court ordinance adopted unanimously August 17, 2026 imposing a three-year moratorium on data centers, effective immediately by EMERGENCY CLAUSE and running through August 31, 2029. THE EMERGENCY CLAUSE IS OPERATIVELY SIGNIFICANT: Arkansas county ordinances ordinarily take effect after a delay; the emergency clause eliminates the filing window a developer could otherwise exploit between adoption and effectiveness. COVERED USES — deliberately broad: data centers, DIGITAL ASSET MINING BUSINESSES, and other large-scale computer or server operations. Moratoriums drafted around 'data centers' alone have repeatedly been argued not to reach cryptocurrency mining; this ordinance forecloses that reading. STATED PURPOSE: time for county officials to study data centers and develop regulations addressing potential costs and benefits. DURATION IN CONTEXT: three years is at the long end of the local-moratorium distribution in this dataset, where six months to one year is typical. Madison County is one of five Arkansas counties adopting three-year moratoriums, and its is the SECOND-LONGEST in Arkansas — only Independence County's exceeds it. NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH madison-county-in-dc-mora-2026 (Madison County, INDIANA) or with the separate report of a Madison County one-year moratorium on data processing facilities, which concerns a different Madison County.","who_is_protected":"Madison County, Arkansas residents and ratepayers; county electric, water and road infrastructure","who_must_comply":"Developers and operators of data centers, digital asset mining businesses, or other large-scale computer or server operations seeking county approvals in Madison County, Arkansas","citation":"Madison County, Ark. — three-year data center moratorium with emergency clause (adopted August 17, 2026; expires August 31, 2029)","source_url":"https://katv.com/news/local/madison-county-quorum-court-approves-three-year-moratorium-on-data-centers","source_title":"Madison County Quorum Court approves three-year moratorium on data centers — KATV","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Madison County Quorum Court / Madison County planning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No approval may issue for a covered facility before September 1, 2029 unless the ordinance is repealed or amended"},{"id":"tn-knox-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Knox County, Tennessee — One-Year Data Center Moratorium at a 5 MW Peak-Demand Threshold, With Five Named Grandfathered Facilities and an Anti-Circumvention Clause (June 23, 2026)","short_title":"Knox County TN one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Knox County, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Knox County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-06-23","enacted_date":"2026-06-23","expires_date":"2027-06-30","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Knox County Commission adopted a one-year data center moratorium on June 23, 2026. It took effect immediately and runs through June 30, 2027, and the Commission can vote to extend it. The moratorium is unusually carefully drafted for a local measure, and three features are worth knowing. First, the trigger is a peak electric demand of 5 megawatts — a low threshold compared with the 20 to 50 megawatt lines other jurisdictions have drawn — and a facility that REFUSES TO DISCLOSE its power demand is covered too, so a developer cannot escape the moratorium by staying silent. Second, five existing operations are grandfathered by name: Bitdeer Tennessee, Infinity Data Center, Scipio Technologies, Tenhats Knoxville and Windstream Knoxville. Naming them removes the usual argument about who was operating when the ordinance passed. Facilities owned or operated by the State of Tennessee or by Knox County itself are also outside the moratorium, subject to conditions on leasing. Third — and this is the part most local moratoriums lack — existing data centers may not expand their power contracts or switch to alternative energy sources such as gas turbines in order to work around the limits. That closes the two most obvious routes to growing under a freeze. The City of Knoxville, a separate government inside the county, adopted its own one-year moratorium in July 2026; the Knoxville-Knox County Planning Commission then approved a recommended moratorium and zoning framework on August 13, 2026 for the County Commission to act on.","summary_technical":"Knox County, Tenn. — County Commission resolution adopting a one-year data center moratorium, passed June 23, 2026, effective immediately, expiring June 30, 2027, EXTENDABLE BY COMMISSION VOTE. COVERAGE TRIGGER: data centers with a peak electric demand of 5 MW, AND any operation that REFUSES TO DISCLOSE its power demand level — a non-disclosure trigger that forecloses avoidance by silence, which few local moratoriums address. The 5 MW threshold is materially lower than the 20 MW (Town of Tonawanda NY) and 50 MW (New York State) lines drawn elsewhere in this dataset. NAMED GRANDFATHERED OPERATIONS (five, exempted by name in the instrument): Bitdeer Tennessee, Infinity Data Center, Scipio Technologies, Tenhats Knoxville, Windstream Knoxville. GOVERNMENTAL EXEMPTION: operations owned or operated by the State of Tennessee or by Knox County, with conditions attached to leasing. ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION CLAUSE — the distinguishing provision: existing data centers may NOT expand power contracts or substitute alternative energy sources such as gas turbines to circumvent the moratorium limits. Most local moratoriums restrict new permits only and are silent on incumbent expansion; Knox County closed both the contract-expansion and behind-the-meter-generation routes. RELATED ACTIONS IN THE SAME COUNTY BY DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTS: the City of Knoxville adopted its own one-year moratorium in July 2026 (separate municipal corporation, tracked as a pending research item); the Knoxville-Knox County Planning Commission approved a recommended one-year moratorium plus zoning recommendations on August 13, 2026, which the County Commission must adopt to change the zoning code. SUPERSEDES the stale dataset row knox-county-tn-dc-district-proposed, which carried status `proposed` and a last_verified_date of 2026-06-11 — twelve days before adoption.","who_is_protected":"Knox County, Tennessee residents and electricity ratepayers; county grid and water infrastructure","who_must_comply":"Operators and developers of data centers in Knox County with peak electric demand of 5 MW, or who decline to disclose their demand; and the five grandfathered facilities, which may not expand power contracts or substitute alternative generation","citation":"Knox County, Tenn. — one-year data center moratorium resolution (adopted June 23, 2026; expires June 30, 2027)","source_url":"https://commission.knoxcountytn.gov/forums/topic/data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Data Center Moratorium — Knox County Commission (official)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Knox County Commission / Knoxville-Knox County Planning (permitting and zoning administration)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Construction, operation and permitting of covered data centers is prohibited through June 30, 2027; grandfathered facilities that expand power contracts or substitute alternative generation fall outside their exemption"},{"id":"sc-orangeburg-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Orangeburg County, South Carolina — One-Year Moratorium Barring the County From Accepting or Acting On New Data Center Applications, Passed on Third Reading (September 2026)","short_title":"Orangeburg County SC one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Orangeburg County, SC","state_abbr":"SC","county":"Orangeburg County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-08","enacted_date":"2026-09-08","expires_date":"2027-09-08","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Orangeburg County Council passed a one-year moratorium on data center construction and development on third and final reading in early September 2026. Under it the county will not accept or act on new applications for data centers or other data processing facilities. The origin is worth recording because it shows how fast these measures now move: Councilwoman Latisha Walker learned that a company was interested in building a data center off Brentwood Drive, just outside downtown Orangeburg. No property had been purchased and no project had been officially announced. The council called a special meeting on July 23, 2026 and unanimously passed first reading of a moratorium — acting on interest alone, before an application existed. Council members said the intent was to pause the project while they gathered details on how it would affect the county before any final decisions were made. South Carolina county ordinances require three readings; this entry records the completed third reading, not the July first reading. Orangeburg is one of several South Carolina counties that enacted data center moratoriums during 2026.","summary_technical":"Orangeburg County, S.C. — one-year data center moratorium ordinance. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: unanimous FIRST reading at a special-called County Council meeting on July 23, 2026; THIRD AND FINAL reading passed on a Tuesday in early September 2026. South Carolina county ordinances require three readings, so only the third reading effects adoption — an earlier pass on this dataset correctly deferred the first-reading story rather than entering it. OPERATIVE EFFECT: the county will not accept or act on new applications for data centers or other data processing facilities; the ordinance reaches construction and development of data centers in the county. TRIGGER: Councilwoman Latisha Walker learned of a company's interest in a data center site off Brentwood Drive just outside downtown Orangeburg. NO PROPERTY HAD BEEN PURCHASED AND NO PROJECT HAD BEEN ANNOUNCED — the county legislated against an expressed interest, which is the leading edge of the 2026 pattern in which jurisdictions act before an application is filed rather than after. STATED PURPOSE: to pause the prospective project while the council gathered details on county impact before final decisions. CONTEXT: multiple South Carolina counties enacted data center moratoriums during 2026 (SC Daily Gazette, 2026-06-26); Anderson County's six-month moratorium (sc-anderson-county-dc-moratorium-2026) and Clarendon County's third reading of 2026-09-14 are contemporaneous.","who_is_protected":"Orangeburg County residents, including residents near the Brentwood Drive area outside downtown Orangeburg; county infrastructure and utilities","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to construct or develop data centers or other data processing facilities in Orangeburg County during the moratorium","citation":"Orangeburg County, S.C. — one-year data center moratorium (first reading July 23, 2026; third and final reading September 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wltx.com/article/news/politics/orangeburg-county-enacts-moratorium-on-new-data-centers/101-2d0e1609-646e-4113-b110-4ac94697102f","source_title":"Orangeburg County enacts moratorium on new data centers amid public debate — WLTX","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Orangeburg County Planning and Development / Orangeburg County Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"The county will not accept or act on new applications for data centers or data processing facilities during the moratorium"},{"id":"fl-putnam-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Putnam County, Florida — One-Year Moratorium on Medium and Large Scale Data Center Projects, Approved Unanimously on Second Reading After Adopting a Definition of the Use (September 8, 2026)","short_title":"Putnam County FL data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Putnam County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Putnam County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-09","enacted_date":"2026-09-08","expires_date":"2027-09-30","last_verified_date":"2026-09-16","summary_plain":"Putnam County commissioners unanimously approved the second reading of a temporary ban on medium and large scale data center projects on Tuesday, September 8, 2026. The ban runs until September 2027. One procedural detail is worth noticing: before voting, the commissioners established a definition for the covered sites. A moratorium on a use that the county code does not define is difficult to enforce, and Putnam County dealt with that first — a sequencing choice several other jurisdictions in this dataset skipped and had to revisit. Putnam acted the same week as Levy County, which adopted Ordinance 2026-05 on September 8 as well, and both sit within a broader Florida pattern that began in mid-2026: Sarasota County adopted a one-year hyperscale moratorium in July, DeSoto County moved toward one, and Lakeland approved a one-year moratorium on first reading on July 21, 2026. The precise definition Putnam adopted — the megawatt or square-footage line separating 'medium and large scale' from smaller facilities — was not published in the coverage located, and neither was a final-adoption confirmation, so this entry is recorded as enacted rather than effective and should be rechecked.","summary_technical":"Putnam County, Fla. — moratorium on medium and large scale data center projects, unanimously approved on SECOND READING by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, September 8, 2026, running until September 2027. SEQUENCING NOTE: commissioners established a DEFINITION for the covered sites before approving the moratorium. This matters operationally — a moratorium keyed to a use the land development code does not define invites argument about what is covered, and several jurisdictions have had to amend after the fact. STATUS IS `enacted` NOT `effective`, AND effective_date IS NULL, FOR A STATED REASON: the located reporting describes a second-reading approval and expressly flags that a further procedural step may be required before the moratorium becomes fully effective. Florida county ordinances are ordinarily adopted at a single advertised public hearing, so the second reading may well BE adoption — but no located source confirms it, and this dataset does not assert an effective date it cannot support. THE ADOPTED DEFINITION WAS NOT PUBLISHED in any located coverage: the megawatt or floor-area line separating 'medium and large scale' from smaller facilities is the single most important missing fact on this entry. FLORIDA CONTEXT: Levy County adopted Ordinance 2026-05 the same day (fl-levy-county-dc-moratorium-ord-2026-05); Sarasota County adopted a one-year hyperscale moratorium in July 2026; DeSoto County moved toward one; Lakeland approved a one-year moratorium on first reading July 21, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Putnam County, Florida residents and ratepayers; county water, power and road infrastructure","who_must_comply":"Developers of medium and large scale data center projects seeking county approvals in Putnam County, Florida","citation":"Putnam County, Fla. — moratorium on medium and large scale data center projects (second reading approved September 8, 2026; runs to September 2027)","source_url":"https://www.wcjb.com/2026/09/09/putnam-county-approves-moratorium-large-scale-data-center-projects/","source_title":"Putnam County approves moratorium on large-scale data center projects — WCJB","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Putnam County Planning and Development Services / Putnam County Board of County Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Covered data center projects may not be approved during the moratorium"},{"id":"tn-knoxville-dc-moratorium-emergency-ord-2026","title":"Knoxville, Tennessee — Emergency Ordinance Imposing a One-Year Moratorium on Permitting, Construction or Development of Large Data Centers Requiring 10 MW or More (July 7, 2026)","short_title":"Knoxville TN one-year large data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Knoxville, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Knox County","city":"Knoxville","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-07-07","enacted_date":"2026-07-07","expires_date":"2027-07-07","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Knoxville City Council unanimously passed an emergency ordinance on July 7, 2026 imposing a one-year moratorium on the permitting, construction or development of large data centers requiring ten megawatts or more of power within the city. It took effect immediately — that is what the emergency designation does — and runs through July 7, 2027. The ordinance's recitals are unusually explicit about why, and they go well beyond the usual electricity-and-water framing. They cite the sheer size of some data centers, their effects on neighborhoods, the demand they place on energy and water, Knoxville's own greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, and the fact that data centers often provide few jobs in the community. That last point is worth noting: the jobs-versus-burden trade is the argument developers usually make to a city, and Knoxville wrote its skepticism of that trade into the instrument. The Mayor framed the pause as protecting clean air and clean water. Knoxville acted two weeks after Knox County, the surrounding county government, adopted its own one-year moratorium on June 23, 2026 at a lower 5 MW threshold — two separate governments, two separate measures, two different trigger levels covering overlapping ground.","summary_technical":"City of Knoxville, Tenn. — EMERGENCY ORDINANCE adopted unanimously by City Council on July 7, 2026, enacting a one-year moratorium on the permitting, construction or development of large data centers requiring TEN MEGAWATTS OR MORE of power in the City of Knoxville, effective immediately and expiring July 7, 2027. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION: the ordinance took effect on passage rather than after the ordinary waiting period, closing the filing window a developer could otherwise use. THRESHOLD COMPARISON — MATERIAL: the City's trigger is 10 MW; surrounding Knox County's separately adopted moratorium (tn-knox-county-dc-moratorium-2026, adopted June 23, 2026) triggers at 5 MW and additionally captures operations that refuse to disclose demand. A facility between 5 and 10 MW inside the city limits therefore falls under the county measure's logic but not the city's own threshold; practitioners should check both instruments. RECITALS, which are broader than the norm: the size of some data centers; impacts on neighborhoods; demand on energy and water resources; the City's greenhouse gas emission reduction goals; and that DATA CENTERS OFTEN PROVIDE FEW JOBS in the community. The employment recital is the notable one — it rejects on the record the jobs-for-burden trade normally offered at siting. PURPOSE: time for city and county leaders to research impacts and consider safeguards. RELATED: the Knoxville-Knox County Planning Commission approved a recommended one-year moratorium and zoning recommendations on August 13, 2026, which the County Commission must still adopt.","who_is_protected":"Knoxville residents and neighborhoods; city air and water quality; the city's greenhouse gas reduction commitments","who_must_comply":"Developers and operators seeking to permit, construct or develop a data center requiring 10 MW or more of power within the City of Knoxville","citation":"City of Knoxville, Tenn. — emergency ordinance imposing a one-year data center moratorium (adopted July 7, 2026; expires July 7, 2027)","source_url":"https://www.knoxvilletn.gov/news/2026/cc_approves_waterfront_plan_data_ctr_moratorium","source_title":"City Council Approves North Waterfront Plan, Data Center Moratorium — City of Knoxville (official)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Knoxville Plans Review and Inspections / Knoxville City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No permitting, construction or development of a covered large data center may proceed through July 7, 2027"},{"id":"oh-miamisburg-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Miamisburg, Ohio — Nine-Month Moratorium on Data Center Development Adopted 6-0 After a Large-Scale Proposal at the Former DP&L Hutchings Power Station (September 1, 2026)","short_title":"Miamisburg OH nine-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Miamisburg, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Montgomery County","city":"Miamisburg","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","expires_date":"2027-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Miamisburg City Council voted 6-0 on September 1, 2026 to impose a nine-month moratorium on data center development in the city. The trigger was community concern about a proposed large-scale data center at the former DP&L Hutchings Power Station — a decommissioned coal plant site, which is exactly the kind of parcel data center developers seek out because the grid interconnection is already built. The moratorium gives the city time to evaluate the impacts of data centers and to consider appropriate regulations and development standards. City Manager Chris Fine described the move as an attempt to be proactive rather than be caught off guard by applications the city was not prepared to handle, which is a fair summary of why most of the 2026 municipal moratoriums in this dataset exist. Miamisburg is in Montgomery County in the Dayton area, and it joined a group of Ohio communities pausing data center growth to write zoning rules — Massillon City Council agreed to its own moratorium in the same period, and separate measures are indexed for Twinsburg and Clearcreek Township.","summary_technical":"City of Miamisburg, Ohio — nine-month moratorium on data center development, adopted 6-0 (unanimous) by City Council at its meeting of Tuesday, September 1, 2026. DURATION: nine months from adoption, i.e. to approximately June 1, 2027. TRIGGER: community concern over a proposed large-scale data center at the FORMER DP&L HUTCHINGS POWER STATION site. The decommissioned-power-plant siting pattern is worth recording as a class: retired generating stations carry existing high-capacity transmission interconnection, which is the scarcest input for a hyperscale facility, so they attract proposals disproportionately and municipalities that have not zoned for the use get little warning. PURPOSE: time for the City to evaluate data center impacts and consider appropriate regulations and development standards. CITY MANAGER'S STATED RATIONALE (Chris Fine): to be proactive rather than caught off guard by applications the city is not prepared to handle. JURISDICTION: Miamisburg lies in Montgomery County in the Dayton metropolitan area. OHIO CONTEXT: part of a cluster of Ohio municipal pauses in 2026; Massillon City Council agreed to a data center moratorium in the same period, and this dataset separately indexes oh-twinsburg-dc-moratorium-2026 and a Clearcreek Township measure. Ordinance number not published in the located sources.","who_is_protected":"Miamisburg residents, particularly those near the former Hutchings Power Station site; city utility and infrastructure capacity","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to build data centers in Miamisburg, including at the former DP&L Hutchings Power Station site","citation":"City of Miamisburg, Ohio — nine-month data center moratorium (adopted September 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://cityofmiamisburg.com/city-council-approves-nine-month-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"City Council Approves Nine-Month Moratorium on Data Centers — City of Miamisburg, OH (official)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Miamisburg Department of Development / Miamisburg City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center development may not be approved during the nine-month moratorium"},{"id":"ca-patterson-dc-moratorium-ord-890-2026","title":"Patterson, California — Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 890 Extending the Data Center Moratorium by 10 Months 15 Days to July 15, 2027, Over Groundwater and Grid Concerns (August 2026)","short_title":"Patterson CA data center moratorium extension Ord. 890 (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Patterson, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Stanislaus County","city":"Patterson","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-19","enacted_date":"2026-08-19","expires_date":"2027-07-15","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Patterson's City Council unanimously extended its data center moratorium in August 2026, pushing the pause out to July 15, 2027. The sequence follows California's standard interim-urgency-ordinance mechanism exactly: the city first adopted Ordinance No. 889 on July 16, 2026, a 45-day emergency freeze set to lapse on August 30, and then adopted Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 890 to extend it by a further 10 months and 15 days — the maximum second step California law allows. The reason is water. Patterson is already under requirements to reduce how much groundwater it pumps in the coming years, and residents raised groundwater use and electrical grid strain in response to a proposed data center project on Rogers Road. Data centers are currently an allowed use in Patterson's industrial zones under existing rules, so without the moratorium a new application could move forward before the city writes anything better. The extension gives officials nearly another year to study effects on water, power, noise and air quality and adopt updated regulations.","summary_technical":"City of Patterson, Cal. — Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 890, adopted unanimously by the City Council in August 2026, extending the city's data center moratorium to July 15, 2027. STATUTORY MECHANISM: California Government Code § 65858 permits a city to adopt an interim urgency ordinance for an initial 45 days, then extend it once by 10 months and 15 days after notice and hearing, and once more by one year. Patterson used the first two steps exactly: ORDINANCE NO. 889, adopted JULY 16, 2026, a 45-day freeze expiring August 30, 2026; ORDINANCE NO. 890 extending by 10 months 15 days to JULY 15, 2027. A further one-year extension remains legally available. BASELINE ZONING POSTURE — why the moratorium matters: data centers are currently an ALLOWED USE in Patterson's industrial areas under existing rules, so absent the interim ordinance a new application would proceed under rules the city considers inadequate. TRIGGER: a proposed data center project on Rogers Road. SUBSTANTIVE CONCERN: Patterson faces existing obligations to REDUCE ITS GROUNDWATER PUMPING in coming years — a Sustainable Groundwater Management Act posture — which makes a large new industrial water user a direct conflict with a standing legal duty rather than a general environmental worry. Additional concerns studied during the pause: power, noise and air quality. Stanislaus County, Central Valley.","who_is_protected":"Patterson residents and groundwater users in Stanislaus County; the city's obligation to reduce groundwater pumping; residents near the proposed Rogers Road project","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Patterson, including the proposed Rogers Road project","citation":"City of Patterson, Cal. Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 890 (August 2026), extending Ordinance No. 889 (July 16, 2026) to July 15, 2027","source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/patterson-extends-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Patterson extends data center moratorium through July 2027 — CBS Sacramento","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Patterson Community Development Department / Patterson City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"New data center applications may not proceed while the interim urgency ordinance is in effect"},{"id":"fl-palm-beach-county-hyperscale-moratorium-pending-2026","title":"Palm Beach County, Florida — One-Year Moratorium on New Large-Scale (50 MW+) Data Centers, Adopted 6-0 on Final Reading (September 2026)","short_title":"Palm Beach County FL one-year large data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Palm Beach County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Palm Beach County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-24","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Palm Beach County commissioners voted 6-0 on September 24, 2026 to adopt a moratorium of up to one year on new applications for large data centers in unincorporated Palm Beach County, defined by an anticipated peak electrical load of 50 megawatts or more. During the pause the county will not accept, process or approve new zoning requests or related comprehensive plan amendments for those projects while staff write permanent rules on noise, water, electricity use and proximity to homes. Existing approvals, including Project Tango's earlier 2016 approval, and applications already deemed sufficient are not affected. The ordinance adds a definition of large-scale data center use to the county's Unified Land Development Code. The county's July 2026 denial of the Project Tango expansion is indexed separately as palm-beach-county-fl-project-tango-denial-2026.","summary_technical":"ADOPTED 6-0 on second/final reading, Thursday September 24, 2026 (Zoning Commission recommendation Aug 6; unanimous first reading Aug 27). SCOPE (CBS12/WPEC; WJNO): proposed data centers in unincorporated Palm Beach County with anticipated peak electrical load >= 50 MW; county cannot accept, process or approve new zoning requests or related comprehensive plan amendments for them. The ordinance adds a definition of large-scale data center use to the Unified Land Development Code (WFLX). EXCEPTIONS: existing approvals stand (incl. 2016 Project Tango approval for two 100,000-sq-ft buildings); applications deemed sufficient before the moratorium took effect continue under prior rules. TERM: 'one year' (WFLX) / 'up to a year' (CBS12); WJNO reports it is 'on the books' and 'in effect'; no exact effective or expiry date stated, so effective_date and expires_date are left null. Commissioners rejected a nine-member technical advisory committee and asked staff for a consultant contract (estimates cited $200,000 to $2 million; nothing approved). Rules under study per WFLX: 50 MW power cap, operator/end-user disclosure, water/noise/heat limits, a permanent task force. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number.","who_is_protected":"Palm Beach County residents and ratepayers, including Arden-area residents who pressed the county over a proposed AI data center; county water supply","who_must_comply":"Applicants for new data centers with an anticipated peak electrical load of 50 MW or more in unincorporated Palm Beach County","citation":"Palm Beach County, Fla. — proposed one-year hyperscale AI data center moratorium (first reading August 27, 2026; second and final reading September 24, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wflx.com/2026/08/28/palm-beach-county-commissioners-give-initial-approval-1-year-moratorium-new-hyperscale-ai-data-centers/","source_title":"Palm Beach County commissioners give initial approval to 1-year moratorium on new hyperscale AI data centers — WFLX","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"Palm Beach County Planning, Zoning and Building Department / Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None stated; new qualifying zoning requests and related comprehensive plan amendments are not accepted, processed or approved during the moratorium"},{"id":"fl-fdot-alpr-permit-revocation-2026","title":"Florida — FDOT Revokes ALL Active Permits for Automated License Plate Readers on State Highway Rights-of-Way, Ordering Flock and Similar Cameras Removed Within 30 Days (August 31, 2026)","short_title":"Florida FDOT statewide ALPR permit revocation (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Florida","state_abbr":"FL","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-31","enacted_date":"2026-08-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"On August 31, 2026 the Florida Department of Transportation revoked every active permit for an automated license plate reader on a state highway right-of-way, and gave agencies thirty days — until roughly September 30, 2026 — to physically remove the hardware. This covers Flock Safety cameras and any other ALPR installed on state roads. The FDOT memo gives the reasons plainly: an exponential increase in deployments, together with concerning reports of misuse, data privacy concerns and surveillance schemes. The misuse is not hypothetical. In the Tampa Bay area at least two police officers, one in Haines City and one in Sarasota, were fired and arrested for allegedly using the cameras to stalk romantic interests. Governor Ron DeSantis had already called the technology and its misuse by police out of control and said legislative action was needed to protect Floridians' privacy. What makes this measure powerful is the mechanism rather than the rhetoric: Florida did not pass a law restricting how police may use license plate data. It used its property rights as the owner of the state highway right-of-way to revoke the permits that let the cameras be there at all. A city that wants to keep its ALPR program has to find somewhere other than a state road to put it. Gainesville turned all of its cameras off on September 3, 2026.","summary_technical":"State of Florida — Florida Department of Transportation statewide directive of August 31, 2026 REVOKING ALL ACTIVE PERMITS for automated license plate reader systems, including Flock Safety cameras, located on STATE HIGHWAY RIGHTS-OF-WAY. COMPLIANCE DEADLINE: 30 days from issuance — local law enforcement agencies and municipalities must remove all LPR hardware from state highway rights-of-way by approximately September 30, 2026. STATED GROUNDS (FDOT memo): 'Exponential increase in deployments coupled with concerning reports of misuse, data privacy concerns and surveillance schemes.' MECHANISM — THE REASON THIS ENTRY MATTERS MORE THAN ITS LENGTH SUGGESTS: this is not a statute regulating ALPR use, a retention limit, or a warrant requirement. It is a PROPRIETARY/PERMITTING action by the state as landowner, revoking the encroachment permits that authorise third-party equipment within the state right-of-way. It therefore requires no legislation, takes effect on issuance, and is not subject to the usual debates about the scope of police authority — but by the same token it reaches only equipment sited on state rights-of-way and does not restrict ALPRs on municipal streets, private property, or the use of data already collected. DOCUMENTED MISUSE supporting the action: officers in Haines City and Sarasota were fired and arrested for allegedly misusing the cameras to stalk romantic interests. POLITICAL POSTURE: Gov. Ron DeSantis had publicly called Flock camera misuse by police 'out of control' and called for legislative action. DOWNSTREAM EFFECT: Gainesville turned off all of its Flock-style cameras on September 3, 2026 following the order. PART OF A NATIONAL AUGUST 2026 REVERSAL also including Texas (funding halt, 2026-08-26), Rhode Island (installation pause, 2026-08-18) and Connecticut (installation pause request, 2026-08-07).","who_is_protected":"Florida drivers and residents whose vehicle movements were captured by ALPRs on state highways","who_must_comply":"Local law enforcement agencies, municipalities and vendors including Flock Safety with ALPR hardware installed on Florida state highway rights-of-way","citation":"Florida Department of Transportation — statewide revocation of ALPR right-of-way permits (issued August 31, 2026; 30-day removal deadline)","source_url":"https://baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2026/08/31/fdot-orders-removal-of-flock-cameras-along-florida-state-highways","source_title":"FDOT orders removal of Flock cameras along Florida state highways — Bay News 9","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Florida Department of Transportation (right-of-way permitting)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"All active ALPR permits on state rights-of-way are revoked; hardware not removed within 30 days is present without authorization"},{"id":"tx-abbott-flock-state-funding-halt-2026","title":"Texas — Gov. Abbott Orders All State Agencies to Halt Funding for Flock Cameras, Cutting Off a Grant Pipeline That Had Put at Least $30 Million Into Local ALPR Networks (August 26, 2026)","short_title":"Texas Abbott halt on state funding for Flock cameras (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-26","enacted_date":"2026-08-26","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Governor Greg Abbott ordered every Texas state agency to stop funding Flock cameras on August 26, 2026. The order's operative language, as reported, is that to the extent any funding comes from Texas agencies, those agencies are clarifying that those funds cannot be used for Flock cameras. The timing tells you what it is responding to: the order came as the Texas Tribune was preparing to publish an investigation showing that a state agency had devoted at least $30 million to building the state's Flock surveillance network through grants to local police departments. That is the important fact about this measure. Texas did not restrict what police may do with license plate data, and it did not ban the cameras. It cut the money. Most local ALPR deployments in Texas were paid for with state grant dollars rather than municipal budgets, so removing the grant pipeline changes what departments can afford to install and renew without touching anyone's legal authority to use the technology. A growing number of Texas cities and counties were already reconsidering their Flock contracts over data sharing, privacy and misuse concerns. Texas is one of four states that moved against ALPRs in August 2026, alongside Florida, Rhode Island and Connecticut.","summary_technical":"State of Texas — gubernatorial order of August 26, 2026 directing all state agencies to pause and halt funding for Flock cameras; confirmed publicly by the Governor's office on August 28, 2026. OPERATIVE LANGUAGE AS REPORTED: 'To the extent any funding comes from Texas agencies, those agencies are clarifying that those funds cannot be used for Flock cameras.' MECHANISM — A FISCAL INSTRUMENT, NOT A REGULATORY ONE: the order does not prohibit ALPR deployment, restrict data retention or sharing, impose a warrant requirement, or limit police authority in any way. It withdraws state money. Its force depends entirely on how much of the deployed base was state-funded, which in Texas is substantial. TRIGGER AND SCALE: the order issued as the Texas Tribune prepared an investigation documenting that a state agency had committed AT LEAST $30 MILLION in grants to local police departments to build out the state's Flock network. CONTEXT: a growing number of Texas cities and counties were independently reconsidering Flock contracts over data-sharing, privacy and misuse concerns. IMPLEMENTATION UNCERTAINTY, recorded: Houston-area agencies were still assessing the practical effect in mid-September 2026 — existing installed cameras, in-term contracts and non-state funding streams are not addressed by the reporting located. NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH the two other 2026 Abbott directives indexed here, both concerning DATA CENTERS rather than surveillance: tx-gov-abbott-dc-audit-directive-2026 (2026-08-03) and tx-abbott-twdb-water-reporting-penalties-2026 (2026-09-14).","who_is_protected":"Texas drivers and residents subject to ALPR surveillance funded by state grant dollars","who_must_comply":"All Texas state agencies administering grants or funding that could be spent on Flock cameras; local police departments relying on state grant funding for ALPR deployment","citation":"Texas — gubernatorial order halting state agency funding for Flock cameras (issued August 26, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/28/texas-greg-abbott-flock-cameras-order-state-money/","source_title":"Abbott blocks state agencies from spending money on Flock cameras — The Texas Tribune","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Office of the Governor of Texas; Texas state agencies administering public safety grants","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"State agency funds may not be used for Flock cameras"},{"id":"ri-mckee-alpr-installation-pause-2026","title":"Rhode Island — Gov. McKee Orders a Statewide Pause on Installing or Activating New ALPR Cameras and a 60-Day Review to Set Uniform Standards (August 18, 2026)","short_title":"Rhode Island ALPR installation pause and 60-day review (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Rhode Island","state_abbr":"RI","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-18","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","expires_date":"2026-10-17","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Governor Dan McKee ordered a statewide pause on installing or activating any new automated license plate reader cameras on August 18, 2026, together with a sixty-day review to establish uniform standards governing the technology and the data it collects. The order binds the Rhode Island State Police directly: they may keep using the cameras they already have, but they may not install or activate any new ones. For cities and towns the order is a request rather than a command — McKee urged them to follow suit, which is the limit of what a governor can do to independent municipal police departments. He directed State Police Colonel Darnel Weaver to run the review in consultation with the Rhode Island Police Chiefs' Association, the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns and other stakeholders. The stated endpoint is legislation: McKee said that when the review is done he will work with lawmakers on a bill codifying the protections and establishing clear, consistent statewide standards for ALPR use. The order came as municipalities across Rhode Island were already resisting Flock cameras on their own, and it is one of four state-level actions in August 2026 — with Florida, Texas and Connecticut — that marked a national turn against license plate surveillance.","summary_technical":"State of Rhode Island — Governor's order of August 18, 2026 pausing the installation and activation of new automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras statewide and commissioning a 60-day review. BINDING SCOPE vs. ADVISORY SCOPE — the distinction that governs how this entry should be read: the order DIRECTLY BINDS the Rhode Island State Police, which may continue operating existing cameras but may not install or activate new ones. As to municipal police departments, the Governor URGES cities and towns to follow suit; he has no direct authority to order independent municipal agencies to stop, so local compliance is voluntary. REVIEW: directed to Rhode Island State Police Col. Darnel Weaver, to be conducted in consultation with the Rhode Island Police Chiefs' Association, the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns and other appropriate stakeholders, with a 60-day completion target (approximately October 17, 2026). PURPOSE: to establish uniform statewide standards governing ALPR use and the data collected. STATED ENDPOINT: the Governor will work with lawmakers on legislation codifying the protections and establishing clear, consistent statewide standards — so this instrument is explicitly a bridge to legislation rather than a permanent regime, and expires_date reflects the review window, not a sunset on the pause itself. CONTEXT: municipalities across Rhode Island were already resisting Flock deployments; at least one city publicly defended the system's usefulness in a recent arrest while the review was announced. PART OF THE AUGUST 2026 MULTI-STATE ALPR REVERSAL with Florida, Texas and Connecticut.","who_is_protected":"Rhode Island drivers and residents subject to ALPR data collection","who_must_comply":"Rhode Island State Police (binding); Rhode Island cities and towns and their police departments (urged, not ordered)","citation":"Rhode Island — Governor's order pausing new ALPR installation and commissioning a 60-day statewide review (issued August 18, 2026)","source_url":"https://rhodeislandcurrent.com/2026/08/18/as-municipalities-across-rhode-island-resist-flock-cameras-mckee-orders-review/","source_title":"As municipalities across Rhode Island resist Flock cameras, McKee orders review — Rhode Island Current","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Office of the Governor of Rhode Island; Rhode Island State Police","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"State Police may not install or activate new ALPR cameras during the review; municipal compliance is voluntary"},{"id":"ct-lamont-alpr-pause-post-guidance-2026","title":"Connecticut — Gov. Lamont Urges Every Municipality to Immediately Pause Installing New Cameras and ALPRs and Gives the POST Council 30 Days to Issue Guidance (August 7, 2026)","short_title":"Connecticut ALPR installation pause request and POST guidance (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Connecticut","state_abbr":"CT","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-07","enacted_date":"2026-08-07","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Governor Ned Lamont announced on August 7, 2026 that he was calling for a review of safety cameras and automated license plate reader technology in Connecticut, and urging every municipality in the state to immediately pause the installation of any new cameras and ALPRs until guidance is finalized. In a letter he asked the Connecticut Police Officer Standards and Training Council to develop that guidance within thirty days — outlining the privacy provisions in existing Connecticut statutes and recommending specific policies that police departments should have in place before implementing the technology. Lamont said residents are justifiably concerned about the privacy issues this public safety technology can create. He had signed Public Act 26-14 in May 2026, which includes provisions intended to clarify privacy concerns in state statutes, and said more still needs to be done. This is the weakest of the four August 2026 state ALPR actions and the entry records it as such: it is a REQUEST to municipalities, not an order, and the POST Council's product is guidance, not a rule. It matters because the POST Council sets training and accreditation standards for Connecticut police, so its guidance tends to become the practical baseline even without the force of a statute.","summary_technical":"State of Connecticut — Governor's announcement and letter of August 7, 2026 calling for review of safety camera and ALPR technology. TWO COMPONENTS: (1) a request that ALL CONNECTICUT MUNICIPALITIES immediately PAUSE the installation of any new cameras and ALPRs pending finalisation of guidance; (2) a directive to the Connecticut POLICE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING (POST) COUNCIL to develop, within 30 days (approximately September 6, 2026), guidance for state and local police departments that outlines the privacy provisions in existing Connecticut statutes and recommends specific policies departments should adopt before implementing the technology. LEGAL FORCE — WHY strength IS `limited`: the municipal pause is a REQUEST, not an order; Connecticut municipal police departments are not bound by it. The POST Council's output is GUIDANCE, not a regulation. Neither component creates an enforceable restriction. PRACTICAL WEIGHT NONETHELESS: the POST Council sets training and certification standards for Connecticut law enforcement, so its guidance functions as the de facto compliance baseline for departments seeking to avoid accreditation and liability exposure. STATUTORY BACKDROP: Gov. Lamont signed PUBLIC ACT 26-14 in May 2026, which includes provisions intended to clarify privacy concerns in state statutes; the Governor's own position is that more is required. STATED RATIONALE: residents are 'justifiably concerned' about privacy issues arising from this public safety technology. RELATED CONNECTICUT DEVELOPMENT: Connecticut Public reported on 2026-09-08 that CT towns were installing license-plate-reading cameras on SCHOOL BUSES — a deployment channel the pause request does not obviously address. EARLIEST of the four August 2026 state ALPR actions (Connecticut 08-07, Rhode Island 08-18, Texas 08-26, Florida 08-31).","who_is_protected":"Connecticut drivers and residents subject to camera and ALPR surveillance","who_must_comply":"Connecticut municipalities and police departments — as a request rather than a mandate; the POST Council, which was directed to produce guidance within 30 days","citation":"Connecticut — Governor's call for ALPR review and municipal installation pause; POST Council guidance directed within 30 days (August 7, 2026)","source_url":"https://portal.ct.gov/governor/news/press-releases/2026/08-2026/governor-lamont-calls-for-review-of-safety-cameras","source_title":"Governor Lamont Calls for Review of Safety Cameras and Automated License Plate Reader Technology, Urges Municipalities To Pause Installation of Any New Equipment — CT Office of the Governor","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Connecticut Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) Council; Office of the Governor","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None — the municipal pause is advisory and the POST Council product is guidance"},{"id":"tn-knox-county-flock-removal-ordinance-2026","title":"Knox County, Tennessee — Emergency Ordinance Banning License Plate Readers and Ordering All 143 Flock Cameras Removed Within 30 Days, Passed Unanimously (August 31, 2026)","short_title":"Knox County TN Flock camera ban and removal order (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Knox County, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Knox County","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-31","enacted_date":"2026-08-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Knox County Commission unanimously passed an emergency ordinance on August 31, 2026 banning license plate readers in the county and ordering all 143 Flock cameras removed within thirty days. Because it was adopted as an emergency measure it required only a single vote and took effect immediately. Commissioner Adam Thompson brought the ordinance after sustained public opposition. Two details from the run-up are worth recording because they explain why the reaction was so complete. In late 2025 the Commission had approved a $1.5 million grant to the Knox County Sheriff's Office under the Tennessee Violent Crime Intervention Fund to advance crime-solving technology. And the Sheriff's Office had spent years buying Flock cameras in batches priced just ten dollars under the $25,000 threshold that would have required mayoral review — a procurement pattern that kept a 143-camera surveillance network out of the approval process that was supposed to catch it. Knox County is not simply declining to renew a contract, which is what most jurisdictions in this dataset have done. It banned the technology and ordered the existing hardware physically removed on a deadline.","summary_technical":"Knox County, Tenn. — EMERGENCY ORDINANCE banning automated license plate readers, passed unanimously by the Knox County Commission on August 31, 2026 and effective immediately (emergency measures require only a single vote to become law in Knox County). OPERATIVE REQUIREMENT: removal of ALL 143 FLOCK LICENSE PLATE READERS in the county WITHIN 30 DAYS — approximately September 30, 2026. SPONSOR: Commissioner Adam Thompson. INSTRUMENT CLASS — stronger than the dominant pattern: most jurisdictions indexed here acted by declining to renew or terminating a Flock contract, which leaves the technology lawful and the decision reversible by a later council. Knox County BANNED the technology by ordinance AND ordered the physical removal of installed hardware on a fixed deadline. PROCUREMENT FINDING THAT DROVE THE REACTION, recorded because it is the transferable lesson: the Knox County Sheriff's Office spent years purchasing Flock cameras IN BATCHES PRICED JUST $10 UNDER THE $25,000 THRESHOLD that triggers mayoral review — structuring purchases to stay beneath the approval ceiling, so a 143-camera network accumulated without ever passing through the oversight mechanism designed to catch it. FUNDING BACKDROP: in late 2025 the Commission approved a $1.5 million grant to KCSO under the Tennessee Violent Crime Intervention Fund to advance crime-solving technology, which is the money the LPR conversation grew out of. SEPARATE FROM the two Knox-area DATA CENTER measures indexed here (tn-knox-county-dc-moratorium-2026 and tn-knoxville-dc-moratorium-emergency-ord-2026) — same county, unrelated subject.","who_is_protected":"Knox County, Tennessee residents and drivers whose vehicle movements were captured by the county's 143 Flock license plate readers","who_must_comply":"Knox County Sheriff's Office and any Knox County agency operating license plate readers; Flock Safety as vendor of the installed hardware","citation":"Knox County, Tenn. — emergency ordinance banning license plate readers and requiring removal of all 143 Flock cameras within 30 days (adopted August 31, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wvlt.tv/2026/09/01/knox-county-commission-passes-emergency-ordinance-remove-flock-cameras-heres-what-happens-next/","source_title":"Knox County Commission votes to remove Flock cameras; here's what happens next — WVLT","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Knox County Commission; Knox County Sheriff's Office (removal obligation)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"License plate readers are banned in the county; all 143 installed Flock cameras had to be removed within 30 days of August 31, 2026"},{"id":"wa-elma-alpr-moratorium-2026","title":"Elma, Washington — Temporary Moratorium on Automated License Plate Reader Systems Pending a Local Policy, Deferring to RCW 10.130 and the Attorney General's Model Policies (September 8, 2026)","short_title":"Elma WA temporary ALPR moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Elma, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"Grays Harbor County","city":"Elma","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-08","enacted_date":"2026-09-08","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"The City of Elma placed a temporary moratorium on automated license plate reader systems at its council meeting on September 8, 2026. A city official summed it up plainly: this is basically the city saying that in the meantime it will not be using automated license plate readers in Elma until it can gather more information and develop a policy at a later date. The moratorium defers to state law on law enforcement's use of ALPRs — specifically RCW 10.130, which the Washington Legislature enacted in 2026 to establish a framework for ALPR systems and the data they collect, and under which the Washington Attorney General must develop and publish statewide model policies no later than July 1, 2027. Elma is a small city in Grays Harbor County and this is a modest measure, but it is a useful example of a pattern: rather than write its own rules from scratch, a small municipality paused deployment and tied its own timeline to the state's, so its eventual policy can be built on the Attorney General's model rather than guessed at. The moratorium was one of six public hearings Elma scheduled for September 2026.","summary_technical":"City of Elma, Wash. — temporary moratorium on Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) systems, approved by the City Council at its meeting of Tuesday, September 8, 2026. OPERATIVE EFFECT: the city will not use ALPRs pending collection of further information and development of a local policy. STATE-LAW ANCHORING — the feature worth recording: the moratorium DEFERS TO STATE STATUTE regarding law enforcement use of ALPR systems, specifically RCW 10.130, enacted by the Washington Legislature in 2026, which establishes a framework governing ALPR systems and ALPR data. Under that chapter the WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL must develop and publish STATEWIDE MODEL POLICIES governing ALPR use NO LATER THAN JULY 1, 2027. Elma has therefore tied its local timeline to a state deliverable rather than drafting independently, which is a rational posture for a small municipality and effectively sets the practical review horizon at mid-2027 (review_by is set accordingly). NO EXPRESS SUNSET is reported, so expires_date is null rather than guessed. JURISDICTION: Elma is in Grays Harbor County, Washington. PROCEDURAL CONTEXT: the moratorium was among six public hearings the city scheduled for September 2026. WASHINGTON STATE BACKDROP: Gov. Ferguson signed the ALPR regulation law in 2026; police agencies statewide paused ALPR use to comply with the new restrictions, and the Attorney General's Office issued clarification on the effective-date obligation in June 2026.","who_is_protected":"Elma, Washington residents and drivers","who_must_comply":"The City of Elma and its police department; any vendor seeking to deploy ALPR systems in Elma","citation":"City of Elma, Wash. — temporary moratorium on Automated License Plate Reader systems (approved September 8, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.thedailyworld.com/2026/09/09/temporary-automatic-license-plate-readers-moratorium-approved-by-elma-city-council/","source_title":"Temporary Automatic License Plate Readers moratorium approved by Elma city council — The Daily World","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Elma / Elma City Council; state framework administered under RCW 10.130 with model policies from the Washington Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"The city will not use or deploy ALPR systems during the moratorium"},{"id":"sc-oconee-county-mass-surveillance-ordinance-pending-2026","title":"Oconee County, South Carolina — 'Protection from Mass Surveillance' Ordinance Barring County Tax Dollars, Property, Equipment and Personnel From Supporting Mass Surveillance: Two of Three Readings Passed, Final Reading September 15, 2026 (PENDING)","short_title":"Oconee County SC Protection from Mass Surveillance ordinance (pending)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Oconee County, SC","state_abbr":"SC","county":"Oconee County","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Oconee County Council is one vote away from becoming the first county in South Carolina to ban Flock cameras and mass surveillance. The ordinance is titled 'Protection from Mass Surveillance' and it works by cutting off county resources: it bars tax dollars, property, equipment and personnel from supporting what councilmembers describe as mass surveillance, and may also require existing Flock cameras in the county to be disabled. Because it limits county funding to cities that use the system it reaches deployments in Seneca, West Union and Westminster even though those are municipal decisions. South Carolina county ordinances need three readings. The first passed on August 18, 2026 with one council member opposed — the vote that made Oconee the first county in the Upstate to push back on Flock — and the second passed on September 1, 2026. The chairman said the third and final reading, with a public hearing, would be held September 15, 2026, which is this entry's verification date. So the ordinance is NOT yet law. One procedural step in between is worth noting: on August 27, 2026 the council moved to preserve existing Flock camera data ahead of a possible ban — a deliberate decision to retain rather than destroy the record before shutting the system down.","summary_technical":"Oconee County, S.C. — proposed ordinance titled 'PROTECTION FROM MASS SURVEILLANCE'. PROCEDURAL POSTURE AS OF 2026-09-15 — NOT ENACTED: FIRST reading passed August 18, 2026 (one council member opposed); SECOND reading passed September 1, 2026; THIRD AND FINAL reading plus public hearing scheduled for September 15, 2026. South Carolina county ordinances require three readings, so status is `proposed` and effective_date is null. MECHANISM — A RESOURCE PROHIBITION, NOT A USE PROHIBITION: the ordinance bars county TAX DOLLARS, PROPERTY, EQUIPMENT and PERSONNEL from supporting mass surveillance, and may additionally require existing Flock cameras in the county to be disabled. This is a materially different instrument from an outright technology ban (compare tn-knox-county-flock-removal-ordinance-2026, which bans the technology and orders hardware removed). A resource prohibition constrains what the county may pay for, host or staff; it does not by itself make private or independently-funded deployment unlawful. EXTRATERRITORIAL REACH BY FUNDING LEVERAGE: because it limits county funding to municipalities that use the system, it affects Flock deployments in SENECA, WEST UNION and WESTMINSTER — municipal decisions the county cannot directly override but can defund. DATA PRESERVATION STEP: on August 27, 2026 the council moved to PRESERVE existing Flock camera data ahead of a possible ban — retention of the record rather than destruction, which matters for any later accountability review. FIRST-IN-STATE CLAIM: reported as the first South Carolina county to move to ban Flock cameras and mass surveillance, and the first in the Upstate to push back.","who_is_protected":"Oconee County, South Carolina residents and drivers; residents of Seneca, West Union and Westminster affected by municipal Flock deployments","who_must_comply":"Oconee County government and its agencies; municipalities within the county that receive county funding and operate Flock systems — prospectively, if and when the third reading passes","citation":"Oconee County, S.C. — proposed 'Protection from Mass Surveillance' ordinance (first reading August 18, 2026; second reading September 1, 2026; third and final reading scheduled September 15, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.foxcarolina.com/2026/08/19/we-will-not-be-watched-oconee-county-council-advances-ban-flock-surveillance-cameras/","source_title":"'We will not be watched': Oconee County Council advances ban on Flock & surveillance cameras — FOX Carolina","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"Oconee County Council; county finance and administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None yet in force; the ordinance is not law until the third and final reading passes"},{"id":"nj-cherry-hill-dc-prohibited-use-2026","title":"Cherry Hill Township, New Jersey — Ordinance Listing Data Centers as a Non-Permitted Land Use Township-Wide, While Expressly Preserving Small Business Server Rooms (July 28, 2026)","short_title":"Cherry Hill NJ data center prohibited-use ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cherry Hill, NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","county":"Camden County","city":"Cherry Hill","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-07-28","enacted_date":"2026-07-28","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Cherry Hill Township Council unanimously passed an ordinance on July 28, 2026 listing data centers as a non-permitted land use anywhere within the township. This is a permanent zoning prohibition, not a pause. The drafting detail that makes it workable is the carve-out: the ordinance distinguishes the now-forbidden data centers — facilities used for artificial intelligence or cloud storage — from the small server rooms a standalone business keeps for its own file storage, which remain permitted. Without that line a literal prohibition on 'data centers' would sweep in every dentist's office with a server closet. Because the use is simply not permitted, a developer who wanted to build one in future would need a use variance from the township zoning board, which is generally the hardest land-use approval to obtain in New Jersey. Mayor David Fleisher framed the decision as pre-emptive: 'We don't think that Cherry Hill should be a guinea pig… while the technology is evolving, we wanted to be proactive and make sure that we eliminated a problem before it became one.' Cherry Hill is one of a large group of South Jersey and statewide municipalities that formally banned large-scale data centers during 2026 — by late August more than fifty New Jersey towns had prohibited the use outright, the densest municipal ban wave in the country.","summary_technical":"Cherry Hill Township, N.J. (Camden County) — zoning ordinance adopted unanimously by the Township Council on July 28, 2026, listing DATA CENTERS AS A NON-PERMITTED LAND USE within the township's borders. INSTRUMENT CLASS: a permanent prohibited-use designation, not a moratorium — no sunset, no study period, no follow-on regulation required. DEFINITIONAL CARVE-OUT, the feature worth copying: the ordinance distinguishes prohibited data centers, meaning facilities used for artificial intelligence or cloud storage, from SMALL SERVER ROOMS used by standalone businesses for their own file storage, which remain permitted. A prohibition drafted without that line reaches ordinary commercial IT infrastructure and becomes unadministrable. PATH TO A FUTURE FACILITY: because the use is not permitted anywhere, a developer would require a USE VARIANCE from the township zoning board — in New Jersey practice a 'd' variance under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d), the most demanding land-use approval available and one requiring an enhanced affirmative showing. STATED RATIONALE (Mayor David Fleisher): pre-emption rather than response — 'We don't think that Cherry Hill should be a guinea pig'; the township acted 'to make sure that we eliminated a problem before it became one'. STATE CONTEXT: New Jersey has the densest municipal data center ban wave in the United States, with 50+ towns prohibiting the use outright by late August 2026, running alongside the state's four-pillar framework (nj-s3379-a4096-data-center-transparency-2026, nj-new-jersey-s731-a796-data-center-ratepayer-protection-and-grid-dem-2026). LITIGATION EXPOSURE, recorded: developers have begun challenging New Jersey local bans in court, characterising them as products of 'public hysteria' — a separate backlog item tracked for that dispute.","who_is_protected":"Cherry Hill Township residents; Camden County ratepayers and water users","who_must_comply":"Any developer seeking to build an AI or cloud-storage data center in Cherry Hill Township; ordinary businesses operating small on-premises server rooms are expressly unaffected","citation":"Cherry Hill Township, N.J. — zoning ordinance designating data centers a non-permitted use (adopted July 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.inquirer.com/south-jersey/cherry-hill-nj-data-center-ban-20260728.html","source_title":"Cherry Hill joins a growing list of South Jersey municipalities to formally ban large-scale data centers — The Philadelphia Inquirer","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Cherry Hill Township zoning officer / Cherry Hill Township Zoning Board of Adjustment (use variances)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data centers are a non-permitted use township-wide; construction requires a use variance from the zoning board"},{"id":"mi-garfield-township-dc-crypto-moratorium-2026","title":"Garfield Township, Michigan — One-Year Ban on Data Centers and Cryptocurrency Mining Enacted Through a Zoning Ordinance Amendment Rather Than a Standalone Resolution, Explicitly to Survive Legal Challenge (August 25, 2026)","short_title":"Garfield Township MI data center and crypto mining ban (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Garfield Township, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Grand Traverse County","city":"Garfield Township","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-25","enacted_date":"2026-08-25","expires_date":"2027-08-25","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Garfield Township's board unanimously banned data centers and cryptocurrency mining facilities for one year on August 25, 2026, with an option to extend for six more months. Township Supervisor Joe McManus said the pause lets officials plan properly for future proposals and update the township's zoning ordinance. The procedural choice behind it is the reason this entry is worth reading. Rather than adopt a standalone moratorium ordinance or resolution — the route most townships take — Garfield's Planning Commission first recommended an amendment to the ZONING ORDINANCE itself that authorizes temporary bans, and the moratorium was then enacted under that authority. Township officials said plainly why: municipalities that imposed knee-jerk moratoriums without going through this process are being challenged in court and losing. In other words Garfield spent the extra procedural steps to buy defensibility, which is a distinction that matters a great deal when a developer sues. The practical effect is to stall a proposal by Illinois-based developer Tom Cervenka to repurpose a building on Cass Road as a small-scale data center. Garfield Township is in Grand Traverse County in northern Michigan, and its action came while Michigan legislators were still debating a statewide data center moratorium.","summary_technical":"Charter Township of Garfield, Mich. (Grand Traverse County) — one-year temporary ban on DATA CENTERS AND CRYPTOCURRENCY MINING FACILITIES, approved unanimously by the Township Board on Tuesday, August 25, 2026, with a discretionary SIX-MONTH EXTENSION available if the board deems it necessary. PROCEDURAL ARCHITECTURE — THE POINT OF THIS ENTRY: the Township Planning Commission first recommended an AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE authorizing temporary bans, and the moratorium was adopted under that amended authority rather than as a freestanding ordinance or resolution. Township officials stated the reason expressly: municipalities that enacted 'knee-jerk moratoriums' without that groundwork 'are being challenged and losing in court because they didn't go through the process that we went through.' This is the clearest statement in the dataset of the legal-durability difference between a moratorium grounded in amended zoning authority and one adopted ad hoc, and it is the transferable lesson for any jurisdiction drafting one. SCOPE: covers cryptocurrency mining alongside data centers, closing the gap that data-center-only language leaves. PURPOSE: time to update the township zoning ordinance to address such projects. PRACTICAL EFFECT: likely stalls a proposal by Illinois-based developer Tom Cervenka to repurpose a Cass Road building as a small-scale data center — note this is a SMALL-scale project, so the ban is not limited to hyperscale. STATE CONTEXT: Michigan legislators were concurrently pushing a statewide data center freeze; environmental groups were still pressing lawmakers on a state moratorium and regulations as of 2026-09-14.","who_is_protected":"Garfield Township residents in Grand Traverse County, Michigan; township water and electricity infrastructure","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers or cryptocurrency mining facilities of any scale in Garfield Township, including the proposed Cass Road conversion","citation":"Charter Township of Garfield, Mich. — one-year ban on data centers and cryptocurrency mining adopted under a zoning ordinance amendment (August 25, 2026)","source_url":"https://michiganadvance.com/2026/08/27/garfield-township-puts-a-1-year-ban-on-data-centers-cryptocurrency-mining/","source_title":"Garfield Township puts a 1-year ban on data centers, cryptocurrency mining — Michigan Advance","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Garfield Township zoning administration / Garfield Township Planning Commission and Township Board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No data center or cryptocurrency mining facility may be approved during the one-year ban, extendable by six months"},{"id":"ky-logan-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Logan County, Kentucky — Fiscal Court Resolution Imposing a 12-Month Moratorium on Data Center Construction, Development and Operation in Unincorporated Areas to Study Local Water Supply Capacity (July 28, 2026)","short_title":"Logan County KY 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Logan County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Logan County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-28","enacted_date":"2026-07-28","expires_date":"2027-07-28","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Logan County's Fiscal Court passed a resolution on July 28, 2026 imposing a twelve-month moratorium on the construction, development and operation of data centers in the unincorporated areas of the county. The resolution states its purpose narrowly and unusually precisely: to study the capacity levels of the local water supply and the effects high-water consumers could have on that supply. Most moratorium recitals list electricity, water, noise, traffic and land use together; Logan County named water capacity as the single question it wants answered. Judge-Executive Phil Baker said the county wanted to take the twelve months to educate itself, and was explicit that the measure is not meant to oppose data center development but to ensure any future project fits the county's long-term plans. Two limits are worth holding onto. The moratorium reaches UNINCORPORATED areas only, so cities inside Logan County make their own decisions. And it is a resolution of the Fiscal Court rather than a zoning ordinance. Logan County is one of a group of Kentucky counties and cities that paused data centers during 2026; the state's first permanent county ban came later, in Woodford County on September 8, 2026.","summary_technical":"Logan County, Ky. — Fiscal Court RESOLUTION adopted Tuesday, July 28, 2026, imposing a 12-month moratorium on the construction, development and/or operation of data centers within the UNINCORPORATED AREAS of Logan County. STATED PURPOSE, narrowly drawn: 'for the purpose of studying capacity levels of the local water supply and the effects high-water consumers could have on said water supply.' This is a single-issue moratorium — water supply capacity — rather than the omnibus electricity/water/noise/traffic recital typical of the 2026 municipal record, which makes the standard for lifting it correspondingly clearer. TERRITORIAL LIMIT: unincorporated areas only; incorporated cities within Logan County retain their own land-use authority and are unaffected. INSTRUMENT CLASS: a Fiscal Court resolution, not a zoning ordinance amendment — compare mi-garfield-township-dc-crypto-moratorium-2026, where the township deliberately took the zoning-amendment route for legal durability. STATED POSTURE (Judge-Executive Phil Baker): the county wanted 'to take the time, the 12 month time to educate ourselves'; the moratorium is NOT intended to oppose data center development but to ensure future projects are compatible with the county's long-term plans. KENTUCKY CONTEXT: multiple Kentucky counties and cities paused data centers during 2026 (Kentucky Lantern, 2026-06-08; Kentucky League of Cities, 'Cities Vary Responses to Data Center Interest'); the indexed Kentucky instruments are ky-bell-county-kentucky-two-year-moratorium-on-data-center-construction-and-ope-2026, ky-lexington-fayette-urban-county-moratorium-on-data-center-permits-development-plans-and-2026, ky-woodford-county-permanent-dc-ban-2026 (the state's first permanent ban, 2026-09-08) and ky-beshear-eo-data-center-development-2026.","who_is_protected":"Logan County, Kentucky residents in unincorporated areas; the county's local water supply","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to construct, develop or operate a data center in unincorporated Logan County, Kentucky","citation":"Logan County, Ky. — Fiscal Court resolution imposing a 12-month data center moratorium in unincorporated areas (adopted July 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wbko.com/2026/07/30/logan-county-approves-12-month-moratorium-data-centers/","source_title":"Logan County approves 12-month moratorium on data centers — WBKO","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Logan County Fiscal Court / Logan County planning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No data center construction, development or operation may be approved in unincorporated Logan County during the 12-month moratorium"},{"id":"mi-corunna-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026","title":"Corunna, Michigan — Data Center Ordinance Requiring a Special Use Permit, a 500-Foot Setback From Existing Homes, a 250-Foot Buffer and a Completed Environmental Study, Adopted Before Any Developer Approached the City (August 3, 2026)","short_title":"Corunna MI data center zoning ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Corunna, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Shiawassee County","city":"Corunna","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-03","enacted_date":"2026-08-03","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Corunna City Council unanimously adopted a data center ordinance on August 3, 2026 after a public hearing. It is a regulation rather than a ban, and the numbers in it are specific enough to be worth recording. A prospective data center must first obtain a special use permit from the city's planning commission. The ordinance sets a maximum building height of 100 feet, with a possible waiver request up to 165 feet; a minimum 250-foot buffer from property lines and roads; and a minimum 500-foot setback from any existing residential dwelling not located on the project parcel. It also imposes noise maximums and requires applicants to complete an environmental study. The most striking fact about it is the timing: no prospective data center developer had approached Corunna, and the city had not been in contact with any. Corunna wrote its rules before there was anything to apply them to. That is the opposite of the pattern running through most of this dataset, where a jurisdiction learns of a project and scrambles for a moratorium. A city that has already adopted standards does not need to pause anything. Corunna is in Shiawassee County in mid-Michigan.","summary_technical":"City of Corunna, Mich. (Shiawassee County) — data center zoning ordinance, drafted and first approved by the city Planning Commission and adopted unanimously by City Council following a public hearing at its regular meeting of Monday, August 3, 2026. OPERATIVE REQUIREMENTS: (1) SPECIAL USE PERMIT required from the Planning Commission before any data center may be established; (2) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 100 feet, with a waiver request possible up to 165 feet; (3) MINIMUM 250-FOOT BUFFER from property lines and roads; (4) MINIMUM 500-FOOT SETBACK from an existing residential dwelling not located on the project parcel; (5) NOISE MAXIMUMS; (6) APPLICANT-COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY. INSTRUMENT CLASS — a permanent standards ordinance, not a moratorium: it has no sunset and requires no follow-on work, and it channels data centers into a discretionary special-use review with quantified siting constraints rather than prohibiting or pausing them. TIMING IS THE DISTINGUISHING FACT: no prospective data center developer had approached Corunna and the city had not been in direct contact with any developer. Corunna adopted standards PRE-EMPTIVELY, which is the posture most moratoriums in this dataset exist to buy time to reach. A jurisdiction that already has quantified standards has no need to pause applications. MICHIGAN CONTEXT: adopted the same month as the Garfield Township (Grand Traverse County) one-year ban, while Michigan legislators debated a statewide data center freeze. The neighbouring City of Wixom maintains a combined data center moratorium and ordinance page, indicating the two-instrument pattern is common in Michigan.","who_is_protected":"Corunna residents, particularly occupants of dwellings within 500 feet of any prospective data center parcel","who_must_comply":"Any developer proposing a data center in Corunna — required to obtain a special use permit, meet the height, buffer, setback and noise limits, and complete an environmental study","citation":"City of Corunna, Mich. — data center zoning ordinance (adopted August 3, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.argus-press.com/news/article_2909bbe5-97ac-4548-afcd-f69d6692e92b.html","source_title":"Corunna City Council approves data center ordinance — The Argus-Press","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Corunna Planning Commission (special use permits) / City of Corunna zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No data center may be established without a special use permit meeting the ordinance's height, buffer, setback, noise and environmental study requirements"},{"id":"nm-sierra-county-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026","title":"Sierra County, New Mexico — 18-Month Data Center Moratorium Adopted Unanimously After Commissioners Amended a Non-Binding Opposition Resolution Into a Binding Pause on the Floor (July 21, 2026)","short_title":"Sierra County NM 18-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Sierra County, NM","state_abbr":"NM","county":"Sierra County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-07-21","enacted_date":"2026-07-21","expires_date":"2028-01-21","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Sierra County commissioners voted unanimously on July 21, 2026 to impose an eighteen-month moratorium on data centers — one of the longest local pauses in this dataset, and one that nobody expected that morning. The item on the agenda was a resolution simply OPPOSING the development of large-scale data centers in the county, which would have carried no legal force at all. After more than an hour of public comment at the regular Tuesday morning meeting in Truth or Consequences, the commissioners amended the item on the floor into a binding eighteen-month moratorium and passed it. The Albuquerque Journal called it a surprise vote. What prompted it was the emergence of details about a proposed solar-powered data center at Spaceport America, which sits on state trust land inside Sierra County. Opponents argued it would use too much water and damage the environment. Sierra County joined Santa Fe and Socorro counties in pushing back on large-scale data centers near the Spaceport, and New Mexico lawmakers were separately proposing a statewide moratorium for the next legislative session.","summary_technical":"Sierra County, N.M. — 18-MONTH data center moratorium adopted unanimously by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting in Truth or Consequences on Tuesday, July 21, 2026. PROCEDURAL HISTORY, which is the notable part: the agenda item as noticed was a RESOLUTION OPPOSING the development of 'large-scale data centers' within Sierra County — a non-binding expression of position with no operative effect. Following more than an hour of public comment the commissioners AMENDED THE ITEM ON THE FLOOR into a binding 18-month moratorium and adopted it; the Albuquerque Journal characterised it as a surprise vote. The escalation from non-binding opposition to binding pause in a single session is uncommon and worth recording, both as a pattern and as a caution: a jurisdiction's noticed agenda item is not a reliable indicator of what it will adopt. DURATION: 18 months is at the long end of the local distribution in this dataset, exceeded only by the multi-year Arkansas county moratoriums. TRIGGER: emerging details of a proposed SOLAR-POWERED DATA CENTER AT SPACEPORT AMERICA, which sits on STATE TRUST LAND within the county — a jurisdictional wrinkle, since state trust land is administered by the State Land Office rather than the county, so the county's land-use authority over that specific parcel is a live question the sources do not resolve. OPPOSITION GROUNDS: water consumption and environmental harm. STATE CONTEXT: Sierra County joined SANTA FE and SOCORRO counties in acting against large-scale data centers near Spaceport America; a separate New Mexico county adopted a yearlong moratorium in June 2026; state lawmakers were proposing a STATEWIDE moratorium for the next legislative session.","who_is_protected":"Sierra County, New Mexico residents; regional water resources in a arid basin; the environment around Spaceport America","who_must_comply":"Developers proposing data centers in Sierra County, including the proposed solar-powered facility at Spaceport America","citation":"Sierra County, N.M. — 18-month data center moratorium (adopted July 21, 2026)","source_url":"https://sourcenm.com/2026/07/22/new-mexico-county-adopts-data-center-moratorium-as-residents-protest-spaceport-proposal/","source_title":"New Mexico county adopts data center moratorium as residents protest Spaceport proposal — Source New Mexico","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Sierra County Board of Commissioners / Sierra County planning and zoning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No data center may be approved in the county during the 18-month moratorium"},{"id":"tx-austin-county-dc-bess-moratorium-2026","title":"Austin County, Texas — Countywide Moratorium on AI Data Centers AND Battery Energy Storage Systems Requiring Developers to Submit an Equipment Manufacturer Audit (July 27, 2026)","short_title":"Austin County TX data center and BESS moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Austin County, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Austin County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector","national-security"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-07-27","enacted_date":"2026-07-27","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Austin County Commissioners unanimously approved a countywide moratorium on artificial intelligence data centers and battery energy storage systems on July 27, 2026, becoming one of the first Texas counties to do so. The moratorium does not outright bar construction; it pauses approvals so the county can evaluate what these developments do. What sets it apart from almost every other pause in this dataset is what the county said it will examine and what it demands of developers in the meantime. The evaluation covers compliance with health, fire and safety requirements, CYBERSECURITY SAFEGUARDS, and enforcement mechanisms that can actually be applied to these projects in the unincorporated parts of the county — including the possible designation of a dedicated energy development zone. And the moratorium REQUIRES prospective developers to submit an equipment manufacturer audit to the county: a full list of every piece of equipment and every component proposed for use in the project. That is a supply-chain disclosure requirement, and no other local measure indexed here asks for one. It gives a rural county visibility into who made the hardware going into a facility on its land, which is a fire-safety question for battery storage and a security question for computing. Austin County was the second Texas county to adopt a data center moratorium after Hill County; San Marcos was the first Texas city, on June 30, 2026.","summary_technical":"Austin County, Tex. — countywide moratorium on ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DATA CENTERS and BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS (BESS), approved unanimously by the Commissioners Court on Monday, July 27, 2026. CHARACTER: not an outright construction ban; a pause on approvals to permit county evaluation. SCOPE OF EVALUATION, broader than the standard water-and-power framing: (a) compliance with HEALTH, FIRE AND SAFETY requirements; (b) CYBERSECURITY SAFEGUARDS; (c) ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS applicable to BESS and data center projects within the UNINCORPORATED AREAS of the county; (d) possible designation of a dedicated ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ZONE for these project types. THE DISTINGUISHING REQUIREMENT — EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER AUDIT: the moratorium requires prospective developers to submit to the county a full list of all equipment and components proposed for use in the project. This is a SUPPLY-CHAIN DISCLOSURE obligation and is not replicated by any other local instrument in this dataset. Its practical value is twofold: for battery energy storage it is a fire-safety and cell-provenance question, and for computing infrastructure it is a security and component-origin question — a rural commissioners court obtaining visibility that state and federal review would not otherwise give it. BESS COVERAGE IS DELIBERATE: battery storage is routinely co-located with or built to serve large computing loads, and a moratorium naming only data centers leaves the storage build permissible (compare ky-woodford-county-permanent-dc-ban-2026, which also reaches battery storage). TEXAS SEQUENCE: San Marcos was the first Texas CITY to adopt such a rule (2026-06-30); Hill County was the first COUNTY; Austin County was the second county. Hood County REJECTED a data center development pause in February 2026.","who_is_protected":"Austin County, Texas residents in unincorporated areas; county fire and emergency services; grid and infrastructure","who_must_comply":"Developers of AI data centers and battery energy storage systems in unincorporated Austin County, who must submit an equipment manufacturer audit listing all proposed equipment and components","citation":"Austin County, Tex. — countywide moratorium on AI data centers and battery energy storage systems (adopted July 27, 2026)","source_url":"https://kwhi.com/2026/07/28/austin-co-commissioners-enact-moratorium-on-data-centers-battery-energy-storage-systems/","source_title":"Austin Co. Commissioners Enact Moratorium On Data Centers, Battery Energy Storage Systems — KWHI","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Austin County Commissioners Court / county development and fire marshal review","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Covered projects may not be approved during the moratorium; developers must produce the equipment manufacturer audit"},{"id":"oh-clearcreek-township-dc-permit-moratorium-2026","title":"Clearcreek Township, Ohio — One-Year Moratorium on Issuing Data Center Permits, Adopted With No Development Proposal Pending (July 27, 2026)","short_title":"Clearcreek Township OH one-year data center permit moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Clearcreek Township, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Warren County","city":"Clearcreek Township","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-27","enacted_date":"2026-07-27","expires_date":"2027-07-27","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Clearcreek Township trustees approved a resolution on July 27, 2026 imposing a one-year moratorium on issuing permits for data centers in the township, which sits in northern Warren County in the Dayton area. Trustee Chairman Jason Gabbard said the township had received no development proposals at all and described the moratorium as proactive — time to study the issue and its potential effect on local infrastructure before any decision has to be made. Clearcreek is one of a cluster of Ohio local governments that acted in 2026, and the Dayton-area sequence is worth knowing because it shows what a moratorium is usually for. Dayton approved a 180-day moratorium in April 2026 and then, in June, permanently amended its zoning code to prohibit large-scale data centers — the pause bought the time to write the permanent rule. Washington Township approved a 360-day moratorium in the spring to study long-term impacts. Fairborn and Cincinnati adopted temporary moratoriums, Boardman placed one in the Youngstown area, Northwest Township approved one, and Massillon City Council agreed to another. Miamisburg followed with a nine-month pause on September 1, 2026.","summary_technical":"Clearcreek Township, Ohio (northern Warren County) — Board of Trustees RESOLUTION adopted Monday, July 27, 2026 imposing a ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS for data centers in the township. FRAMING: the instrument targets PERMIT ISSUANCE rather than the use itself, which is the narrower and administratively simpler form — it stops the township approving anything without purporting to reclassify the use. POSTURE: the township had received NO development proposals; Trustee Chairman Jason Gabbard described the measure as proactive, to give officials time to study the issue and its potential impact on local infrastructure. DAYTON-AREA / OHIO SEQUENCE, recorded because it illustrates the moratorium-to-permanent-rule pipeline that most single entries in this dataset do not show: DAYTON adopted a 180-day moratorium in April 2026 and then in JUNE 2026 PERMANENTLY AMENDED ITS ZONING CODE to prohibit large-scale data centers — the pause was the drafting window, and the permanent prohibition is the outcome. WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP adopted a 360-day moratorium in spring 2026. FAIRBORN and CINCINNATI adopted temporary moratoriums. BOARDMAN (Mahoning County) placed a moratorium on data centers. NORTHWEST TOWNSHIP approved one. MASSILLON City Council agreed to one. MIAMISBURG followed with nine months on 2026-09-01 (oh-miamisburg-dc-moratorium-2026). SEVERAL OF THESE ARE NOT YET INDEPENDENTLY INDEXED and are recorded here as leads rather than as verified entries.","who_is_protected":"Clearcreek Township residents in Warren County, Ohio; township and county infrastructure","who_must_comply":"Applicants seeking data center permits from Clearcreek Township during the one-year moratorium","citation":"Clearcreek Township, Ohio — resolution imposing a one-year moratorium on issuance of data center permits (adopted July 27, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wdtn.com/news/miami-valley-data-centers/clearcreek-township-passes-data-center-permit-moratorium/","source_title":"Clearcreek Township passes data center permit moratorium — WDTN","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Clearcreek Township Board of Trustees / township zoning and permitting","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No data center permit may be issued during the one-year moratorium"},{"id":"mi-utica-dc-moratorium-extension-2026","title":"Utica, Michigan — City Council Unanimously Extends Its Data Center Moratorium While the City Attorney Drafts an Ordinance, With No Project Proposed (July 14, 2026)","short_title":"Utica MI data center moratorium extension (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Utica, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Macomb County","city":"Utica","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-14","enacted_date":"2026-07-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Utica City Council unanimously voted on July 14, 2026 to extend its moratorium on any decision relating to adding a data center in the city. There are no plans for a data center in Utica and no developer has proposed one; Mayor Gus Calandino said the city is simply trying to be proactive. City Attorney Linda McGrail told the council she is already drafting a data center ordinance and will likely bring it forward once she can see how other communities have decided similar questions — an explicit statement that the city intends to learn from its neighbours' drafting rather than go first. Utica is a small city in Macomb County in metropolitan Detroit. Two facts about this entry's limits should be read alongside it: the length of the extension and the date the original moratorium was adopted were not stated in the located coverage, so this entry records the extension vote itself and leaves the end date open rather than guessing at one.","summary_technical":"City of Utica, Mich. (Macomb County) — City Council vote of July 14, 2026 unanimously EXTENDING the city's existing moratorium on any decisions related to adding a data center in the city. POSTURE: no data center is planned or proposed in Utica; Mayor Gus Calandino characterised the action as proactive. FORWARD WORK: City Attorney Linda McGrail stated at the meeting that she is already drafting a data center ordinance and will likely submit it once she has seen decisions from other communities — a deliberate follow-the-leader drafting strategy, which is a rational posture for a small municipality and mirrors wa-elma-alpr-moratorium-2026's deferral to a forthcoming state model policy in a different subject area. GAPS RECORDED RATHER THAN FILLED: neither the LENGTH of the extension nor the DATE OR TERM of the original moratorium is stated in any located source, so expires_date is null and this entry documents the extension vote rather than a defined window. MICHIGAN CONTEXT: Michigan lawmakers, local officials and residents renewed a push for a STATEWIDE data center moratorium in June 2026, and environmental groups were still pressing the legislature in September 2026; contemporaneous Michigan local instruments indexed here are mi-garfield-township-dc-crypto-moratorium-2026 and mi-corunna-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026. NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH Utica, New York, a considerably larger city, or with Michigan City, Indiana, which was separately considering a data center moratorium in the same period over a proposed Google project.","who_is_protected":"Utica, Michigan residents in Macomb County","who_must_comply":"Any developer seeking city approval for a data center in Utica, Michigan during the extended moratorium","citation":"City of Utica, Mich. — extension of data center moratorium (approved July 14, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.candgnews.com/articles/government-news/utica-city-council-approves-extending-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Utica City Council approves extending data center moratorium — C & G Newspapers","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Utica / Utica City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"The council will not act on any data center decision during the moratorium"},{"id":"il-rockford-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Rockford, Illinois — Six-Month Moratorium on New Data Center Development That Does NOT Reach the Monarch Energy Project That Prompted It, Because of a Pre-Existing Annexation Agreement (August 3, 2026)","short_title":"Rockford IL six-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Rockford, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Winnebago County","city":"Rockford","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-03","enacted_date":"2026-08-03","expires_date":"2027-02-03","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Rockford City Council voted on August 3, 2026 to pause new data center development for six months so officials could evaluate industry best practices before amending city codes or regulations. Alderman Jonathan Logemann of the 2nd Ward brought the proposal after weeks of community backlash over a proposed Monarch Energy data center, with residents raising environmental, electrical, health and noise concerns. The proposal did not sail through — it was sent to committee and stalled there in late July before the council passed it in August. The most important thing to know about this measure is what it does not do. City staff said the moratorium does NOT apply to the land Monarch Energy is considering, because that land is already subject to the terms of a pre-existing annexation agreement. So the pause that residents fought for does not reach the project they were fighting. This is a recurring and under-appreciated limit: a moratorium binds future discretionary approvals, and cannot ordinarily be applied retroactively against contractual development rights a city has already granted. Rockford is recorded at limited strength for exactly that reason. Separately, a ComEd energy deal tied to Rockford data center plans was cancelled, reported in September 2026, which may affect the project independently of the moratorium.","summary_technical":"City of Rockford, Ill. (Winnebago County) — six-month moratorium on new data center development, adopted by the City Council on August 3, 2026. PURPOSE: a comprehensive evaluation of industry best practices before amending city codes or regulations. SPONSOR: Alderman Jonathan Logemann (D-2nd Ward), who proposed it on or about July 20, 2026; the proposal was referred to committee and STALLED at a committee meeting on 2026-07-28 before the full council adopted it on August 3. TRIGGER: weeks of community backlash over the proposed MONARCH ENERGY data center, with residents citing environmental, electrical, health and noise impacts. THE CARVE-OUT IS THE OPERATIVE FACT AND THE REASON strength IS `limited`: city staff stated the moratorium DOES NOT APPLY to the land under consideration by Monarch, because that land is subject to the terms of a PRE-EXISTING ANNEXATION AGREEMENT. A moratorium reaches future discretionary approvals; it does not ordinarily override vested contractual development rights a municipality has already conferred by agreement. The measure therefore does not reach the project that produced it. THIS IS A GENERALISABLE LIMIT worth carrying to other entries: annexation agreements, development agreements and previously approved PUDs routinely survive a later moratorium, and a jurisdiction that adopts one after a project is already under agreement may achieve nothing as to that project. SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT, independent of the moratorium: a ComEd energy deal connected to Rockford data center plans was cancelled, reported by the Rock River Current in September 2026 — the project's status may change for commercial rather than regulatory reasons.","who_is_protected":"Rockford residents, in respect of data center proposals NOT already covered by an existing annexation or development agreement","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking new data center approvals in Rockford during the six-month pause — excluding land subject to the pre-existing Monarch Energy annexation agreement","citation":"City of Rockford, Ill. — six-month data center moratorium (adopted August 3, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.mystateline.com/news/data-center-expansion-paused-in-rockford-for-six-months-to-review-standards/","source_title":"Data center expansion paused in Rockford for six months to review standards — WTVO/WQRF MyStateline","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Rockford Community and Economic Development / Rockford City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"New data center development proposals may not proceed during the moratorium, subject to the annexation agreement carve-out"},{"id":"nc-farmville-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Farmville, North Carolina — Town Commissioners Unanimously Adopt a 12-Month Data Center Moratorium After a Public Hearing, With No Application Pending (August 3, 2026)","short_title":"Farmville NC 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Farmville, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Pitt County","city":"Farmville","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-03","enacted_date":"2026-08-03","expires_date":"2027-08-03","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Farmville's town commissioners voted unanimously on August 3, 2026 to adopt a twelve-month moratorium on data centers, pausing any decision while town staff review ordinance language and develop standards for unique land uses. The vote followed a public hearing at the board's regular meeting at which residents spoke against a potential data center, citing environmental impacts, water usage and the possibility of utility rate increases. Town Manager Justin Oakes described the moratorium as proactive and said the town has not approved any data centers. There is one concrete antecedent: East Energy Renewables, a renewable energy company headquartered in Farmville itself, presented the concept to town leaders at a February 2026 budget workshop. Mayor Alex Joyner said the moratorium gives the board time to gather more information before deciding. Farmville is a town in Pitt County in eastern North Carolina. It acted amid a broader eastern North Carolina wave — Beaufort County was weighing its own pause over water, energy and farmland concerns, and other North Carolina localities were considering pauses after a developer backed away from a Raleigh project.","summary_technical":"Town of Farmville, N.C. (Pitt County) — 12-month data center moratorium adopted UNANIMOUSLY by the Board of Commissioners on Monday, August 3, 2026, following a public hearing at the board's regular meeting. STATED PURPOSE: to pause any decision while town staff review ordinance language and DEVELOP STANDARDS FOR UNIQUE LAND USES — note the framing is broader than data centers alone, indicating an intent to produce a general standards framework rather than a single-use rule. PUBLIC RECORD: residents spoke against a potential data center citing environmental impacts, water usage and potential UTILITY RATE INCREASES. The rate-increase objection is notable in a town that operates its own electric utility, as many eastern North Carolina municipalities do. POSTURE: Town Manager Justin Oakes stated the town has NOT approved any data centers and characterised the moratorium as proactive. ANTECEDENT, and the only concrete proposal identified: EAST ENERGY RENEWABLES, a renewable energy company headquartered in Farmville, presented the data center concept to town leaders at a FEBRUARY 2026 budget workshop — a locally-based proponent rather than an outside developer, which is unusual in this dataset. Mayor Alex Joyner framed the pause as information-gathering time. REGIONAL CONTEXT: Beaufort County was weighing a data center pause over water, energy and farmland; multiple North Carolina localities were considering pauses after a developer withdrew from a Raleigh project. Other indexed North Carolina measures include nc-yadkin-county-dc-moratorium-2026, nc-jackson-county-dc-moratorium-2026 and fayetteville-nc-data-center-ordinance-2026-06.","who_is_protected":"Farmville, North Carolina residents and utility customers; Pitt County water resources and farmland","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals from the Town of Farmville during the 12-month moratorium, including East Energy Renewables","citation":"Town of Farmville, N.C. — 12-month data center moratorium (adopted August 3, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.witn.com/2026/08/04/farmville-board-adopts-12-month-moratorium-potential-data-center-after-residents-voice-opposition/","source_title":"Farmville board adopts 12-month moratorium on potential data center after residents voice opposition — WITN","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Farmville planning and zoning / Farmville Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No data center decision may be made during the 12-month moratorium"},{"id":"mn-otsego-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Otsego, Minnesota — One-Year Data Center Moratorium With a One-Time Six-Month Extension Option and an Express Intent to Lift It Early Once Regulations Are Adopted (July 27, 2026)","short_title":"Otsego MN one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Otsego, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Wright County","city":"Otsego","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-27","enacted_date":"2026-07-27","expires_date":"2027-07-27","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Otsego City Council unanimously approved a one-year moratorium on data center projects on July 27, 2026, after a public hearing held earlier the same day. Alongside the pause the council authorized city staff to study the potential benefits and impacts of data centers, with the findings to guide whatever regulations the city adopts while the moratorium runs. Two design features are worth noting. The council gave itself a ONE-TIME option to extend by a further six months — a defined ceiling rather than an open-ended renewal power. And officials stated they intend to LIFT the moratorium EARLY if the city finishes its study and adopts regulations before the year is up. Read together those two provisions describe a moratorium meant to end as soon as it has done its job, which is a meaningfully different posture from a pause that simply runs its clock. Otsego has no data centers and has received no proposals. It is in Wright County, northwest of the Twin Cities, and joined Wright County itself in pausing data center projects. It is part of a wave of Minnesota cities adopting one-year moratoriums as proposals push out from the metro into smaller communities — Inver Grove Heights and Carlton County did the same, and Minneapolis adopted a six-month pause aimed at facilities larger than 350,000 square feet.","summary_technical":"City of Otsego, Minn. (Wright County) — one-year interim ordinance / moratorium on data center projects, approved UNANIMOUSLY by the City Council on Monday, July 27, 2026 after a public hearing. COMPANION AUTHORISATION: city staff directed to study the potential benefits and impacts of data centers, the findings to guide regulations adopted during the moratorium. TWO DESIGN FEATURES WORTH RECORDING: (1) a ONE-TIME option to extend for an ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS — a bounded extension power rather than open-ended renewal, which limits the maximum pause to 18 months; (2) an express intention to LIFT THE MORATORIUM EARLY if the study is completed and regulations adopted before expiry. Together these describe a moratorium designed to terminate on completion of its purpose rather than on the calendar, which is a distinct and better-governed posture than the common run-the-clock pause. Minnesota cities act here under the interim-ordinance authority of Minn. Stat. § 462.355 subd. 4, the municipal analogue to the county authority used in mn-carlton-county-dc-moratorium-2026. POSTURE: Otsego has no data centers and has received no proposals. CONTEXT: Otsego joined WRIGHT COUNTY in pausing data center projects; Minnesota saw a wave of one-year municipal moratoriums as proposals moved from the metro into smaller cities — indexed Minnesota measures include inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06, minneapolis-data-center-moratorium-2026-05 (six months, facilities larger than 350,000 sq ft) and mn-carlton-county-dc-moratorium-2026. WRIGHT COUNTY'S OWN MORATORIUM IS NOT YET INDEXED and is a lead.","who_is_protected":"Otsego, Minnesota residents in Wright County; city water and electrical infrastructure","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking approval for data center projects in Otsego during the moratorium","citation":"City of Otsego, Minn. — one-year data center moratorium with a one-time six-month extension option (adopted July 27, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.hometownsource.com/elk_river_star_news/otsego-council-passes-1-year-data-centers-moratorium/article_3c34723c-9119-46c4-85e1-0db37534d9fd.html","source_title":"Otsego Council passes 1-year data centers moratorium — Elk River Star News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Otsego planning and zoning / Otsego City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No data center project may be approved during the moratorium"},{"id":"or-salem-dc-moratorium-process-2026","title":"Salem, Oregon — City Council Adopts a 120-Day Data Center Moratorium (Resolution No. 2026-40), Effective Sept. 21, 2026 Through Jan. 19, 2027","short_title":"Salem OR 120-day data center moratorium (Res. 2026-40)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Salem, OR","state_abbr":"OR","county":"Marion County","city":"Salem","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-21","enacted_date":"2026-09-21","expires_date":"2027-01-19","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Salem's City Council unanimously adopted a 120-day moratorium on data center construction and development on September 21, 2026 (Resolution No. 2026-40). It took effect immediately and runs to January 19, 2027 unless extended; Oregon law lets the city extend it up to six months after another hearing. It covers every data center that is a primary use, regardless of size, plus accessory data centers over 2 megawatts with a power usage effectiveness above 1.5. The city must keep processing Verrus's Oakline at Mill Creek application, filed before the moratorium, but construction can be barred while the pause lasts. The council started this process with a unanimous vote on August 3, 2026; a Data Center Task Force is due to report December 7.","summary_technical":"City of Salem, Ore. (Marion County) — City Council vote of August 3, 2026, taken unanimously at a SPECIAL MEETING after largely opposed public testimony, to BEGIN THE PROCESS for a temporary moratorium on data center applications. PROCEDURAL POSTURE — NOT IN EFFECT: Oregon land use law requires notice to the DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT (DLCD) in advance of a moratorium; city staff expected to send the 45-DAY NOTICE no later than August 10, 2026. Contemporaneous reporting stated expressly that no moratorium was then in effect. status is therefore `proposed` and effective_date is null. THE APPLICATION-TIMING PROBLEM: VERRUS, a California company, submitted its application for the OAKLINE AT MILL CREEK data center immediately before the council meeting. Reporting at the time held that the moratorium may not apply to it — Salem Business Journal: 'Salem Council Starts Data Center Moratorium, but the Vote May Not Reach the Project That Prompted It.' Under Oregon's goal-post rule (ORS 227.178), a complete application is generally reviewed under the standards in effect when it was submitted, which is the mechanism by which a pre-filed application survives a later moratorium — the same structural limit visible in il-rockford-dc-moratorium-2026, there arising from an annexation agreement rather than an application filing. STATE-LAND CONNECTION: Mill Creek Corporate Center is the site where Gov. Kotek blocked the sale of 32 acres of state land proposed for a data center (or-kotek-state-land-dc-transaction-pause-2026); reporting on 2026-08-01 described the data company advancing its Salem plan by REPLACING the state land in its proposal, i.e. routing around the state-level block. UNRESOLVED AS OF THIS ENTRY: Council was scheduled to receive moratorium updates on Monday, September 14, 2026 — one day before verification — and that outcome is not captured. [2026-10-01] ADOPTED: Resolution No. 2026-40, adopted unanimously Mon. Sept. 21, 2026 (7 in favor incl. Mayor Julie Hoy; Gwyn and Vang absent). Effective Sept. 21, 2026; expires Jan. 19, 2027 unless extended (date stated by Salem Business Journal; KPTV: 'until Jan. 19'). Extension up to six months permitted after additional public hearing and written findings; KPTV says council will consider extension in January. Scope: all data centers operating as a primary use regardless of size/capacity/purpose, plus accessory data centers >2 MW facility capacity with PUE >1.5. City Attorney Dan Atchison: pending Verrus Oakline at Mill Creek application must continue to be processed but construction/development can be prohibited during the moratorium. Data Center Task Force recommendations expected Dec. 7, 2026. The earlier 'NOT IN EFFECT / status proposed' text above describes the August 2026 posture and is superseded.","who_is_protected":"Salem, Oregon residents and ratepayers — prospectively, if and when the moratorium takes effect","who_must_comply":"Developers of primary-use data centers and of accessory data centers over 2 MW with PUE above 1.5 in Salem; the Verrus Oakline application continues to be processed but construction may be barred","citation":"City of Salem, Ore. — council vote initiating a temporary data center moratorium (August 3, 2026); DLCD 45-day notice due by August 10, 2026","source_url":"https://www.salemreporter.com/2026/08/03/reporter-live-salem-city-council-convenes-special-meeting-on-data-center-moratorium-at-loucks/","source_title":"UPDATED 10:11 p.m.: Salem City Council unanimously passes moratorium on data centers — Salem Reporter","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Salem Community Development / Salem City Council; Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (notice)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"oh-canton-dc-zoning-chapter-2026","title":"Canton, Ohio — New Zoning Code Chapter Devoted to Data Centers, Tiering Facilities From Hyperscale Down to AI and Cryptocurrency Sites and Defining a 'Sensitive Receptor' Within 2,500 Feet, Passed 8-3 Over Unanimous Public Opposition (July 27, 2026)","short_title":"Canton OH data center zoning chapter (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Canton, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Stark County","city":"Canton","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-27","enacted_date":"2026-07-27","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Canton City Council voted 8-3 on July 27, 2026 to create a new chapter of the city zoning code devoted entirely to data centers. The hearing that preceded it was extraordinary: more than fifty Stark County residents packed the council chambers, each given three minutes, for nearly an hour and a half, and dozens more were turned away and left standing outside City Hall in the rain. Every speaker opposed data centers coming to Canton, citing noise, light pollution, water usage and electricity concerns. The council passed the rules anyway. That is worth recording plainly, because the 2026 record is full of jurisdictions that paused or banned after public pressure, and Canton is an example of a council that regulated instead. The substance is more detailed than most. The ordinance expands the existing definition of 'data center' and sets out how such facilities must be built and operated, tiering them from hyperscale — defined as 100,000 square feet or 50 megawatts of power — down through smaller centers to high-intensity facilities focused on artificial intelligence or cryptocurrency. And it defines a 'sensitive receptor' as any land use sensitive to noise, vibration or nuisances, including any property within 2,500 feet of the data center property line. That 2,500-foot radius is the operative protective term, and it is far larger than the 500-foot setbacks and 250-foot buffers seen elsewhere in this dataset.","summary_technical":"City of Canton, Ohio (Stark County) — zoning regulation ordinance creating a NEW ZONING CODE CHAPTER FOCUSED SOLELY ON DATA CENTERS, passed 8-3 by City Council on Monday, July 27, 2026. PROCEDURAL RECORD: a public hearing of nearly 90 minutes at which more than 50 residents spoke with three minutes each, ALL OPPOSED, with dozens more turned away from City Hall. The council adopted the regulations notwithstanding uniform opposition — recorded because it distinguishes a REGULATE outcome from the MORATORIUM or BAN outcomes that dominate the 2026 municipal record, and because a future pass reading only the opposition coverage might assume the measure failed. OPERATIVE CONTENT: (1) EXPANDED DEFINITION of 'data center'; (2) construction and operation standards; (3) A FACILITY TIERING SCHEME spanning HYPERSCALE facilities (defined as 100,000 SQUARE FEET or 50 MEGAWATTS of power), smaller data centers, and HIGH-INTENSITY FACILITIES focused on ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE OR CRYPTOCURRENCY. The separate high-intensity AI/crypto tier is uncommon and closes the gap left by size-only thresholds, since a small-footprint high-density AI or mining facility can impose load and noise out of proportion to its square footage; (4) A DEFINED 'SENSITIVE RECEPTOR': any land use sensitive to noise, vibration or nuisances, INCLUDING ANY PROPERTY WITHIN 2,500 FEET OF THE DATA CENTER PROPERTY LINE. THE 2,500-FOOT RADIUS IS THE KEY QUANTIFIED TERM and is substantially larger than the dimensional standards recorded elsewhere in this dataset (compare mi-corunna-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026: 500-foot residential setback, 250-foot buffer). RESIDENT CONCERNS ON THE RECORD: noise, light pollution, water usage, electricity. REGIONAL: neighbouring Alliance, Ohio was considering its own zoning restrictions on data centers; Massillon City Council agreed to a moratorium in the same period.","who_is_protected":"Canton residents and Stark County property owners, in particular occupants of any 'sensitive receptor' land use within 2,500 feet of a data center property line","who_must_comply":"Developers and operators of data centers in Canton at every tier — hyperscale (100,000 sq ft or 50 MW), smaller data centers, and high-intensity AI or cryptocurrency facilities","citation":"City of Canton, Ohio — zoning code chapter regulating data centers (adopted 8-3, July 27, 2026)","source_url":"https://spectrumnews1.com/oh/columbus/news/2026/07/28/zoning--canton--data-centers--regulations--stark-county-","source_title":"New zoning regulations change data center developments in Canton — Spectrum News 1 Ohio","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Canton zoning administration / Canton City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data centers must be built and operated in conformance with the new zoning chapter, including the sensitive receptor provisions"},{"id":"tx-north-richland-hills-dc-sup-regulations-2026","title":"North Richland Hills, Texas — Data Centers Removed From By-Right Development and Made Subject to a Special Use Permit, With Residential Distance Rules, Cooling and Water Restrictions and Developer-Funded Site Testing (July 27, 2026)","short_title":"North Richland Hills TX data center SUP regulations (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"North Richland Hills, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Tarrant County","city":"North Richland Hills","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-27","enacted_date":"2026-07-27","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"North Richland Hills City Council unanimously approved updated data center regulations on July 27, 2026. The central change is a change of permission type rather than a prohibition: data centers had been allowed BY RIGHT in certain commercial and industrial areas, meaning a developer meeting the zoning standards could build one without discretionary approval. The city now requires a Special Use Permit for any new data center. That single move converts data centers from an as-of-right use into one the council must affirmatively approve case by case, which is the most consequential thing a city can do short of banning them, and it is the change most often buried in coverage that describes 'new regulations.' The package also includes additional distance requirements from residential properties, restrictions on the types of cooling systems and on water usage, and site testing to be completed at the developer's expense — putting the cost of establishing a project's impacts on the applicant rather than the city. The city acted under pressure: a second data center was proposed in North Richland Hills in June 2026 and many residents opposed it, and the mayor said publicly that data centers near homes are not beneficial. The process ran through a June 22 council work session, a July 20 Planning & Zoning Commission public hearing and the July 27 council hearing. North Richland Hills is in Tarrant County, in the same county as Fort Worth, which took a different route.","summary_technical":"City of North Richland Hills, Tex. (Tarrant County) — updated data center zoning regulations, approved UNANIMOUSLY by the City Council following a public hearing at its meeting of Monday, July 27, 2026. THE CENTRAL CHANGE: data centers are NO LONGER PERMITTED BY RIGHT in certain commercial and industrial areas; the city NOW REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT for any new data center. Converting a by-right use into a discretionary special-use approval is the most significant regulatory step short of prohibition, because it restores case-by-case council control over siting, conditions and denial — and it is routinely under-reported as merely 'new regulations'. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: (a) additional DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS from residential properties; (b) RESTRICTIONS ON TYPES OF COOLING SYSTEMS and on WATER USAGE — the cooling-technology restriction mirrors the evaporative-cooling prohibition contemplated in co-aurora-dc-regulations-resolution-2026; (c) SITE TESTING TO BE COMPLETED AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE, shifting the cost of establishing a project's impacts onto the applicant rather than the municipal budget, which is a cost-allocation choice few of the instruments in this dataset make explicitly. PROCEDURAL SEQUENCE: City Council work session June 22, 2026 → Planning & Zoning Commission public hearing July 20, 2026 → City Council public hearing and vote July 27, 2026. TRIGGER: a SECOND data center was proposed in North Richland Hills (the Provident project) in June 2026 and drew substantial resident opposition; the Mayor publicly opposed data centers sited near homes. REGIONAL CONTRAST: Fort Worth, in the same county, took the moratorium-process route instead (tx-fort-worth-dc-moratorium-process-2026), while NRH went straight to permanent standards. RELATED LEAD: North Little Rock, Ark. approved data center zoning regulations on 2026-09-14 and is not indexed.","who_is_protected":"North Richland Hills residents, particularly those living near commercial and industrial zones where data centers were previously permitted by right","who_must_comply":"Developers of new data centers in North Richland Hills, who must obtain a Special Use Permit, meet residential distance requirements and cooling and water restrictions, and fund site testing","citation":"City of North Richland Hills, Tex. — data center zoning regulations requiring a Special Use Permit (adopted July 27, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.nrhtx.com/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/1333","source_title":"Data Centers — City of North Richland Hills, TX (official)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of North Richland Hills Planning and Development / NRH Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council (Special Use Permits)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No new data center may be established by right; a Special Use Permit is required and may be denied"},{"id":"wi-cottage-grove-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026","title":"Village of Cottage Grove, Wisconsin — 18-Month Data Center Moratorium Adopted Unanimously Because Dane County's Own Pause Does Not Reach Villages With Their Own Zoning Codes (July 20, 2026)","short_title":"Cottage Grove WI 18-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cottage Grove, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Dane County","city":"Cottage Grove","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-07-20","enacted_date":"2026-07-20","expires_date":"2028-01-20","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"The Village of Cottage Grove board unanimously passed an eighteen-month moratorium on new data center development on July 20, 2026 — one of the longest local pauses in this dataset. Board members said the point is to give the village time to gather information about data center impacts and develop best practices for regulating them, and also to give a new Dane County task force studying data centers, on which Cottage Grove has representation, time to produce guidance for municipalities. The reason the village needed its own moratorium at all is the useful part. Dane County had already passed a temporary pause on data centers, but that county pause DOES NOT APPLY to municipalities that have their own zoning codes — and Cottage Grove does. A county-level moratorium in Wisconsin, as in many states, reaches only the territory the county actually zones. Any reader assuming a county pause covers everything inside the county's boundaries would be wrong, and the gap is exactly where an incorporated village sits. Wisconsin had a wide moratorium wave in 2026: temporary bans were in effect in Green, Dodge, Door and Manitowoc counties, Madison had passed one, Chippewa County adopted a twelve-month pause in August and Eau Claire County began drafting in September. Democratic state lawmakers had proposed a statewide moratorium in February 2026.","summary_technical":"Village of Cottage Grove, Wis. (Dane County) — 18-MONTH moratorium on new data center development, approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Village Board on July 20, 2026. PURPOSE: time for the village to gather information on data center impacts and develop regulatory best practices, AND time for a NEW DANE COUNTY TASK FORCE studying data centers — on which Cottage Grove has representation — to develop guidance for municipalities. THE JURISDICTIONAL GAP IS THE POINT OF THIS ENTRY: Dane County had ALREADY passed a temporary pause on data centers, but that county measure DOES NOT APPLY to municipalities with their own zoning codes, of which Cottage Grove is one. In Wisconsin, as in most states, county zoning authority extends only to territory the county actually zones; incorporated villages and cities administering their own codes sit outside it. A county-level moratorium therefore does NOT blanket the county's geographic area, and the uncovered remainder is precisely where population and development pressure concentrate. This is the same class of limit recorded on wi-chippewa-county-dc-moratorium-2026, which reaches only the six towns that adopted county zoning. DURATION: 18 months is at the long end of the local distribution here, matching nm-sierra-county-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026. WISCONSIN CONTEXT: temporary bans in effect in GREEN, DODGE, DOOR and MANITOWOC counties; MADISON had passed a moratorium; Chippewa County adopted 12 months on 2026-08-11; Eau Claire County began drafting in September 2026; Democratic state lawmakers proposed a STATEWIDE moratorium in February 2026. MOST OF THESE WISCONSIN MEASURES ARE NOT INDEXED and are recorded as leads.","who_is_protected":"Village of Cottage Grove residents in Dane County, Wisconsin","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking approval for new data center development within the Village of Cottage Grove","citation":"Village of Cottage Grove, Wis. — 18-month data center moratorium (adopted July 20, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wmtv15news.com/2026/07/20/cottage-grove-considers-temporary-ban-data-centers-follows-growing-trend-statewide/","source_title":"Cottage Grove passes temporary ban on data centers, follows growing trend statewide — WMTV 15 News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Village of Cottage Grove planning and zoning / Cottage Grove Village Board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No new data center development may be approved during the 18-month moratorium"},{"id":"md-caroline-county-schools-ai-policy-2026","title":"Caroline County Public Schools, Maryland — Board of Education AI Policy Requiring That AI Enhance and Never Replace Educator Judgment, With More Than 23 Enumerated Prohibited Uses, Adopted Under Maryland SB 720 (August 2026)","short_title":"Caroline County MD schools AI policy (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Caroline County, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Caroline County","topics":["education","children","public-sector","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-04","enacted_date":"2026-08-04","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"The Caroline County Board of Education adopted an AI policy covering both staff and students at its monthly meeting in early August 2026. Its organising principle is stated up front: artificial intelligence may be used only in ways that ENHANCE, and never replace, the professional judgment of educators, counselors and school leaders. Every AI use by the district must serve a clear educational or operational purpose, protect the rights and safety of students and staff, and comply with all applicable federal and Maryland law. For students the rule runs the same way — AI should support student work, not replace student thinking or academic integrity. The policy enumerates MORE THAN 23 PROHIBITED USES of technology and AI in Caroline County schools, which is unusual: most district AI policies state principles and leave application to teachers, while an enumerated prohibition list is something a staff member or parent can actually check a specific situation against. District leaders folded the AI policy into the existing acceptable use policy so all of it lives in one place. The policy exists because of state law: Maryland Senate Bill 720 requires the Maryland State Department of Education to establish AI guidelines for local school systems, educators, parents and students through an online platform, and Maryland districts face a fall 2026 deadline for their own policies. Talbot County's school board passed one in the same period.","summary_technical":"Caroline County Public Schools (CCPS), Md. — Board of Education artificial intelligence policy adopted at the board's monthly meeting in early August 2026 and incorporated into the district's existing ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY rather than standing alone. GOVERNING PRINCIPLE: AI may be used 'only in ways that enhance, and never replace, the professional judgment of educators, counselors, and school leaders.' THREE CONDITIONS ON ANY DISTRICT AI USE: it must (a) serve clear educational or operational purposes, (b) protect the rights and safety of students and staff, and (c) comply with all applicable federal and Maryland law. STUDENT-FACING RULE: AI should support, not replace, student work, and should not replace student thinking or academic integrity. ENUMERATED PROHIBITIONS: the policy lists MORE THAN 23 PROHIBITED USES of technology and AI. The enumerated-list structure is the distinguishing feature — most district AI policies in this dataset state principles and delegate application, whereas an explicit prohibition list is checkable by staff, students and parents against a concrete fact pattern and is enforceable without interpretive dispute. STATUTORY DRIVER: MARYLAND SENATE BILL 720 (2026) requires the Maryland State Department of Education to establish artificial intelligence guidelines for local school systems, educators, parents and students, delivered through an online platform; Maryland local school systems face a FALL 2026 DEADLINE for their own AI policies (Maryland Association of Counties, Conduit Street, 2026-09-10). PEER ACTION: the Talbot County school board passed its own AI policy in the same period. NOTE FOR RECONCILIATION: MD SB 720 is carried in this dataset only as the LegiScan stub legiscan-md-sb720 and has not been independently researched or written up \\u2014 it is the state-level parent of a whole cohort of Maryland district policies and should be entered properly.","who_is_protected":"Caroline County, Maryland public school students and staff","who_must_comply":"Caroline County Public Schools educators, counselors, school leaders and students; district AI procurement","citation":"Caroline County Board of Education, Md. — artificial intelligence policy (adopted August 2026, within the district acceptable use policy)","source_url":"http://www.stardem.com/news/caroline/caroline-school-board-approves-new-ai-policy/article_606d65b7-9fb2-4c70-b334-f125f5fe1a65.html","source_title":"Caroline school board approves new AI policy — The Star Democrat","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Caroline County Board of Education / Caroline County Public Schools administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Enumerated prohibited uses of technology and AI are barred under the district acceptable use policy"},{"id":"fl-wakulla-county-schools-ai-policy-2026","title":"Wakulla County School District, Florida — AI Policy Permitting Use But Barring Personally Identifiable Information From Any AI Tool and Requiring Staff to Review Output for Accuracy and Bias (July 27, 2026)","short_title":"Wakulla County FL schools AI policy (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Wakulla County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Wakulla County","topics":["education","children","privacy","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-27","enacted_date":"2026-07-27","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"The Wakulla County School Board approved an AI policy guideline at its meeting on July 27, 2026, ahead of the school year. Wakulla took the permissive route — the district ALLOWS the use of AI — but attached three concrete conditions that matter more than the permission. First, users may not upload personally identifiable information into any AI tool or platform unless the district authorizes it. That is a data-protection rule with real teeth in a school setting, where the PII at stake is children's. Second, employees are expected not to rely on AI output without reviewing it for accuracy AND BIAS — naming bias explicitly, not just error. Third, students may not use AI to complete assignments in place of their own thinking. Superintendent Richard Myhre framed the district's approach simply: the idea behind AI is to use it to strengthen the district's processes. Wakulla County is a small coastal district south of Tallahassee. Its policy arrived as Florida districts across the state were writing AI rules for the 2026-27 year and as the Florida State Board of Education moved to regulate AI in public colleges and K-12 schools — so this district policy sits underneath a state framework that was still forming.","summary_technical":"Wakulla County School District, Fla. — artificial intelligence policy guideline approved by the School Board at its meeting of Monday, July 27, 2026, effective for the 2026-27 school year. POSTURE: PERMISSIVE — the district allows AI use, in contrast to the prohibition model adopted by New York City (nyc-doe-generative-ai-school-moratorium-2026) and proposed in Haddonfield, N.J. THREE OPERATIVE CONDITIONS: (1) NO PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION may be uploaded into any AI tool or platform unless authorised by the district — a categorical data-protection rule covering student PII, and the most enforceable provision in the policy; (2) EMPLOYEES must not rely on AI output without reviewing it for ACCURACY AND BIAS — the explicit naming of bias, rather than accuracy alone, is uncommon in district-level policies and imports a fairness-review duty into ordinary staff use; (3) STUDENTS may not use AI to complete assignments in place of their own thinking. SUPERINTENDENT'S FRAMING (Richard Myhre): 'The idea behind AI is to use it to strengthen our processes.' STATE CONTEXT: Florida districts were adopting AI policies across summer 2026 as students returned; the FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION was separately moving to regulate AI in public colleges and K-12 schools, and Florida S 1194 (2026) was filed on related ground \\u2014 so this district policy sits beneath a state framework that had not yet settled. Highlands County's school board was updating its own AI policy in the same period. Jurisdiction: Wakulla County is a small coastal district south of Tallahassee.","who_is_protected":"Wakulla County, Florida public school students — particularly against disclosure of their personally identifiable information to AI vendors — and staff","who_must_comply":"Wakulla County School District employees and students; district staff selecting or using AI tools and platforms","citation":"Wakulla County School District, Fla. — artificial intelligence policy guideline (approved July 27, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wctv.tv/2026/07/28/wakulla-county-school-board-approves-ai-policy-ahead-upcoming-school-year/","source_title":"Wakulla County School Board approves AI policy ahead of upcoming school year — WCTV","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Wakulla County School Board / Wakulla County School District administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Personally identifiable information may not be uploaded to any AI tool without district authorization; staff may not act on unreviewed AI output; students may not substitute AI for their own work"},{"id":"nj-haddonfield-schools-genai-policy-first-reading-2026","title":"Haddonfield Public Schools, New Jersey — Proposed Generative AI Policy Barring K-5 Students From Using It At All, With Supervised Introduction in Middle and High School and Grade-Banded Screen Time Limits: FIRST READING ONLY (August 20, 2026)","short_title":"Haddonfield NJ schools generative AI policy (first reading)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Haddonfield, NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","county":"Camden County","city":"Haddonfield","topics":["education","children","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Haddonfield Public Schools has proposed a generative AI policy that would bar students in kindergarten through fifth grade from using generative AI at all. For those youngest students the district would provide education, awareness and literacy ABOUT AI — but they would not be allowed to explore or tinker with generative AI platforms themselves. Middle and high school students would be introduced to generative AI under strict supervision through approved vendors such as Google, earning more independence as they progress through the grades. A companion guidance document sets daily screen-time limits by grade for educational technology, running from an estimated average of four minutes in kindergarten to fifty-six minutes in fifth grade. The Board of Education gave the AI policy FIRST-READING approval on August 20, 2026 and adopted student device rules at the same meeting. The policy is not yet in force — it requires board approval at a further reading before implementation, and this entry is recorded as proposed for that reason. Haddonfield is a borough in Camden County, and the structure it has proposed — total prohibition for the youngest students paired with supervised graduated access for older ones — is the same architecture New York City adopted for 600,000 students two weeks later.","summary_technical":"Haddonfield Public Schools, N.J. (Camden County) — PROPOSED generative artificial intelligence policy, given FIRST-READING approval by the Board of Education on August 20, 2026. NOT IN FORCE: the policy requires board approval at a subsequent reading before implementation, so status is `proposed` and effective_date is null. PROPOSED STRUCTURE, GRADE-BANDED: (1) GRADES K-5 — no student use of generative AI; the district would provide only EDUCATION, AWARENESS AND LITERACY about AI, and students 'wouldn't be allowed to explore or tinker with generative AI platforms'; (2) MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL — introduction to generative AI UNDER STRICT SUPERVISION through APPROVED VENDORS such as Google, with MORE INDEPENDENCE EARNED as students progress. COMPANION GUIDANCE, adopted alongside: daily SCREEN-TIME LIMITS by grade for educational technology, from an estimated average of FOUR MINUTES in kindergarten to FIFTY-SIX MINUTES in fifth grade. Quantified per-grade screen-time ceilings are rare in district policy and are the most concrete content here. ARCHITECTURAL NOTE: the prohibit-for-young-students / supervised-graduated-access-for-older-students structure is the SAME ARCHITECTURE New York City adopted on 2026-09-02 for approximately 600,000 students (nyc-doe-generative-ai-school-moratorium-2026), proposed in Haddonfield roughly two weeks earlier \\u2014 evidence that the model was circulating in New Jersey and New York districts independently rather than propagating from the NYC announcement. STATE CONTEXT: New Jersey schools launched phone bans as the 2026-27 year began.","who_is_protected":"Haddonfield Public Schools students, particularly in grades K-5","who_must_comply":"Haddonfield Public Schools staff and students — prospectively, if and when the board approves the policy at a further reading","citation":"Haddonfield Public Schools, N.J. — proposed generative AI policy (first reading August 20, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.theretrospect.com/news/haddonfield-board-gives-first-reading-to-generative-ai-policy-adopts-student-device-rules-9b31ff76","source_title":"Haddonfield board gives first reading to generative AI policy, adopts student device rules — The Retrospect","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"Haddonfield Board of Education / Haddonfield Public Schools administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None yet in force — the policy has only passed first reading"},{"id":"md-sb720-ai-ready-schools-act-2026","title":"Maryland — SB 720, the Artificial Intelligence Ready Schools Act (Chapter 634): Requires Every Local School System to Adopt an AI Policy Within 120 Days of State Guidance, Creates a K-12 AI Collaborative, and Mandates AI Literacy in Standards by June 2027 (Signed May 26, 2026)","short_title":"Maryland AI Ready Schools Act, SB 720 (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Maryland","state_abbr":"MD","topics":["education","children","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-01","enacted_date":"2026-05-26","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Maryland enacted the Artificial Intelligence Ready Schools Act on May 26, 2026, when Governor Wes Moore signed Senate Bill 720 into law as Chapter 634. It took effect on June 1, 2026. The law does five things. It requires the Maryland State Department of Education to give AI guidance and best practices to local education agencies, educators, parents and students. It requires every local school system to CREATE ITS OWN POLICY governing the use of artificial intelligence — that is the mandate that produced the wave of Maryland district AI policies in summer 2026. It establishes the Maryland AI Education Collaborative on Artificial Intelligence in K-12 Education to study, report on and make recommendations about AI use in each local school system; the Collaborative is temporary and ends May 31, 2028. It requires MSDE to develop and publish a RUBRIC and other evaluative tools so districts can assess AI products, and districts must use that rubric, rather than each district improvising its own vendor review. And it requires AI literacy to be built into the state's computer science and workforce preparation standards for kindergarten through grade twelve by June 1, 2027, alongside professional development for educators and school leaders. The compliance clock is the part districts feel: each local school system must have an aligned policy within 120 days of the release of the MSDE guidance. Caroline County's policy, indexed separately, is one of the resulting district policies.","summary_technical":"State of Maryland — Senate Bill 720 (2026 Regular Session), the ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE READY SCHOOLS ACT, approved by the Governor as CHAPTER 634, signed by Gov. Wes Moore on May 26, 2026, EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 2026. Cross-filed with HB 1057; final votes Senate 41-0, House 129-8, Senate concurrence 45-0. Full title: 'Education - Artificial Intelligence - Guidelines, Professional Development, and Collaborative.' FIVE OPERATIVE REQUIREMENTS: (1) MSDE must provide ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE GUIDANCE AND BEST PRACTICES to local education agencies, educators, parents and students. (2) LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES MUST CREATE POLICIES governing the use of artificial intelligence — the mandate that generated the Maryland district AI policy wave of summer 2026. (3) Establishes the MARYLAND AI EDUCATION COLLABORATIVE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN K-12 EDUCATION to study, report on and make recommendations regarding AI uses in each local school system (best-practices document due January 1, 2027; annual reports from December 1, 2027); the section creating the Collaborative is abrogated at the end of May 31, 2028. (4) MSDE must develop and publish A RUBRIC AND OTHER EVALUATIVE TOOLS to assist local school systems in EVALUATING AI TOOLS — a procurement-side requirement that is uncommon in state education AI legislation and addresses the practical problem that individual districts lack the capacity to assess vendor claims. (5) AI LITERACY must be incorporated into WORKFORCE PREPARATION STANDARDS and COMPUTER SCIENCE STANDARDS for kindergarten through grade 12 BY JUNE 1, 2027, with professional development in AI provided to educators and school leaders. COMPLIANCE CLOCK: local school systems have 120 DAYS FROM RELEASE OF THE MSDE GUIDANCE to adopt aligned policies, which secondary sources (Conduit Street) placed around SEPTEMBER 2026 for most Maryland systems. INSTRUMENT CLASS: a state MANDATE-AND-CAPACITY statute rather than a restriction — it does not prohibit or limit AI use by students or districts; it compels every district to have a policy, supplies the state-level scaffolding to write one, and builds AI literacy into the standards. DOWNSTREAM ENTRIES: md-caroline-county-schools-ai-policy-2026 is one of the district policies adopted under this mandate; the Talbot County school board adopted another. RECONCILIATION: this entry supersedes the LegiScan stub legiscan-md-sb720, which carried a stale last_action of 'First Reading Education, Energy, and the Environment'.","who_is_protected":"Maryland public school students, parents, educators and school leaders","who_must_comply":"The Maryland State Department of Education; every Maryland local education agency, each of which must adopt an AI policy within 120 days of the state guidance; AI vendors selling into Maryland school systems, whose products are subject to the state evaluative rubric","citation":"Md. S.B. 720 (2026 Reg. Sess.), Md. Laws ch. 634 (Artificial Intelligence Ready Schools Act), effective June 1, 2026","source_url":"https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/SB0720?ys=2026RS","source_title":"MD Maryland AI Ready Schools Act, SB 720 (2026) — official record (mgaleg.maryland.gov)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE); Maryland Education Collaborative on Artificial Intelligence in K-12 Education","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Local education agencies must adopt AI policies within 120 days of the MSDE guidance; AI literacy standards deadline of June 1, 2027"},{"id":"tn-teen-social-media-internet-safety-act-2025","title":"Tennessee — Teen Social Media and Internet Safety Act (HB 825 / SB 811): Bans Student Social Media Over School Internet Except for Educational Purposes and Mandates Instruction in Grades 6-12 Covering Behavioral Manipulation and Artificial Intelligence Awareness","short_title":"Tennessee Teen Social Media and Internet Safety Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Tennessee","state_abbr":"TN","topics":["education","children","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Tennessee's Teen Social Media and Internet Safety Act, enacted as HB 825 / SB 811 in the 114th General Assembly, does two distinct things and they arrived on different schedules. The first part bans students from accessing social media using the school internet except for educational purposes, and it took effect for the 2025-26 school year. The second part is an instructional mandate: the Tennessee Department of Education must give public schools guidance for teaching students in grades six through twelve about social media, internet AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE use and safety. The department had until January 1, 2026 to deliver that guidance, and the instruction itself is being implemented in the 2026-27 school year. The required instructional materials cover time management, mental health impacts, information distribution, BEHAVIORAL MANIPULATION, online safety, personal security, cyberbullying prevention and ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AWARENESS. The inclusion of behavioral manipulation as a named topic is the unusual part — most student internet-safety curricula teach children to protect themselves from other people, while this one requires teaching them how platforms and systems are designed to influence their own behaviour. The Act is sponsored by Rep. Aron Maberry and Sen. Bill Powers, both of Clarksville. It is also the reason Tennessee districts have been rewriting technology policies: Knox County Schools, for one, must align its rules with the new state requirements.","summary_technical":"State of Tennessee — TEEN SOCIAL MEDIA AND INTERNET SAFETY ACT, HB 825 / SB 811, 114th General Assembly. TWO COMPONENTS ON SEPARATE TIMELINES: (1) ACCESS RESTRICTION, effective for the 2025-26 school year — students are BANNED FROM ACCESSING SOCIAL MEDIA USING THE SCHOOL INTERNET except for educational purposes. (2) INSTRUCTIONAL MANDATE — the Tennessee Department of Education must provide public schools with guidance on instructing students about SOCIAL MEDIA, INTERNET AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE use and safety for GRADES 6 THROUGH 12; the Department's deadline to supply that guidance was JANUARY 1, 2026, and classroom implementation falls in the 2026-27 SCHOOL YEAR. REQUIRED CURRICULUM TOPICS: time management; mental health impacts; information distribution; BEHAVIORAL MANIPULATION; online safety; personal security; cyberbullying prevention; and ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AWARENESS. THE 'BEHAVIORAL MANIPULATION' TOPIC IS THE DISTINGUISHING PROVISION: conventional student internet-safety curricula address threats from other individuals, whereas a mandate to teach how platforms and algorithmic systems are engineered to shape user behaviour makes the design of the product itself the subject of instruction. Coupled with the AI awareness requirement, Tennessee has legislated AI literacy into secondary education through a child-safety vehicle rather than a technology-standards vehicle \\u2014 contrast md-sb720-ai-ready-schools-act-2026, which reaches the same destination through computer science and workforce preparation standards. SPONSORS: Rep. Aron Maberry (R-Clarksville) and Sen. Bill Powers (R-Clarksville). DOWNSTREAM EFFECT: Tennessee districts must align local technology policies with the Act; Knox County Schools was reworking its policies in mid-2026 partly on this basis, separately considering an elementary social media and email ban and AI-impersonation restrictions.","who_is_protected":"Tennessee public school students, particularly in grades 6 through 12","who_must_comply":"The Tennessee Department of Education, which must supply instructional guidance; Tennessee public school districts, which must restrict social media over school internet and implement the grades 6-12 instruction","citation":"Tenn. HB 825 / SB 811 (114th Gen. Assemb.) — Teen Social Media and Internet Safety Act","source_url":"https://www.wkms.org/education/2026-01-07/tennessee-students-will-soon-get-lessons-on-social-media-and-internet-safety","source_title":"Tennessee students will soon get lessons on social media and internet safety — WKMS","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Tennessee Department of Education; local education agencies","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Students may not access social media over the school internet except for educational purposes; districts must implement the required instruction"},{"id":"nc-durham-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Durham County, North Carolina — Nine-Month Moratorium on New or Expanded Data Centers With a Three-Part Performance Exemption for Small, Closed-Loop-Cooled Facilities Without Diesel Generators, Timed to Match the City of Durham's (August 24, 2026)","short_title":"Durham County NC nine-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Durham County, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Durham County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-24","enacted_date":"2026-08-24","expires_date":"2027-05-24","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Durham County commissioners voted 4-1 on August 24, 2026, after a public hearing, to adopt a nine-month moratorium on new or expanded data centers. It runs until May 2027, and the county set that end date deliberately to align with a moratorium already passed by the City of Durham, so the two governments can coordinate their regulatory approaches rather than produce mismatched rules in the same urban area. That coordination is worth noting on its own: overlapping city and county moratoriums elsewhere in this dataset run on different clocks and create gaps. The exemption is the most interesting part. The county's moratorium does NOT apply to a data center that satisfies three conditions together: it is smaller than 100,000 square feet, it uses a closed-loop cooling system, and it does not use diesel backup generators. That is a performance-based carve-out rather than a size threshold — a small facility still falls under the moratorium if it draws on evaporative cooling or diesel, and the county has effectively published in advance the specification a developer must meet to build during the pause. The purpose is to give county staff time to research and draft permanent data center regulations for county land. The vote came amid public anger across the Triangle over how much land, power and water these facilities consume.","summary_technical":"Durham County, N.C. — nine-month moratorium on NEW OR EXPANDED data centers, adopted 4-1 by the Board of County Commissioners on Monday, August 24, 2026 following a public hearing. TERM: to MAY 2027. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ALIGNMENT: the county set its timeline to match a moratorium already passed by the CITY OF DURHAM, expressly so the two jurisdictions can coordinate their regulatory approaches — a deliberate synchronisation that most overlapping city/county pauses in this dataset do not achieve. THE EXEMPTION IS THE SUBSTANTIVE INNOVATION: the moratorium DOES NOT APPLY to data centers that (a) are LESS THAN 100,000 SQUARE FEET, (b) use a CLOSED-LOOP COOLING SYSTEM, and (c) DO NOT USE DIESEL BACKUP GENERATORS. All three conditions must be met. This is a PERFORMANCE-BASED CARVE-OUT rather than a size threshold: a sub-100,000-square-foot facility relying on evaporative cooling or diesel backup remains fully covered. Its practical effect is to publish, during the moratorium, the exact specification a developer must meet to proceed — converting the pause from a pure stop into a conditional standard, and pre-committing the county to the two substantive terms (water-neutral cooling, no on-site diesel combustion) that its permanent regulations are most likely to turn on. SCOPE NOTE: the moratorium covers EXPANSIONS as well as new facilities, which is narrower ground than most local instruments, many of which reach only new applications and leave incumbent growth untouched. PURPOSE: time for county staff to research and draft permanent data center regulations for county land. CONTEXT: public opposition across the Triangle over land, power and water consumption; multiple North Carolina localities paused data center development in 2026.","who_is_protected":"Durham County, North Carolina residents; Triangle-region land, water and electricity supply","who_must_comply":"Developers of new or expanded data centers in Durham County, unless the facility is under 100,000 square feet AND uses closed-loop cooling AND has no diesel backup generators","citation":"Durham County, N.C. — nine-month moratorium on new or expanded data centers (adopted August 24, 2026; runs to May 2027)","source_url":"https://www.wunc.org/environment/2026-08-26/durham-county-data-center-moratorium","source_title":"Durham County approves a nine-month moratorium on large data centers — WUNC","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Durham County Planning Department / Durham County Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"New or expanded data centers may not be approved during the moratorium unless all three exemption conditions are met"},{"id":"litig-nj-developer-suits-municipal-dc-bans-2026","title":"New Jersey — Data Center Developers Sue at Least Three Townships Over Municipal Bans, Including a $300 Million Claim Against Monroe Alleging the Ban Was Driven by 'Public Hysteria' and Violates the First Amendment (2026)","short_title":"NJ developer litigation against municipal data center bans (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Jersey","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"The wave of New Jersey municipal data center bans has reached the courts. As of August 2026 at least three townships — Montgomery, Andover and Monroe — were being sued by data center developers challenging their bans. The developers' core argument is that local officials acted arbitrarily and without sound land use planning. One complaint says it plainly: 'The action of the Township Committee was clearly based upon public hysteria and political attention rather than sound land use planning.' The largest case is against Monroe Township in Gloucester County, where Hexa Builders is seeking $300 million. That suit alleges the township violated New Jersey's Municipal Land Use Law and its own application procedures when officials reversed a 2025 ordinance that had permitted data centers. It also makes a claim that is worth recording precisely because it is unusual: that the ban violates the FIRST AMENDMENT, on the theory that 'data centers are a medium of expression and banning data centers would impose a significant burden on the free speech rights of all citizens in the United States.' Nearly three dozen New Jersey municipalities have passed bans or restrictions, driven by residents' complaints about noise, water use and electricity demand, so the outcome of these cases matters well beyond the three defendants. Nothing in the located reporting indicates any of the cases has been decided on the merits. This entry records live litigation, not a holding.","summary_technical":"State of New Jersey — coordinated wave of developer litigation challenging municipal data center bans, live as of September 2026. DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITIES IDENTIFIED: MONTGOMERY, ANDOVER and MONROE townships, with at least three suits pending as of 2026-08-20. LEAD CASE: HEXA BUILDERS v. MONROE TOWNSHIP (Gloucester County), a $300 MILLION claim reported 2026-07-17. PLEADED THEORIES IN THE MONROE CASE: (1) violation of the NEW JERSEY MUNICIPAL LAND USE LAW (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et seq.); (2) violation of the township's own application procedures, arising from officials REVERSING A 2025 ORDINANCE that had permitted data centers — the reliance/vested-rights posture that makes this the strongest of the cases; (3) a FIRST AMENDMENT claim asserting that 'Data centers are a medium of expression and banning data centers would impose a significant burden on the free speech rights of all citizens in the United States.' THE FIRST AMENDMENT THEORY IS RECORDED VERBATIM BECAUSE IT IS NOVEL AND CONSEQUENTIAL IF ACCEPTED: treating data center capacity as protected expressive infrastructure would subject every municipal siting restriction in this dataset to heightened scrutiny rather than rational-basis land-use review. No located source suggests any court has adopted it. COMMON DEVELOPER FRAMING ACROSS THE SUITS: that local officials acted arbitrarily, with one complaint alleging the township committee acted 'based upon public hysteria and political attention rather than sound land use planning.' EXPOSURE: NEARLY THREE DOZEN New Jersey municipalities have adopted data center bans or restrictions — the densest municipal ban wave in the country — so an adverse ruling on the Municipal Land Use Law theory would destabilise a large indexed cohort, including nj-cherry-hill-dc-prohibited-use-2026 and nj-jersey-city-dc-industrial-ban-ord-26-057. RELEVANT CONTRAST ALREADY IN THIS DATASET: mi-garfield-township-dc-crypto-moratorium-2026, where township officials expressly chose a zoning-ordinance-amendment route over a standalone moratorium because, in their words, municipalities that enacted 'knee-jerk moratoriums' without that process 'are being challenged and losing in court.' STATUS: NO MERITS RULING is reflected in any located source. This entry records pending litigation.","who_is_protected":"New Jersey residents of municipalities that adopted data center bans — whose ordinances are the subject of the challenges","who_must_comply":"The defendant municipalities — Montgomery, Andover and Monroe townships — which must defend their ordinances; potentially every New Jersey municipality with a data center ban, depending on the outcome","citation":"Hexa Builders v. Monroe Township (Gloucester County, N.J.) and related developer challenges to municipal data center bans (2026)","source_url":"https://newjerseymonitor.com/2026/08/20/nj-data-center-bans-courts/","source_title":"Data center fight moves to NJ courts, with developers blaming local bans on 'public hysteria' — New Jersey Monitor","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"New Jersey Superior Court; federal court as to the First Amendment claim","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Monetary exposure of $300 million is claimed against Monroe Township; invalidation of the challenged ordinances is sought"},{"id":"litig-brooks-v-wilmington-oh-emergency-rezoning-2026","title":"Wilmington, Ohio — Resident Sues to Block 'Emergency' Rezoning for a $4 Billion Amazon Web Services Data Center, Alleging the Emergency Designation Was Used Solely to Defeat a Citizen Referendum; Judge Imposes a Seven-Day Pause (September 4, 2026)","short_title":"Brooks v. Wilmington OH emergency rezoning challenge (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Wilmington, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Clinton County","city":"Wilmington","topics":["data-centers","transparency","public-sector","consumer-protection"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Wilmington City Council approved 'emergency' rezoning on Thursday, September 3, 2026 for a proposed $4 billion Amazon Web Services data center. Within hours, resident Rachel Mary Brooks — whose home is near the site on U.S. Route 68 — sued to block the ordinances, and a judge imposed a seven-day pause on the council's action. The legal issue is procedural and it is the whole case. Under Ohio law an emergency ordinance takes effect immediately AND CANNOT BE CHALLENGED BY REFERENDUM. An ordinary ordinance waits thirty days, during which residents can gather signatures and force the question onto a ballot. Brooks and her attorney Joshua Engel contend there is no genuine emergency in Wilmington and that the designation was applied for one purpose: to extinguish the citizen referendum before it could be filed. Two facts from the public meeting are on the record and support that reading. The city's Law Director declined to answer whether avoiding a referendum motivated the emergency designation, and a city representative refused to identify any specific harm the city would suffer if the ordinances were delayed by the standard thirty days. This is not the first time the courts have intervened in Wilmington: residents sued in April 2026 over the zoning change notices, and in July 2026 a federal judge ordered the city to redo key steps in considering the Amazon proposal. If the residents prevail, the rezoning could go before voters in 2027.","summary_technical":"City of Wilmington, Ohio (Clinton County) — action filed September 4, 2026 by resident RACHEL MARY BROOKS, represented by JOSHUA ENGEL, seeking to block emergency rezoning ordinances approved by City Council on Thursday, September 3, 2026 for a proposed $4 BILLION AMAZON WEB SERVICES data center on U.S. Route 68. RELIEF SOUGHT: an order preventing the ordinances from taking effect until residents have an opportunity to pursue the referendum process. INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED: a judge imposed a SEVEN-DAY PAUSE on the council's rezoning action. THE LEGAL MECHANISM AT ISSUE: under Ohio municipal law an EMERGENCY ORDINANCE takes effect immediately and IS NOT SUBJECT TO REFERENDUM, whereas an ordinary ordinance is subject to a 30-day window in which electors may petition to refer it to the ballot. The plaintiff's theory is that no genuine emergency exists and the designation was applied for the sole purpose of extinguishing the referendum right — a procedural-abuse claim rather than a substantive land-use one. EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT ON THE PUBLIC RECORD: at the meeting hours before the suit, the city's LAW DIRECTOR AVOIDED ANSWERING whether avoiding a referendum motivated the emergency designation, and a CITY REPRESENTATIVE REFUSED TO IDENTIFY ANY SPECIFIC HARM the city would suffer from a standard 30-day delay. PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE WILMINGTON DISPUTE, which is longer than this one filing: residents filed suit in APRIL 2026 over the proposed AWS data center and the adequacy of zoning change notices; a FEDERAL JUDGE ruled in JULY 2026 that Wilmington must REDO KEY STEPS in considering the Amazon proposal; an 'emergency' vote was flagged publicly on 2026-08-20 as a mechanism that would block the resident-backed referendum; council and residents remained split on data center rules through August. POTENTIAL OUTCOME: if residents succeed, the matter could reach the 2027 ballot. WHY THIS ENTRY MATTERS BEYOND WILMINGTON: it is the clearest documented instance in this dataset of a municipality using an emergency-legislation procedure to foreclose direct democracy on a data center siting decision, and the referendum-blocking use of emergency ordinances is available in many Ohio municipalities.","who_is_protected":"Wilmington, Ohio residents seeking to exercise the municipal referendum right against the rezoning, including residents near the U.S. Route 68 site","who_must_comply":"City of Wilmington and its City Council, whose emergency ordinances are under challenge and paused by court order","citation":"Brooks v. City of Wilmington, Ohio — challenge to emergency rezoning ordinances for the proposed AWS data center (filed September 4, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/resident-sues-wilmington-over-emergency-legislation-tied-to-amazon-data-center-rezoning","source_title":"Resident sues Wilmington over emergency legislation tied to Amazon data center rezoning — WCPO 9 Cincinnati","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Ohio state court (seven-day pause); federal court as to the earlier July 2026 ruling","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"The rezoning ordinances were paused by court order; if the challenge succeeds the rezoning could be subject to a 2027 referendum"},{"id":"litig-lowell-ma-markley-diesel-generator-injunction-2026","title":"Lowell, Massachusetts — Superior Court Halts Installation of Four New Diesel Generators at the Markley Group Data Center While Residents Challenge the MassDEP Air Permit They Say They Were Never Heard On (August 10, 2026)","short_title":"Lowell MA Markley data center diesel generator injunction (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lowell, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Middlesex County","city":"Lowell","topics":["data-centers","public-sector","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"A group of Lowell residents went to Middlesex Superior Court on July 29, 2026 to stop the expansion of a 352,000 square-foot data center operated by the Markley Group, a Boston-based data and telecommunications company. Some of them live in the shadow of the building and regularly smell the exhaust from the facility's diesel generators. Their argument is about process: they say the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection violated their rights when it approved the air quality permit needed for the expansion the previous year without considering the community's objections. Their attorney put it simply — 'The problem here is that our clients never got the hearing that the law entitles them to.' On Monday, August 10, 2026, Superior Court Judge C. William Barrett granted their request and PAUSED the installation of four new diesel generators that had not yet been installed, while the broader legal challenge proceeds. The rest of the expansion is not covered by that order. There is a prior chapter worth knowing. In March 2026 the Lowell City Council adopted a one-year moratorium on new data center construction and expansion while it studies the industry. Markley sued over it and reached an agreement allowing the company to proceed with expansion plans that predated the moratorium — the same pre-existing-rights limit that defeated Rockford's moratorium against the project that prompted it. The court order is what the moratorium could not deliver.","summary_technical":"City of Lowell, Mass. (Middlesex County) — Middlesex Superior Court action by resident plaintiffs challenging a MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AIR QUALITY PERMIT issued for expansion of the MARKLEY GROUP data center, a 352,000-square-foot facility. HEARING: July 29, 2026. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF GRANTED: on Monday, AUGUST 10, 2026, SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE C. WILLIAM BARRETT granted the residents' request to PAUSE INSTALLATION OF FOUR NEW DIESEL GENERATORS not yet installed, for the duration of the legal challenge. SCOPE OF THE ORDER — stated precisely: it reaches the four uninstalled generators, not the expansion as a whole. LEGAL THEORY: procedural, not substantive — that MassDEP signed off on the permit in 2025 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE COMMUNITY'S OBJECTIONS, denying plaintiffs a hearing the law entitles them to. Counsel: 'The problem here is that our clients never got the hearing that the law entitles them to.' FACTUAL POSTURE: plaintiffs live adjacent to the facility and report regularly smelling the exhaust of its diesel generators; the matter is framed as an ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE claim and the Conservation Law Foundation is engaged on it. THE PRIOR MUNICIPAL CHAPTER IS THE INSTRUCTIVE PART: in MARCH 2026 the LOWELL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED A ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM on new data center construction AND EXPANSION pending a study. MARKLEY SUED and the parties reached an AGREEMENT PERMITTING THE COMPANY TO PROCEED with expansion plans PRE-DATING the moratorium. That is the same pre-existing-rights limit recorded on il-rockford-dc-moratorium-2026 (annexation agreement) and or-salem-dc-moratorium-process-2026 (pre-filed application): a municipal moratorium routinely fails to reach the project that motivated it, and here the effective constraint came instead from an AIR PERMIT CHALLENGE IN COURT. For practitioners the transferable point is that where land-use authority is foreclosed by vested rights, the environmental permitting record may still be open. THE LOWELL ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM ITSELF IS NOT INDEXED in this dataset and is a lead.","who_is_protected":"Lowell, Massachusetts residents living adjacent to the Markley Group data center, exposed to diesel generator exhaust; environmental justice populations in the affected neighborhood","who_must_comply":"Markley Group, barred by court order from installing four new diesel generators pending the challenge; the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, whose permit process is under review","citation":"Middlesex Superior Court (Mass.) — order pausing installation of four diesel generators at the Markley Group Lowell data center pending challenge to the MassDEP air permit (August 10, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2026-08-11/court-orders-pause-lowell-data-center-expansion","source_title":"Court orders pause Lowell data center expansion — GBH News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Middlesex Superior Court (Judge C. William Barrett); Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Installation of four new diesel generators is enjoined during the litigation"},{"id":"in-portage-technology-campus-district-2026","title":"Portage, Indiana — Technology Campus Zoning District Made the ONLY District Where Data Centers May Locate, With a 55-Decibel Noise Cap, 65-Foot Height Limit, 500-Foot Residential Setback and Planned-Development Approval for Hyperscale (August 4, 2026)","short_title":"Portage IN Technology Campus district data center rules (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Portage, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Porter County","city":"Portage","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-04","enacted_date":"2026-08-04","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Portage City Council unanimously adopted a data center ordinance on August 4, 2026 that is the most numerically specific municipal instrument in this dataset. It creates a new zoning classification — the Technology Campus, or TC, district — and makes it the ONLY zoning code that can be applied to a data center project. A developer cannot site a data center anywhere else in Portage, full stop. Inside the TC district the numbers are these: noise may not exceed 55 DECIBELS; no structure may exceed 65 FEET in height; and a facility must sit at least 500 FEET back from a residential district, or 200 feet from other zoned properties. The council tightened two of those on the floor, cutting the noise limit from the 65 decibels originally proposed and the height from 75 feet — so the adopted rules are stricter than what the Planning Commission recommended. And for the largest facilities there is a second gate: a project meeting the HYPERSCALE definition — electrical load exceeding 50 megawatts OR a campus greater than 500,000 square feet — must obtain planned development approval within the TC district, which is a discretionary council decision rather than an administrative one. The TC district is described as established for technology-focused business, light manufacturing and data service usage. Portage is in Porter County in northwest Indiana, where nearly a third of Indiana counties had moved to restrict data centers by July 2026.","summary_technical":"City of Portage, Ind. (Porter County) — zoning ordinance adopted UNANIMOUSLY by the City Council on Tuesday, August 4, 2026, following a favorable Planning Commission recommendation. STRUCTURE: creates a TECHNOLOGY CAMPUS (TC) zoning district, established for technology-focused business, light manufacturing and data service usage, and makes it THE ONLY ZONING CLASSIFICATION IN WHICH A DATA CENTER MAY BE LOCATED. That single-district confinement is stronger than the special-use-permit model (compare tx-north-richland-hills-dc-sup-regulations-2026) because it limits siting geographically before any discretionary review begins. QUANTIFIED STANDARDS INSIDE THE TC DISTRICT: (1) NOISE LIMIT 55 DECIBELS — amended down on the floor from the 55/65 dB originally proposed; (2) MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT 65 FEET — amended down from 75 feet; (3) SETBACKS: minimum 500 FEET from residential districts, or 200 FEET from other zoned properties. THE FLOOR AMENDMENTS MATTER: the adopted ordinance is STRICTER than what was recommended, which is the reverse of the usual dilution pattern. SECOND GATE FOR THE LARGEST FACILITIES: a project meeting the HYPERSCALE DEFINITION — ELECTRICAL LOAD EXCEEDING 50 MEGAWATTS or a CAMPUS GREATER THAN 500,000 SQUARE FEET — must obtain PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL within the TC district, a discretionary legislative approval rather than administrative permitting. THIS IS THE MOST COMPLETE SET OF NUMERIC STANDARDS IN THIS DATASET and is the reference point for any jurisdiction drafting data center rules: a defined hyperscale threshold in both load and area, a decibel cap, a height cap, two-tier setbacks and a single permissible district. STATE CONTEXT: nearly a third of Indiana counties had moved to restrict data centers by July 2026; other indexed Indiana measures include madison-county-in-dc-mora-2026 and putnam-county-in-dc-moratorium-2026.","who_is_protected":"Portage residents, particularly those in residential districts within 500 feet of any TC-zoned parcel; residents affected by facility noise above 55 decibels","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Portage — confined to the Technology Campus district, capped at 55 dB and 65 feet, subject to 500-foot residential and 200-foot other-property setbacks, and required to obtain planned development approval if exceeding 50 MW or 500,000 square feet","citation":"City of Portage, Ind. — Technology Campus district zoning ordinance governing data centers (adopted August 4, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/articles/portage-council-approves-ordinance-establishing-data-center-restrictions","source_title":"Portage council approves ordinance establishing data center restrictions — Inside INdiana Business","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Portage Planning Commission and City Council (planned development approval); Portage zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data centers may not be located outside the Technology Campus district; facilities must meet the noise, height and setback standards, and hyperscale projects require planned development approval"},{"id":"oh-athens-dc-moratorium-ord-70-26","title":"Athens, Ohio — Ordinance 70-26: One-Year Data Center Moratorium Covering AI and Bulk Storage Facilities, Extendable Another Year by the Mayor, That Does Not Reach the Project That Inspired It (August 3, 2026)","short_title":"Athens OH data center moratorium Ord. 70-26 (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Athens, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Athens County","city":"Athens","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-03","enacted_date":"2026-08-03","expires_date":"2027-08-03","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Athens City Council unanimously adopted Ordinance 70-26 on August 3, 2026, imposing a one-year temporary moratorium on data centers in the city. The ordinance is drafted to cover both facilities for artificial intelligence and those primarily directed at storing vast quantities of digital data — covering both uses matters, because an AI-only definition can miss a pure storage facility and vice versa. At Mayor Steve Patterson's request the ordinance also gives the mayor and/or the service-safety director the option to EXTEND the moratorium by another year, which puts the extension decision in executive hands rather than requiring a fresh council vote. The purpose is to give city officials time to review the zoning code and address the issues data centers raise, principally their significant energy and water consumption. There is an irony in the record that is worth preserving. The moratorium was inspired by a New York developer's interest in building a data center on land across the highway from Athens High School — but it does NOT apply to that site, because the site lies outside the city limits. This is the fourth instrument in this dataset to fail to reach the project that prompted it, the others being Rockford (annexation agreement), Salem (pre-filed application) and Lowell (litigation settlement). Athens County's commissioners separately adopted an anti-data-center resolution and township trustees approved a yearlong pause on zoning for a data center.","summary_technical":"City of Athens, Ohio (Athens County) — ORDINANCE 70-26, adopted unanimously by City Council on Monday, August 3, 2026, imposing a one-year temporary moratorium on data centers. DEFINITIONAL SCOPE: applies to data centers FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE as well as those PRIMARILY DIRECTED AT VAST QUANTITIES OF DIGITAL DATA STORAGE — covering both categories rather than one, which forecloses the argument that a pure storage facility falls outside an AI-framed moratorium or that an AI compute facility falls outside a storage-framed one. EXTENSION MECHANISM, added at Mayor Steve Patterson's request: the ordinance language gives THE MAYOR AND/OR THE SERVICE-SAFETY DIRECTOR the option to extend the moratorium BY ANOTHER YEAR. Vesting the extension in the executive rather than requiring a further council vote is uncommon and materially changes the politics of expiry — no new public hearing is needed to keep the pause in force. PURPOSE: time for city officials to review the zoning code and make changes addressing issues raised by data centers, principally significant energy and water consumption. THE TERRITORIAL LIMIT IS THE INSTRUCTIVE PART: the moratorium was inspired by a NEW YORK DEVELOPER'S interest in land ACROSS THE HIGHWAY FROM ATHENS HIGH SCHOOL, and it DOES NOT APPLY to that location because the site is OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. Municipal authority ends at the corporate boundary; a city moratorium cannot reach an adjacent unincorporated or township parcel. This is the fourth documented instance in this dataset of a measure failing to reach its motivating project \\u2014 compare il-rockford-dc-moratorium-2026 (annexation agreement), or-salem-dc-moratorium-process-2026 (pre-filed application) and litig-lowell-ma-markley-diesel-generator-injunction-2026 (litigation settlement). RELATED ATHENS COUNTY ACTION, not independently indexed: the Athens County Commissioners adopted an anti-data-center resolution, and township trustees approved a yearlong pause on zoning for a data center.","who_is_protected":"Athens, Ohio city residents; city energy and water supply","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to site AI or data storage facilities WITHIN the Athens city limits — the moratorium does not reach sites outside the corporate boundary","citation":"City of Athens, Ohio Ordinance 70-26 (adopted August 3, 2026)","source_url":"https://athensindependent.com/acc-08032026-data-centers/","source_title":"Athens adopts temporary data center moratorium — Athens County Independent","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Athens zoning administration / Athens City Council; extension vested in the Mayor and/or service-safety director","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No data center may be approved within the city during the moratorium year, or during any one-year extension the mayor or service-safety director elects"},{"id":"ri-westerly-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Westerly, Rhode Island — Town Council Votes 7-0 for a One-Year Ban on Data Center Development or Construction Because the Town Has No Zoning Regulations for Them (July 27, 2026)","short_title":"Westerly RI one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Westerly, RI","state_abbr":"RI","county":"Washington County","city":"Westerly","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-27","enacted_date":"2026-07-27","expires_date":"2027-07-27","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Westerly's Town Council voted 7-0 at its July 27, 2026 meeting to impose a one-year ban on the development or construction of data centers in the town. The council's stated reason is unusually candid: the town simply lacks the information, and more concretely it lacks the zoning regulations or the resources to handle a facility of that size, energy requirement and water consumption. That is a different justification from most of the moratoriums in this dataset, which cite environmental impacts or ratepayer costs. Westerly is saying it does not yet have a legal framework capable of reviewing such an application at all, which is the most honest basis on which a small town can pause. Councillors also pointed to environmental impacts of data centers reported across the country. The year gives the Westerly Planning and Zoning Commission time to propose ordinances for the council governing WHERE in town data centers would be allowed — so the intended output is a siting framework rather than a permanent ban. Westerly sits in Washington County on the Connecticut border. Rhode Island had a live statewide conversation running alongside it: Governor McKee had ordered a separate pause on new ALPR cameras in August, and RIPIRG was seeking a two-year statewide pause on large data centers.","summary_technical":"Town of Westerly, R.I. (Washington County) — one-year moratorium on the development or construction of data centers, approved UNANIMOUSLY 7-0 by the Town Council at its meeting of Monday, July 27, 2026. STATED GROUNDS, and the distinguishing feature: the council cited A LACK OF INFORMATION and, specifically, THE TOWN'S LACK OF ZONING REGULATIONS OR RESOURCES for a facility of that size, energy requirement and water consumption \\u2014 a capacity-based rather than impact-based justification. Most moratoriums in this dataset are premised on the harms a data center would cause; Westerly's is premised on the town's inability to review the application competently, which is both a more defensible legal footing for an interim ordinance and a more candid statement of the small-municipality problem. SECONDARY GROUNDS: environmental impacts of data centers reported nationally. INTENDED OUTPUT: the WESTERLY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION is to propose ordinances, for council adoption, governing WHERE IN TOWN data centers would be allowed \\u2014 i.e. a siting framework, not a permanent prohibition. RHODE ISLAND CONTEXT: Rhode Island towns were acting on data center expansion as New York paused statewide; RIPIRG sought a TWO-YEAR statewide pause on large data centers; separately, Gov. McKee ordered a statewide pause on new ALPR installations on 2026-08-18 (ri-mckee-alpr-installation-pause-2026), an unrelated subject but the same posture of a state acting where local capacity is thin.","who_is_protected":"Westerly, Rhode Island residents; town water supply and electrical infrastructure","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to develop or construct a data center in Westerly during the moratorium year","citation":"Town of Westerly, R.I. — one-year data center moratorium (adopted 7-0, July 27, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.thewesterlysun.com/daily-news-alerts/town-council-passes-one-year-moratorium-on-data-centers/article_db53e249-5410-424f-a7fe-e080b2b423cc.html","source_title":"Town council passes one-year moratorium on data centers — The Westerly Sun","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Westerly Planning and Zoning Commission / Westerly Town Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No data center development or construction may proceed during the one-year ban"},{"id":"wa-cle-elum-emergency-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Cle Elum, Washington — Emergency Six-Month Data Center Moratorium Adopted Unanimously Three Days After a $200 Million 20 MW Proposal, Which a 2002 Development Agreement May Allow Through Anyway (July 31, 2026)","short_title":"Cle Elum WA emergency data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cle Elum, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"Kittitas County","city":"Cle Elum","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-31","enacted_date":"2026-07-31","expires_date":"2027-01-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Cle Elum's City Council unanimously adopted an emergency six-month moratorium on new data centers on Friday, July 31, 2026 — three days after Blue Fern Development unveiled plans for a 100,000-square-foot, 20-megawatt computing facility near Interstate 90 representing roughly $200 million of investment. The site would use a closed-loop cooling system to limit water use. Council members moved fast, citing power demand, water consumption, mechanical noise, heat and emergency generators, and said the pause would give them time to study how a facility of that size would affect electricity demand, water supplies and the community generally. A public hearing to examine those impacts was set for September 8, 2026. The council was also honest about the moratorium's limits at the moment it passed, which is rare enough to record. Councilmember Steven Harper cautioned that the moratorium was 'not a magical Band-Aid' and could not necessarily override an existing development agreement. The Blue Fern site is covered by a DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED IN 2002, and city officials were still working out whether a data center qualifies as an already permitted commercial or industrial use under it. If it does, the project may be reviewed under the older rules and the moratorium will not stop it. This entry is recorded at limited strength for that reason.","summary_technical":"City of Cle Elum, Wash. (Kittitas County) — EMERGENCY six-month moratorium on new data centers, adopted UNANIMOUSLY by the City Council on Friday, July 31, 2026. TIMING: three days after BLUE FERN DEVELOPMENT unveiled plans for a 100,000-SQUARE-FOOT, 20-MEGAWATT data center near Interstate 90, representing approximately $200 MILLION of investment and proposing a CLOSED-LOOP COOLING SYSTEM to reduce water use. The emergency designation permitted immediate adoption without the ordinary notice period \\u2014 the same procedural device used in tn-knox-county-flock-removal-ordinance-2026 and ar-madison-county-dc-moratorium-3yr-2026, here deployed to close a three-day window. STATED CONCERNS: power demand, water consumption, mechanical noise, heat and emergency generators; the pause is to permit study of effects on electricity demand, water supplies and the community. PROCEDURAL FOLLOW-UP: a public hearing on impacts was scheduled for September 8, 2026. THE 2002 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS WHY strength IS `limited`: the Blue Fern site is covered by a DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED IN 2002, and city officials were still determining whether a data center qualifies as an already permitted COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USE under that agreement. If it does, the project may be reviewed under the pre-existing rules and the moratorium will not reach it. COUNCILMEMBER STEVEN HARPER SAID SO ON THE RECORD at adoption: the moratorium was 'not a magical Band-Aid' and could not necessarily override the existing development agreement. A 24-YEAR-OLD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DEFEATING A 2026 MORATORIUM is the most extreme instance of the vested-rights limit documented in this dataset \\u2014 compare il-rockford-dc-moratorium-2026 (annexation agreement), or-salem-dc-moratorium-process-2026 (pre-filed application), litig-lowell-ma-markley-diesel-generator-injunction-2026 (litigation settlement) and oh-athens-dc-moratorium-ord-70-26 (site outside the city limits). WASHINGTON CONTEXT: Cle Elum lies in Kittitas County in central Washington; the state separately regulates ALPRs under RCW 10.130 (see wa-elma-alpr-moratorium-2026), an unrelated subject.","who_is_protected":"Cle Elum, Washington residents; city electricity and water supply — subject to the 2002 development agreement question","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals in Cle Elum, potentially excluding Blue Fern Development if the 2002 development agreement is held to permit the use","citation":"City of Cle Elum, Wash. — emergency six-month data center moratorium (adopted July 31, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/aug/05/cle-elum-passed-a-data-center-ban-one-might-be-bui/","source_title":"Cle Elum passed a data center ban. One might be built there anyway — The Spokesman-Review","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Cle Elum / Cle Elum City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"New data center development applications may not proceed during the six-month emergency moratorium, subject to the 2002 development agreement question"},{"id":"mo-joplin-dc-regulations-2026","title":"Joplin, Missouri — Data Center Regulations Passed 5-4 With a 45-Decibel Noise Limit at Residential Property Lines, Mandatory Pre-Construction Sound Baseline Testing, Wastewater Pretreatment, Pollutant Scans and Setbacks Doubled From 300 to 600 Feet (August 17, 2026)","short_title":"Joplin MO data center regulations (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Joplin, MO","state_abbr":"MO","county":"Jasper County","city":"Joplin","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-17","enacted_date":"2026-08-17","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Joplin City Council narrowly adopted data center regulations in August 2026, passing the amended ordinance 5-4 with Councilmembers Cowles, Bard, Jackson and Price voting no. The rules cover noise, water use, wastewater, emissions, generators and other effects of large computing facilities, and the specific numbers are what make this entry useful. Noise is capped at 45 DECIBELS at property lines adjoining residential uses — the strictest decibel limit in this dataset, tighter than Portage, Indiana's 55. Critically, a developer must conduct TESTING BEFORE CONSTRUCTION to document existing sound levels: without a documented baseline a later noise complaint is unprovable, and few instruments anywhere require one. Data centers must also PRETREAT WASTEWATER, SUBMIT POLLUTANT SCANS and comply with state and federal emissions standards. And before the final vote Mayor Rob O'Brien moved an amendment DOUBLING the setback from 300 feet to 600 FEET for centers built near residential and certain public properties. The council had pushed back through July, publicly seeking stronger safeguards before it would approve any rules, and held a public meeting on the proposal — so the ordinance that passed is materially tougher than the one first put to it. The narrow 5-4 margin and the questions reported afterward indicate the framework remains contested locally.","summary_technical":"City of Joplin, Mo. (Jasper County) — data center regulation ordinance adopted 5-4 by the City Council at its Monday meeting in August 2026; NAY VOTES: Councilmembers Cowles, Bard, Jackson and Price. SUBJECT MATTER: noise, water use, wastewater, emissions, generators and other potential effects of large facilities. QUANTIFIED AND PROCEDURAL STANDARDS: (1) NOISE LIMIT OF 45 DECIBELS at property lines adjoining residential uses — THE STRICTEST DECIBEL CAP IN THIS DATASET, ten decibels below Portage, Indiana's 55 dB, and on a logarithmic scale a substantial difference; (2) MANDATORY PRE-CONSTRUCTION SOUND TESTING to document EXISTING sound levels. THE BASELINE REQUIREMENT IS THE MOST TRANSFERABLE PROVISION HERE: a decibel cap without a documented pre-existing baseline is close to unenforceable, because a later complaint cannot be attributed to the facility as against ambient conditions. Almost no other municipal instrument located in this triage requires one. (3) WASTEWATER PRETREATMENT obligation; (4) POLLUTANT SCANS to be submitted; (5) compliance with state and federal emissions standards; (6) SETBACKS EXPANDED FROM 300 FEET TO 600 FEET for centers near residential and certain public properties, by floor amendment from MAYOR ROB O'BRIEN before the final vote. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended tabling case 019-26; in early July 2026 the council publicly sought STRONGER SAFEGUARDS before approving any data center rules and set a public meeting on the proposal; the ordinance finally adopted is materially tighter than the version first presented. CONTESTED STATUS: the 5-4 margin and subsequent reporting of 'new questions' following the vote indicate the framework is not politically settled. A SOURCE NUANCE recorded rather than resolved: some coverage describes the substantive standards as having been approved unanimously while the ordinance as a whole passed 5-4, which most likely reflects separate votes on components and on final passage.","who_is_protected":"Joplin residents, particularly occupants of residential property adjoining a data center site, and users of the municipal wastewater system","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators in Joplin — subject to the 45 dB residential property-line noise limit, pre-construction sound baseline testing, wastewater pretreatment, pollutant scan submission, state and federal emissions standards and 600-foot setbacks from residential and certain public properties","citation":"City of Joplin, Mo. — data center regulation ordinance (adopted 5-4, August 2026)","source_url":"https://www.ksmu.org/news/2026-08-18/joplin-passes-data-center-regulations","source_title":"Joplin passes data center regulations — KSMU","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Joplin Planning and Zoning / Joplin City Council; municipal wastewater pretreatment program","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Facilities must meet the noise, setback, wastewater, pollutant-scan and emissions requirements as a condition of development"},{"id":"oh-amherst-bza-nordson-data-center-variance-denial-2026","title":"Amherst, Ohio — Board of Zoning Appeals Denies the Use Variance Required for a 45-Megawatt Data Center on the Nordson Corporation Campus, Because Data Centers Are Not Permitted in the City's Industrial Zoning at All (July 30, 2026)","short_title":"Amherst OH Nordson campus data center variance denial (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Amherst, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Lorain County","city":"Amherst","topics":["data-centers","public-sector","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-30","enacted_date":"2026-07-30","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Amherst's Board of Zoning Appeals denied a use variance on July 30, 2026, killing — at least for the moment — a plan by Cervenka Development Partners LLC to convert three buildings on the longtime Nordson Corporation campus into a 45-megawatt data center. The board released its written decision less than twenty-four hours after the hearing, and said Cervenka had failed to make a convincing argument that the city should grant an exception to its rules. More than a hundred people turned up for that hearing, packing Amherst City Hall and spilling onto the lawn and around the block; capacity limits pushed residents outside. The legal point underneath the denial is the one worth carrying away. Data centers are NOT explicitly allowed by Amherst's industrial zoning code. Because the use is not permitted, a developer must obtain a USE VARIANCE — which in Ohio requires demonstrating unnecessary hardship, a demanding standard that a board may refuse without adopting any moratorium or new ordinance at all. Amherst did not need to pass anything. A zoning code silent on data centers, plus a board willing to say no, produced the same outcome a ban would have. Cervenka had thirty days to appeal to the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. Note that a developer of the same name was separately behind a small-scale data center proposal on Cass Road in Garfield Township, Michigan, which a one-year township ban stalled in August 2026.","summary_technical":"City of Amherst, Ohio (Lorain County) — BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS written decision of Thursday, July 30, 2026 DENYING A USE VARIANCE sought by CERVENKA DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS LLC to convert three buildings on the NORDSON CORPORATION campus into a 45-MEGAWATT data center. TIMING: the decision issued LESS THAN 24 HOURS after the hearing. STATED GROUND: Cervenka failed to make a convincing argument that the city should grant an exception to the rules. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: more than 100 people attended, exceeding building capacity and spilling onto the lawn and around the block. THE ZONING POSTURE IS THE POINT OF THIS ENTRY: DATA CENTERS ARE NOT EXPLICITLY ALLOWED BY AMHERST'S INDUSTRIAL ZONING CODE. Because the use is not among the permitted uses, a developer must seek a USE VARIANCE, which under Ohio law requires a showing of UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP \\u2014 a materially higher standard than the practical-difficulties test applied to area variances, and one an applicant frequently cannot meet where the property has other viable industrial uses. AMHERST ADOPTED NO MORATORIUM AND NO NEW ORDINANCE. A zoning code that simply does not enumerate data centers, combined with a board prepared to deny, produced the same practical result as the bans and moratoriums that dominate this dataset, at no legislative cost and with no vested-rights exposure. FOR JURISDICTIONS REVIEWING THEIR POSITION, the threshold question is therefore not 'should we pass a moratorium' but 'is this use already unpermitted under our existing code'. APPEAL RIGHT: Cervenka had 30 DAYS to file an administrative appeal in the LORAIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS; no located source reports whether it did. CROSS-REFERENCE WORTH NOTING: a developer of the same name \\u2014 reported as Illinois-based Tom Cervenka \\u2014 was separately behind a small-scale data center proposal on Cass Road in Garfield Township, Michigan, stalled by that township's one-year ban (mi-garfield-township-dc-crypto-moratorium-2026). The relationship between the two is not established by any located source and is recorded as an observation, not a finding.","who_is_protected":"Amherst, Ohio residents near the Nordson Corporation campus in Lorain County","who_must_comply":"Cervenka Development Partners LLC and any developer seeking to site a data center in Amherst, which requires a use variance the Board of Zoning Appeals has now denied once","citation":"City of Amherst, Ohio Board of Zoning Appeals — denial of use variance for the Nordson campus data center (July 30, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/amherst-zoning-board-rejects-variance-for-data-center-project-on-longtime-nordson-campus","source_title":"Amherst zoning board rejects variance for data center project on longtime Nordson campus — News 5 Cleveland","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Amherst Board of Zoning Appeals; Lorain County Court of Common Pleas on appeal","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"The use variance was denied; without it the 45-megawatt data center cannot proceed on the Nordson campus"},{"id":"il-godfrey-dc-moratorium-extension-2026","title":"Godfrey, Illinois — Village Board Unanimously Extends Its Data Center Application Moratorium a Second Time, Through January 31, 2027, With the Village Attorney Advising One Further Extension Is Available (August 2026)","short_title":"Godfrey IL data center moratorium extension (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Godfrey, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Madison County","city":"Godfrey","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-01","enacted_date":"2026-08-01","expires_date":"2027-01-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Godfrey's village trustees unanimously approved a six-month extension of the village's data center application moratorium in August 2026, carrying the pause through January 31, 2027. The original 180-day moratorium was approved in January 2026, so this is the second period, and Village Attorney Bryan Dooling told the board his review of state statutes indicated the village would be allowed to extend ONE MORE TIME after this. That detail is the most useful thing in this entry, because Illinois municipal moratorium authority is not unlimited and few of the instruments in this dataset state on the record how much runway remains. Godfrey now knows it has roughly one more extension before it must either adopt permanent rules or let applications resume. Trustee Rick Lauschke framed the coming six months as time for the board to educate itself about data centers. The concerns are the familiar ones: large water and electricity consumption capable of overwhelming municipal water systems and power grids. Godfrey is a village in Madison County in the Metro East region across the river from St. Louis. Illinois context matters here too — the governor paused state data center incentives, and state-level rules were reported as stalled, which is why at least one other Illinois city extended its own moratorium into 2027 while waiting.","summary_technical":"Village of Godfrey, Ill. (Madison County, Metro East) — SECOND six-month extension of the village's moratorium on data center applications, approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Village Board in August 2026, carrying the moratorium THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2027. SEQUENCE: an original 180-DAY moratorium was approved in JANUARY 2026; this extension follows it. STATUTORY RUNWAY, and the reason this entry is worth recording separately from the original moratorium: VILLAGE ATTORNEY BRYAN DOOLING advised the board that his review of state statutes indicated the village would be permitted TO EXTEND ITS ORIGINAL MORATORIUM ONE MORE TIME after the 180-day extension. Illinois municipal moratorium authority is finite, and Godfrey has therefore placed on the record roughly how much time remains before it must adopt permanent regulations or resume accepting applications \\u2014 a constraint most instruments in this dataset leave unstated. Compare mn-otsego-dc-moratorium-2026, which caps itself at one 6-month extension by its own terms, and ca-patterson-dc-moratorium-ord-890-2026, whose remaining one-year extension derives from Cal. Gov. Code \\u00a7 65858. STATED PURPOSE (Trustee Rick Lauschke): the board should use the next six months to educate itself about data centers. SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS: large water and electricity consumption capable of overwhelming municipal water systems and power grids. ILLINOIS CONTEXT: the Governor paused state data center INCENTIVES; state-level data center rules were reported as STALLED, and at least one other Illinois city extended its own moratorium into 2027 explicitly while waiting on those rules. Compare il-rockford-dc-moratorium-2026.","who_is_protected":"Godfrey, Illinois residents; village water system and regional grid capacity","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to file data center applications with the Village of Godfrey through January 31, 2027","citation":"Village of Godfrey, Ill. — six-month extension of the data center application moratorium, through January 31, 2027 (August 2026)","source_url":"https://www.thetelegraph.com/news/article/godfrey-data-center-moratorium-illinois-22375713.php","source_title":"Godfrey extends moratorium on data center applications for six months — The Telegraph (Alton)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Village of Godfrey / Godfrey Village Board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center applications may not be filed or processed during the moratorium period"},{"id":"wi-town-of-janesville-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Town of Janesville, Wisconsin — Yearlong Data Center Moratorium Recommended by the Planning and Zoning Committee After a Hearing So Large It Was Moved to a Convention Center, Then Approved by the Town Board (August 3, 2026)","short_title":"Town of Janesville WI data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Town of Janesville, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Rock County","city":"Town of Janesville","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-03","enacted_date":"2026-08-03","expires_date":"2027-08-03","last_verified_date":"2026-09-16","summary_plain":"The Town of Janesville adopted a yearlong moratorium on data centers, approved by the Town Board at its August 3, 2026 meeting after the town's Planning and Zoning Committee voted on July 28 to recommend it. The public meeting that produced that recommendation had to be relocated to the Woodman's Sports and Convention Center because the crowd would not fit in the original venue — residents turned out in broad opposition. Planning and Zoning Chairman Doug Rebout said there were no plans in the works for a data center in the town, but that the town had received an INQUIRY about a data center application. That is the trigger: not a filed application, an inquiry. What makes this entry worth reading is the regional pattern it sits inside. The Towns of Janesville, Beloit and Turtle had been in preliminary talks over at least two other data center prospects in Rock County. The Town of Turtle rejected a data center cost reimbursement agreement and started its own moratorium process; the Town of Beloit followed Turtle's lead, rejecting its cost agreement and voting for a moratorium; the Town of Rock held off on a moratorium vote. Rock County itself had a proposed moratorium, and the CITY of Janesville was considering one as of September 10, 2026. Several neighbouring townships approached by the same developers coordinated their refusals — one of the clearest examples of collective municipal action in this dataset.","summary_technical":"Town of Janesville, Wis. (Rock County) — YEARLONG moratorium on data centers. SEQUENCE: the Town Planning and Zoning Committee voted JULY 28, 2026 to recommend a yearlong moratorium to the Town Board, following a public meeting RELOCATED TO THE WOODMAN'S SPORTS AND CONVENTION CENTER because the crowd exceeded the original venue; the ordinance was scheduled for, and approved at, the full Town Board meeting of MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 2026. TRIGGER: Planning and Zoning Chairman DOUG REBOUT stated there were NO PLANS in the works for a data center in the town, but that the town had received AN INQUIRY about a data center application \\u2014 an inquiry, not a filing, which is the earliest trigger point documented in this dataset. THE ROCK COUNTY CLUSTER IS THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT: the Towns of JANESVILLE, BELOIT and TURTLE had been in preliminary talks over at least two other data center prospects in Rock County. TOWN OF TURTLE rejected a DATA CENTER COST REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT and commenced its own moratorium process. TOWN OF BELOIT followed Turtle's lead, rejecting its cost agreement and voting for a moratorium. TOWN OF ROCK held off on a moratorium vote. ROCK COUNTY had a proposed moratorium under consideration to allow more time to study development proposals. The CITY OF JANESVILLE was considering a moratorium as of 2026-09-10. THE COST REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT IS THE MECHANISM WORTH UNDERSTANDING: developers commonly offer to reimburse a small municipality's consultant and legal costs for reviewing a large application, which a town with no budget for such review would otherwise struggle to fund. Turtle and Beloit REFUSED those agreements and moved to moratoriums instead \\u2014 declining the funding rather than entering a review they judged they could not control. NONE OF THE OTHER ROCK COUNTY MEASURES ARE INDEXED and all are leads. WISCONSIN CONTEXT: temporary bans in Green, Dodge, Door and Manitowoc counties; Dane County and Madison; Chippewa County (wi-chippewa-county-dc-moratorium-2026); Cottage Grove (wi-cottage-grove-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026); a Democratic statewide moratorium proposal in February 2026.","who_is_protected":"Town of Janesville residents in Rock County, Wisconsin","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals in the Town of Janesville during the moratorium year","citation":"Town of Janesville, Wis. — yearlong data center moratorium (committee recommendation July 28, 2026; Town Board approval August 3, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wifr.com/2026/07/29/town-janesville-planning-zoning-committee-recommends-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Town of Janesville Planning and Zoning Committee recommends data center moratorium — WIFR","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Janesville Planning and Zoning Committee / Town of Janesville Town Board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No data center may be approved in the town during the yearlong moratorium"},{"id":"md-chesapeake-beach-dc-prohibition-ord-o-26-14","title":"Chesapeake Beach, Maryland — Ordinance O-26-14 Removes Data Centers From the Maritime Commercial Zone and Adds Them to the EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED Uses Table, Barring Them Townwide (August 20, 2026)","short_title":"Chesapeake Beach MD townwide data center prohibition (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chesapeake Beach, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Calvert County","city":"Chesapeake Beach","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-20","enacted_date":"2026-08-20","last_verified_date":"2026-09-16","summary_plain":"Data centers are no longer permitted anywhere in Chesapeake Beach. The Town Council approved ORDINANCE O-26-14 without opposition on August 20, 2026, after a public hearing, prohibiting the facilities in every town zoning district. The mechanism is worth understanding because it is cleaner than most prohibitions in this dataset. The ordinance does two things at once: it REMOVES data centers from the list of uses permitted in the town's Maritime Commercial zone — the only district where they had been allowed — and it ADDS them to the section of the land-use table covering EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED uses. Data centers were already not permitted in any of the town's other zoning districts. Deleting the one permission and simultaneously naming the use as expressly prohibited closes both halves of the question: a developer cannot argue the use is permitted somewhere, and cannot argue it is merely unaddressed and therefore allowable by analogy to a similar use. That second argument is the one that has caught out jurisdictions whose codes were simply silent — Clayton, Ohio adopted a moratorium precisely because its code had no definition and a data center could arguably enter as a warehouse. Chesapeake Beach is a small town on the Chesapeake Bay in Calvert County, Maryland, and this is a permanent prohibition rather than a pause.","summary_technical":"Town of Chesapeake Beach, Md. (Calvert County) — ORDINANCE O-26-14, approved WITHOUT OPPOSITION by the Town Council on AUGUST 20, 2026 following a public hearing, prohibiting data centers in EVERY TOWN ZONING DISTRICT. TWO-PART MECHANISM, and the reason this entry is instructive: (1) the ordinance REMOVES data centers from the list of uses PERMITTED in the town's MARITIME COMMERCIAL zone; (2) it ADDS them to the section of the land-use table covering EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED USES. Data centers were not permitted in the town's other zoning districts before the amendment. DOING BOTH IS THE POINT. Deleting the single permission alone would leave the use unaddressed, and an unaddressed use invites the argument that it is permissible as analogous to a listed use \\u2014 the failure mode recorded on oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026, where the code had no definition and staff noted a data center could be read as a WAREHOUSE-type use, and on ca-palm-springs-dc-moratorium-2026, whose municipal and zoning codes contained no data center definition at all. Naming the use as EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED forecloses that reading. INSTRUMENT CLASS: a permanent zoning prohibition with no sunset, in the same category as nj-cherry-hill-dc-prohibited-use-2026, ky-woodford-county-permanent-dc-ban-2026 and fl-escambia-county-large-dc-ban-2026, and distinguishable from the moratoriums that dominate the 2026 municipal record. NO SIZE OR LOAD THRESHOLD is reported \\u2014 the prohibition appears categorical rather than limited to large-scale facilities, which distinguishes it from Escambia County's 'large-scale' ban and is the point to confirm against the ordinance text. MARYLAND CONTEXT: this dataset separately indexes md-worcester-county-data-center-cable-landing-moratorium-2026, md-montgomery-county-dc-moratorium-2026, md-howard-county-smart-siting-act-2026 and baltimore-md-dc-moratorium-2026; more than half of Maryland's counties had acted on data centers by September 2026.","who_is_protected":"Chesapeake Beach residents in Calvert County, Maryland, including the Maritime Commercial zone on the Chesapeake Bay","who_must_comply":"Any developer proposing a data center anywhere in Chesapeake Beach — the use is expressly prohibited in every zoning district","citation":"Town of Chesapeake Beach, Md. Ordinance O-26-14 (adopted August 20, 2026)","source_url":"https://thebaynet.com/chesapeake-beach-data-center-ban/","source_title":"Chesapeake Beach Data Center Ban Prohibits Facilities Townwide — The BayNet","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Chesapeake Beach zoning administration / Chesapeake Beach Town Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data centers are an expressly prohibited use townwide; no permit may issue"},{"id":"mn-isanti-dc-moratorium-12mo-2026","title":"Isanti, Minnesota — City Council REDUCES Its Data Center Moratorium From a Proposed 30 Months to 12, Because Minnesota Law Caps It at One Year and Requires Proof That Staff Are Actively Drafting an Ordinance (2026)","short_title":"Isanti MN 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Isanti, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Isanti County","city":"Isanti","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","expires_date":"2027-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-16","summary_plain":"The Isanti City Council adjusted its data center moratorium DOWN from a discussed 30 months to 12 months, and the reason is the most useful thing in this entry. Community Development Director Stephanie Hillesheim told the council that TWELVE MONTHS IS THE MAXIMUM LENGTH such a moratorium may run under Minnesota law: 'I know we discussed 30 months or 18 months, but it's 12 months. That's the longest we are allowed to put the moratorium on for.' She added a second condition that is easy to overlook — 'We have to be proving staff is working on an ordinance and doing research on it.' So the statutory allowance is not merely a clock. It is conditional on the municipality actually doing the work the pause is supposed to buy time for, and a jurisdiction that adopts a moratorium and then does nothing may not be able to defend it even inside the twelve months. This is the third statutory ceiling recorded in this dataset from a municipal official's own statement on the record, after Wisconsin's twelve months plus one six-month extension and a Nevada city attorney's assessment that moratoriums are defensible for roughly twelve to eighteen months. Several entries here run longer than any of those figures — three-year Arkansas county pauses, an eighteen-month Sierra County New Mexico moratorium and an eighteen-month Cary North Carolina one — which makes the ceilings worth checking against each state's own enabling law rather than assuming a common practice.","summary_technical":"City of Isanti, Minn. (Isanti County) — data center moratorium ADJUSTED DOWN from a discussed 30 MONTHS to 12 MONTHS, with the City Council unanimously approving the draft ordinance. THE STATUTORY CEILING IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS ENTRY. Community Development Director STEPHANIE HILLESHEIM advised the council: 'I know we discussed 30 months or 18 months, but it's 12 months. That's the longest we are allowed to put the moratorium on for' \\u2014 and, critically, 'We have to be proving staff is working on an ordinance and doing research on it.' MINNESOTA'S INTERIM ORDINANCE AUTHORITY (Minn. Stat. \\u00a7 462.355 subd. 4 for cities) permits an interim ordinance for up to one year while a comprehensive plan or official controls are being studied, prepared or adopted. THE SECOND CONDITION IS THE ONE PRACTITIONERS MISS: the allowance is contingent on the municipality ACTUALLY CONDUCTING THE STUDY. A moratorium adopted and then left idle is exposed even within its term, because the statutory predicate \\u2014 that official controls are being prepared \\u2014 fails. This is the THIRD statutory or practical ceiling recorded in this dataset from an official's own on-record statement: wi-bellevue-dc-moratorium-2026 (Wisconsin: 12 months plus one 6-month extension, per the village administrator) and nv-henderson-dc-moratorium-rejected-code-changes-2026 (a city attorney's assessment that moratoriums are defensible for 12 to 18 months). MEASURES IN THIS DATASET EXCEEDING THOSE FIGURES, which should be checked against their own states' enabling law rather than assumed sound: ar-madison-county-dc-moratorium-3yr-2026 and four other Arkansas counties at THREE YEARS, nm-sierra-county-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026 and wi-cottage-grove-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026 at 18 months, nc-cary-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026 at 18 months, and a reported FIVE-YEAR Independence County AR moratorium. Minnesota peers indexed here: mn-carlton-county-dc-moratorium-2026, mn-otsego-dc-moratorium-2026 (12 months plus a bounded 6-month extension, consistent with this ceiling), inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06 and minneapolis-data-center-moratorium-2026-05.","who_is_protected":"Isanti, Minnesota residents","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals in Isanti during the 12-month moratorium","citation":"City of Isanti, Minn. — 12-month data center moratorium (2026), reduced from a proposed 30 months to the statutory maximum","source_url":"https://www.isanti-chisagocountystar.com/news/city-of-isanti-data-center-moratorium-now-one-year/article_dd234c0e-64da-4acf-ae17-034ee3604e66.html","source_title":"City of Isanti data center moratorium now one year — Isanti-Chisago County Star","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Isanti Community Development / Isanti City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center approvals are paused for the 12-month statutory maximum"},{"id":"ky-rowan-county-dc-moratorium-2yr-2026","title":"Rowan County, Kentucky — Fiscal Court Approves a TWO-YEAR Moratorium on Large-Scale Data Centers Although No Company Has Approached the County (2026)","short_title":"Rowan County KY two-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Rowan County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Rowan County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","expires_date":"2028-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"The Rowan County Fiscal Court approved a TWO-YEAR moratorium on large-scale data centers, giving county leaders time to consider how future projects would be reviewed before any arrives. County officials were explicit that nothing is pending. Judge-Executive Harry Clark: 'First and foremost, we have not been approached by anyone for a data center.' Jason Slone, president and CEO of the Morehead-Rowan County Chamber of Commerce, put the reasoning plainly — 'But it is going to be a matter of time at some point.' Two years is long for a local pause, and it sits well beyond the twelve-to-eighteen-month windows that municipal officials elsewhere in this dataset have described as the outer limit of what a moratorium can defend. Kentucky county fiscal courts, however, operate differently from municipal zoning boards, and the state's other long pause — Bell County's two years — was adopted without apparent challenge. Rowan County joins an unusually active Kentucky cohort: Woodford County adopted the state's first permanent ban in September 2026, Bell County a two-year moratorium, Logan County a twelve-month water-focused pause, Mercer County a one-year pause, Nicholasville six months, and Lexington-Fayette Urban County its own moratorium, alongside a governor's executive order on data center development.","summary_technical":"Rowan County, Ky. — TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM on LARGE-SCALE data centers, approved by the Rowan County Fiscal Court. PURPOSE: to give county leaders time to consider how future projects could be reviewed before moving forward. POSTURE \\u2014 PURELY ANTICIPATORY: Judge-Executive HARRY CLARK stated 'First and foremost, we have not been approached by anyone for a data center'; Jason Slone, president and CEO of the Morehead-Rowan County Chamber of Commerce, added 'But it is going to be a matter of time at some point.' No proposal, inquiry or application prompted the measure. DURATION IN CONTEXT: two years exceeds the 12-month statutory ceiling a Minnesota city development director stated on the record (mn-isanti-dc-moratorium-12mo-2026), the 12-months-plus-one-6-month-extension a Wisconsin village administrator described (wi-bellevue-dc-moratorium-2026), and the 12-to-18-month defensibility window a Nevada city attorney gave (nv-henderson-dc-moratorium-rejected-code-changes-2026). KENTUCKY FISCAL COURTS ARE NOT MUNICIPAL ZONING BODIES and operate under different enabling authority; Kentucky's other two-year pause, ky-bell-county-kentucky-two-year-moratorium-on-data-center-construction-and-ope-2026, is recorded without any reported challenge. THAT DIFFERENCE IS NOTED, NOT RESOLVED \\u2014 the Kentucky authority for a two-year county moratorium was not identified in the located source. THRESHOLD: 'large-scale' is used without definition, which is the material gap. KENTUCKY COHORT indexed here: ky-woodford-county-permanent-dc-ban-2026 (the state's first permanent county ban), ky-bell-county-kentucky-two-year-moratorium-on-data-center-construction-and-ope-2026, ky-logan-county-dc-moratorium-2026, ky-nicholasville-dc-moratorium-2026, ky-lexington-fayette-urban-county-moratorium-on-data-center-permits-development-plans-and-2026, ky-louisville-metro-dc-moratorium-2026, ky-winchester-dc-moratorium-2026 and ky-beshear-eo-data-center-development-2026.","who_is_protected":"Rowan County, Kentucky residents","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to site large-scale data centers in Rowan County during the two-year moratorium","citation":"Rowan County, Ky. — two-year moratorium on large-scale data centers (2026)","source_url":"https://www.lex18.com/news/covering-kentucky/rowan-county-approves-two-year-data-center-moratorium-ahead-of-potential-projects","source_title":"Rowan County approves two-year data center moratorium ahead of potential projects — LEX 18","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Rowan County Fiscal Court","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Large-scale data center approvals are paused for two years"},{"id":"mn-pine-county-dc-moratorium-extension-2026","title":"Pine County, Minnesota — Board Extends Its Data Center Moratorium From Six Months to TWELVE After Public Testimony Overwhelmingly Called for Longer, Holding the Hearing It Had Skipped in July (2026)","short_title":"Pine County MN 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Pine County, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Pine County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-07","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","expires_date":"2027-07-07","last_verified_date":"2026-10-06","summary_plain":"Pine County's board extended its data center moratorium from six months to TWELVE after hearing public testimony that overwhelmingly called for a longer pause. The procedural history is the interesting part. The board had adopted an interim ordinance authorizing a SIX-MONTH moratorium on July 7, 2026 — but DID NOT HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE TIME. Minnesota's interim ordinance authority permits a county to act first, and several jurisdictions in this dataset used exactly that route to close the filing window before a developer could react; Snohomish County, Washington and Chewelah, Washington both adopted first and heard afterwards. Pine County then held the hearing, and the public used it to ask for more. That is the sequence working as designed: emergency speed first, democratic input second, and the input actually changed the outcome — the term doubled. County Administrator Kelly Schroeder confirmed Pine County has received NO INQUIRIES regarding a possible data center project, so this is an entirely anticipatory measure. The board also heard from East Central Energy CEO Justin Jahnz on data centers in the county, which is notable — the electric cooperative that would serve any such facility briefed the body deciding whether to allow one.","summary_technical":"Pine County, Minn. — data center moratorium EXTENDED FROM SIX MONTHS TO TWELVE by the County Board after public testimony overwhelmingly called for a longer pause. ORIGINAL INSTRUMENT: an INTERIM ORDINANCE authorizing a six-month moratorium, adopted JULY 7, 2026, WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE TIME. PROCEDURAL SIGNIFICANCE: Minnesota's county interim ordinance authority (Minn. Stat. \\u00a7 394.34) permits adoption while official controls are being studied, and does not require a prior hearing \\u2014 the same adopt-first structure recorded on wa-snohomish-county-dc-moratorium-2026 and wa-chewelah-dc-emergency-moratorium-2026, and the mechanism that lets a jurisdiction close the filing window before a developer can react. THIS IS THE CLEAREST CASE IN THIS DATASET OF THAT SEQUENCE WORKING AS INTENDED: the county acted immediately, then held the hearing, and the testimony CHANGED THE OUTCOME \\u2014 the term doubled. Contrast the criticism recorded elsewhere that post-adoption hearings are pro forma. DURATION: 12 months is the Minnesota statutory maximum as stated on the record by a city development director in mn-isanti-dc-moratorium-12mo-2026, so Pine County has extended to the ceiling and has no further headroom under the same authority. POSTURE: County Administrator KELLY SCHROEDER confirmed Pine County has received NO INQUIRIES regarding a possible data center project \\u2014 wholly anticipatory. NOTABLE PARTICIPANT: EAST CENTRAL ENERGY CEO JUSTIN JAHNZ addressed the board on data centers in Pine County. The electric cooperative that would have to serve a facility briefing the body deciding whether to permit one is an input channel not visible in most entries here, and cuts both ways \\u2014 the utility has the load data no one else holds, and a commercial interest in the outcome. effective_date is recorded as the original 2026-07-07 adoption and enacted_date as the extension, with expires_date computed 12 months from the original.","who_is_protected":"Pine County, Minnesota residents","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals in Pine County during the 12-month moratorium","citation":"Pine County, Minn. — data center moratorium extended from six to twelve months (August 18, 2026); original interim ordinance adopted July 7, 2026","source_url":"https://www.pinecountynews.com/communities/north_pine_county/news/pine-county-extends-data-center-moratorium-to-12-months/article_b42d45f3-6362-45be-859f-1b7d8c94f0ea.html","source_title":"Pine County extends data center moratorium to 12 months — North Pine County News / Pine City Pioneer","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Pine County Board of Commissioners / county zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center approvals are paused for the extended 12-month term"},{"id":"co-fremont-county-dc-emergency-moratorium-2026","title":"Fremont County, Colorado — Commissioners Enact an EMERGENCY Six-Month Moratorium on Data Center Construction Despite Having Received No Inquiries At All (August 2026)","short_title":"Fremont County CO emergency data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Fremont County, CO","state_abbr":"CO","county":"Fremont County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-25","enacted_date":"2026-08-25","expires_date":"2027-02-25","last_verified_date":"2026-09-16","summary_plain":"Fremont County commissioners enacted an EMERGENCY moratorium on the construction of data centers, a six-month pause to allow policy and procedure to be put in place. What makes it notable is that nothing prompted it. County Attorney Eric Bellas said plainly: 'We have not had any inquiries with respect to placing data centers in Fremont County' — though, he added, it is not without discussion in other areas of the state. He also gave a balanced framing that is rarer in this dataset than the numbers suggest: 'The public is certainly very aware of data centers and all the challenges they bring with them, as well as all the substantial benefits.' The county resolution itself recites that continuous expansion of digital technologies has created demand for data centers throughout the nation. An EMERGENCY designation adopted with no pending application is worth pausing on. Emergency procedure exists to close a window before something arrives; here the county used it to be prepared rather than to react. That is a defensible posture — several jurisdictions in this dataset lost the project that motivated them because an application, annexation agreement or development agreement landed first — but it also means the emergency label is doing work the facts do not obviously require, which is the sort of thing a developer challenging the measure would raise. Fremont County is in central Colorado, and Colorado has seen a substantial local wave.","summary_technical":"Fremont County, Colo. — EMERGENCY MORATORIUM on the construction of data centers, enacted by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners on a Tuesday in August 2026, providing SIX MONTHS for policy and procedure to be implemented. POSTURE \\u2014 NO TRIGGERING APPLICATION: County Attorney ERIC BELLAS stated 'We have not had any inquiries with respect to placing data centers in Fremont County', though noting discussion elsewhere in the state. RESOLUTION RECITAL: continuous expansion of digital technologies has created demand for data centers throughout the nation. BALANCED FRAMING, recorded because it is less common in this dataset than the volume of restrictive measures implies \\u2014 Bellas: 'The public is certainly very aware of data centers and all the challenges they bring with them, AS WELL AS ALL THE SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS.' THE EMERGENCY DESIGNATION WITH NO PENDING APPLICATION IS THE POINT OF ANALYSIS. Emergency or urgency procedure exists to make a measure effective immediately, closing the filing window a developer could otherwise use \\u2014 and this dataset documents four jurisdictions that failed to do so and lost the project that motivated them: or-salem-dc-moratorium-process-2026 (application filed days before the vote), il-rockford-dc-moratorium-2026 (pre-existing annexation agreement), wa-cle-elum-emergency-dc-moratorium-2026 (2002 development agreement) and litig-lowell-ma-markley-diesel-generator-injunction-2026 (settlement preserving pre-moratorium plans). Using it prophylactically is therefore rational. BUT an emergency finding unsupported by any imminent application is exactly the ground a challenger would attack, and developer suits in this dataset already plead that officials exceeded their authority and acted arbitrarily (litig-nj-developer-suits-municipal-dc-bans-2026, litig-raeden-v-gibraltar-mi-moratorium-challenge-2026). That exposure is FLAGGED, not asserted. COLORADO CONTEXT: local governments across Colorado enacted data center moratoriums during 2026; indexed Colorado measures include co-lochbuie-data-center-moratorium-ord-2026-720, co-aurora-dc-regulations-resolution-2026 and denver-co-dc-moratorium-2026.","who_is_protected":"Fremont County, Colorado residents","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to construct data centers in Fremont County during the six-month emergency moratorium","citation":"Fremont County, Colo. — emergency six-month data center moratorium (enacted August 2026)","source_url":"https://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/2026/08/26/fremont-county-implements-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Fremont County implements data center moratorium — Cañon City Daily Record","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Fremont County Board of Commissioners / county planning and zoning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center construction may not be approved during the six-month emergency moratorium"},{"id":"ny-camden-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Camden, New York — Town Board Unanimously Adopts a Local Data Center Moratorium at a Special Meeting, After a Public Hearing on Water, Electricity and Environmental Effects (August 24, 2026)","short_title":"Camden NY local data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Camden, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"Oneida County","city":"Camden","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-24","enacted_date":"2026-08-24","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"The Camden Town Board unanimously approved a local moratorium on data centers on the evening of Monday, August 24, 2026, as officials and residents raised concerns about the effects such facilities could have on the area. During the public hearing that preceded the vote, concerns were raised about WATER USE, ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION and possible ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. The board acted at a SPECIAL MEETING that had been called for an unrelated reason — to discuss how to proceed following the resignation of the Highway Superintendent — which is a small detail worth recording, because it shows the moratorium was added to an agenda the town was already convening rather than waiting for a regular session. Camden is a town in Oneida County in central New York, the same county whose county board separately adopted a one-year data center moratorium by amending the zoning section that had held an expired livestock facility moratorium. New York is unusual in this dataset for having both a statewide pause and a dense layer of local ones: the governor's executive order imposed the nation's first statewide hyperscale moratorium at a 50-megawatt threshold, and municipalities including Auburn and the Town of Tonawanda legislated deliberately into the gap below it.","summary_technical":"Town of Camden, N.Y. (Oneida County) — LOCAL MORATORIUM on data centers, approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Town Board on the evening of MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 2026, following a public hearing. CONCERNS RAISED AT THE HEARING: WATER USE, ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION and possible ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. PROCEDURAL DETAIL: the board acted at a SPECIAL MEETING convened for an unrelated purpose \\u2014 to discuss how to proceed following the resignation of Highway Superintendent Harold Huntley. A moratorium taken up at an already-scheduled special session rather than held for a regular meeting is a small indicator of urgency, and consistent with the pattern recorded on in-warrick-county-dc-moratorium-2026, where a plan commission suspended its own rules and commissioners convened a 9 a.m. special meeting on consecutive days. NEW YORK LAYERING, which is what makes this entry worth having beyond its size: New York has BOTH a statewide pause AND a dense local layer. ny-hochul-eo-statewide-dc-moratorium-2026 was the nation's first statewide hyperscale moratorium but operates at a 50 MW threshold, leaving everything below it unregulated by the state \\u2014 and ny-auburn-dc-moratorium-2026 and ny-town-of-tonawanda-dc-moratorium-ll2-2026 were both adopted expressly to reach facilities the state measure does not. Camden's local moratorium sits in the same layer. SAME COUNTY: wi-oneida-county-dc-moratorium-2026 is a DIFFERENT Oneida County (Wisconsin); the New York Oneida County containing Camden is distinct and its own measures are not indexed. GAPS: NO TERM OR EXPIRY is reported for the Camden moratorium, so expires_date is null rather than inferred, and no threshold or definition is stated.","who_is_protected":"Town of Camden residents in Oneida County, New York; local water supply and electrical capacity","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals in the Town of Camden during the moratorium","citation":"Town of Camden, N.Y. — local data center moratorium (adopted August 24, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.romesentinel.com/news/camden-town-board-data-center-moratorium/article_c7340b39-31b6-4422-9f92-148233c934f7.html","source_title":"Camden adopts local moratorium on data centers — Rome Sentinel","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Camden Town Board / town zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center approvals are paused under the local moratorium"},{"id":"pa-ligonier-township-dc-zoning-regulations-2026","title":"Ligonier Township, Pennsylvania — Supervisors Unanimously Add a New Zoning Code Section Dictating Where Data Centers May Be Built and What Conditions Developers Must Meet, With Residents Warning About Community Benefits Agreements (August 2026)","short_title":"Ligonier Township PA data center zoning regulations (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Ligonier Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Westmoreland County","city":"Ligonier Township","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-25","enacted_date":"2026-08-25","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"Ligonier Township now has regulations dictating WHERE data centers can be built and WHAT CONDITIONS developers must meet before breaking ground. The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a number of changes to the zoning code at its Tuesday meeting in August 2026, including a brand-new section outlining regulations for data centers, following a public hearing. This is a permanent standards ordinance rather than a pause — the township chose to define the terms of entry instead of buying time. Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer Rick Krouse and Solicitor Dan Hudock attended alongside the full board. One resident's comment is worth preserving because it names a risk that recurs across this dataset without usually being articulated. Chloe West told the supervisors that IF COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENTS between the township and data center developers FALL SHORT, TAXPAYERS MAY HAVE TO ABSORB COSTS from the centers overburdening utilities. Community benefits agreements are the mechanism New Jersey built into its statewide framework and that Pennsylvania's own executive order addresses from a different direction by banning data center non-disclosure agreements outright. West's point is that a CBA is only as good as its terms, and a township negotiating alone against a hyperscale developer may not get terms that cover what the facility actually costs the community. Ligonier Township is in Westmoreland County, east of Pittsburgh.","summary_technical":"Ligonier Township, Pa. (Westmoreland County) — ZONING CODE AMENDMENT adding a NEW SECTION regulating data centers, approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Board of Supervisors at its Tuesday meeting in August 2026 following a public hearing. OPERATIVE EFFECT: the township now has regulations dictating WHERE data centers can be built AND WHAT CONDITIONS developers must meet before breaking ground. INSTRUMENT CLASS: a permanent standards ordinance, not a moratorium \\u2014 the township defined terms of entry rather than buying drafting time, the same choice recorded on mi-corunna-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026, in-portage-technology-campus-district-2026 and mo-joplin-dc-regulations-2026. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer Rick Krouse, Solicitor Dan Hudock, and the full board \\u2014 Chair John Beaufort, Vice Chair Paul Knupp, Supervisors Dan Resenic, Stephanie Verna and Wade Stoner. THE RESIDENT COMMENT IS RECORDED BECAUSE IT NAMES A STRUCTURAL RISK THIS DATASET OTHERWISE ONLY IMPLIES: Chloe West warned that IF COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENTS between the township and data center developers FALL SHORT, TAXPAYERS MAY HAVE TO ABSORB COSTS from the centers OVERBURDENING UTILITIES. CBAs are a central mechanism in nj-s3379-a4096-data-center-transparency-2026, whose fourth pillar equips municipalities with state guidance and EDA/DEP/BPU technical assistance for CBA negotiation \\u2014 an acknowledgement that a municipality bargaining alone is outmatched. Pennsylvania approached the same asymmetry from the opposite direction: pa-eo-2026-05-data-center-grid-requirements-2026 PROHIBITS data center non-disclosure agreements outright, so a township at least negotiates in public. West's objection is that transparency and assistance still do not guarantee terms that cover the facility's true municipal cost, and that the residual falls on ratepayers and taxpayers. NO SPECIFIC STANDARDS \\u2014 setbacks, height, noise limits, load thresholds \\u2014 are stated in the located source, which is the material gap on this entry.","who_is_protected":"Ligonier Township residents in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania; township utility ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Developers proposing data centers in Ligonier Township, subject to the new zoning section's siting restrictions and pre-construction conditions","citation":"Ligonier Township, Pa. — zoning code amendment adding data center regulations (adopted August 2026)","source_url":"https://www.latrobebulletinnews.com/news/ligonier-township-supervisors-pass-ordinance-regulating-data-centers/article_93557ed5-80be-4b2e-a593-b1284f049d39.html","source_title":"Ligonier Township supervisors pass ordinance regulating data centers — The Latrobe Bulletin","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Ligonier Township Zoning and Code Enforcement / Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data centers may be built only where the new zoning section permits and only on meeting its conditions"},{"id":"pa-norristown-dc-ordinance-2026","title":"Norristown, Pennsylvania — Municipal Council Adopts Ordinance 26-04 Setting 14 Mandatory Submittal Categories for Data Centers, With 1,000-Foot Separation From Residential Uses, in a Unanimous 7-0 Vote (August 18, 2026)","short_title":"Norristown PA data center ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Norristown, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Montgomery County","city":"Norristown","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-18","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","last_verified_date":"2026-10-06","summary_plain":"Norristown Municipal Council adopted Ordinance 26-04 in a unanimous 7-0 roll-call vote on August 18, 2026, after a public hearing. The ordinance establishes CONDITIONAL-USE ZONING for data centers in the Heavy Industrial (HI) district and imposes 14 mandatory submittal categories including energy-usage plans, water-usage and thermal-impact mitigation, pre- and post-construction noise studies with low-frequency sound analysis, air pollution and plume studies, an emergency-response plan, electronic-waste plan, and a decommissioning plan with posted financial security. Physical standards for larger facilities: 5-acre minimum parcel, 60-foot maximum building height, 250-foot setback from property lines, and 1,000-foot separation from residential and other sensitive uses. Norristown is the county seat of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and this entry sits inside an unusually dense southeastern Pennsylvania cluster. Pennsylvania also has the most aggressive state-level instrument in this dataset — Governor Shapiro's executive order conditioning state permit review on prior local approval and prohibiting data center non-disclosure agreements outright. Municipalities in the state are therefore drafting with more leverage and more information than most of their counterparts elsewhere.","summary_technical":"Municipality of Norristown, Pa. (Montgomery County) — DATA CENTER ORDINANCE passed by Norristown Municipal Council, reported AUGUST 21, 2026, following public comment from area residents. CHARACTERISATION: the unanimous action is described as outlining STRINGENT CRITERIA for proposed data centers. Council members David McMahon, Jasmine Griffen and Will McCoy are identified as present. INSTRUMENT CLASS: a standards ordinance rather than a moratorium. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA CLUSTER, which is the context that gives this entry weight: pa-falls-township-zoning-curative-amendment-dc-2026 (Bucks County \\u2014 declaring its own ordinance substantively invalid to control the curative remedy and foreclose developer validity challenges), MORRISVILLE BOROUGH (six-month waiting period, unindexed lead), MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP (unanimous zoning amendment with extensive data center regulations, queued), WHITEMARSH TOWNSHIP (moving to advertise, with WEST CONSHOHOCKEN and UPPER MERION having previously adopted similar ordinances \\u2014 all unindexed leads), and pa-ligonier-township-dc-zoning-regulations-2026 in Westmoreland County. STATE-LEVEL LEVERAGE: pa-eo-2026-05-data-center-grid-requirements-2026 gates DEP permit review on a developer having ALREADY OBTAINED LOCAL APPROVAL and on a legally binding GRID commitment, removes AI data centers from Fast Track permitting, and PROHIBITS DATA CENTER NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS. Pennsylvania municipalities therefore negotiate with information and sequencing advantages that municipalities in most other states in this dataset lack \\u2014 which is the likely explanation for the density and sophistication of the local instruments emerging there. THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA ADOPTED BY NORRISTOWN ARE NOT STATED in the located source and are the material gap; this entry should not be cited for particular requirements.","who_is_protected":"Norristown residents in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania","who_must_comply":"Developers proposing data centers in Norristown, subject to the ordinance's criteria","citation":"Municipality of Norristown, Pa. — Ordinance 26-04 (adopted August 18, 2026, 7-0 unanimous vote)","source_url":"https://www.timesherald.com/2026/08/21/norristown-council-adopts-data-center-ordinance/","source_title":"Norristown council adopts data center ordinance — The Times Herald","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Municipality of Norristown zoning administration / Norristown Municipal Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Proposed data centers must satisfy the ordinance's criteria"},{"id":"oh-athens-county-township-dc-moratoria-2026","title":"Athens County, Ohio — Athens Township Trustees, Athens City Council and the Athens County Commissioners All Adopt Data Center Moratoria Within Days of Each Other, While Conserve Ohio Gathers Signatures for a STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Banning Hyperscale Data Centers (August 2026)","short_title":"Athens County OH township and county data center moratoria (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Athens County, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Athens County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-01","enacted_date":"2026-08-01","expires_date":"2027-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-21","summary_plain":"Three separate governments in Athens County, Ohio adopted data center moratoria within days of each other. Athens TOWNSHIP trustees passed a ONE-YEAR moratorium on data center development on August 1, 2026. Athens CITY Council passed a similar resolution on August 3 — that measure is indexed separately as Ordinance 70-26. And the Athens COUNTY Commissioners declared a moratorium later the same month. Recording the township and county measures alongside the city one matters because of a limitation already documented for Athens: the CITY moratorium does NOT reach the site that prompted it, because that land lies OUTSIDE the city limits. A township moratorium and a county moratorium close exactly that gap. Anyone assessing whether a parcel in Athens County is covered has to check all three instruments, not just the city ordinance that got the most coverage. The wider Ohio development in this record is more consequential than any of the three. A grassroots organisation called CONSERVE OHIO is gathering petition signatures for a PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION that would BAN CONSTRUCTION OF HYPERSCALE DATA CENTERS IN OHIO. No other measure in this dataset attempts a constitutional prohibition. If it qualified for the ballot and passed, it would sit above every municipal and county instrument indexed here for Ohio and would be far harder to undo than an ordinance. That petition drive is recorded as a lead, not an enacted measure — signature gathering is not qualification, and qualification is not adoption.","summary_technical":"Athens County, Ohio — THREE OVERLAPPING MORATORIA adopted by separate governments within days: (1) ATHENS TOWNSHIP TRUSTEES passed a ONE-YEAR moratorium on data center development on AUGUST 1, 2026; (2) ATHENS CITY COUNCIL passed a similar resolution on AUGUST 3, 2026 \\u2014 indexed separately as oh-athens-dc-moratorium-ord-70-26; (3) the ATHENS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS declared a moratorium later in August 2026. WHY THE TOWNSHIP AND COUNTY MEASURES MATTER SEPARATELY FROM THE CITY ONE: oh-athens-dc-moratorium-ord-70-26 records that the city moratorium DOES NOT REACH the site that inspired it \\u2014 a New York developer's interest in land across the highway from Athens High School \\u2014 BECAUSE THAT SITE LIES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. Municipal authority stops at the corporate boundary. A TOWNSHIP moratorium and a COUNTY moratorium are the instruments that reach unincorporated land, and their existence changes the coverage answer for any parcel in the county. A practitioner checking whether a site is restricted must consult all three. NOTE THE OHIO STRUCTURE: Ohio townships have limited zoning authority and counties zone only unincorporated territory that has adopted county zoning, so the three instruments are not simply nested \\u2014 their combined coverage should be confirmed parcel by parcel rather than assumed complete. THE STATE-LEVEL LEAD IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ITEM IN THIS RECORD: CONSERVE OHIO, a grassroots organisation, is GATHERING PETITION SIGNATURES FOR A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE OHIO STATE CONSTITUTION THAT WOULD BAN CONSTRUCTION OF HYPERSCALE DATA CENTERS IN THE STATE. NO OTHER MEASURE IN THIS DATASET \\u2014 municipal, county, state statutory or executive \\u2014 attempts a constitutional prohibition. A constitutional ban would sit above every Ohio instrument indexed here and would be materially harder to repeal than legislation. IT IS RECORDED AS A LEAD AND NOT AS A MEASURE: signature gathering is not ballot qualification, and qualification is not adoption. Ohio's other indexed local measures include oh-canton-dc-zoning-chapter-2026, oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026, oh-miamisburg-dc-moratorium-2026, oh-clearcreek-township-dc-permit-moratorium-2026 and oh-amherst-bza-nordson-data-center-variance-denial-2026; the state separately became the first to require AI policies in public schools (oh-school-ai-policy-mandate-2026).","who_is_protected":"Athens County, Ohio residents \\u2014 including those on unincorporated land the city moratorium cannot reach","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals in Athens Township, in unincorporated Athens County, or within the City of Athens","citation":"Athens County, Ohio — Athens Township one-year data center moratorium (August 1, 2026) and Athens County Commissioners' moratorium (August 2026)","source_url":"https://athensindependent.com/data-centers-across-appalachian-ohio/","source_title":"Appalachian Ohio a target for data centers — Athens County Independent","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Athens Township Board of Trustees; Athens County Board of Commissioners; City of Athens (separately)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center development approvals are paused under each of the three instruments within its own territory"},{"id":"mi-marshall-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Marshall, Michigan — City Council Unanimously Adopts a One-Year Data Center Moratorium, Followed by CREDIBLE THREATS Against Councilmembers Paid $300 a Year (August 2026)","short_title":"Marshall MI one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Marshall, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Calhoun County","city":"Marshall","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-18","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","expires_date":"2027-08-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"Marshall City Council unanimously approved a one-year moratorium on new data center development in August 2026. A city official, Hackworth, was explicit about what the measure is and is not: the moratorium is NOT A VOTE FOR OR AGAINST DATA CENTERS but is meant to give the city time to review and strengthen its ordinances before considering projects of that scale. That framing appears repeatedly across this dataset, and it is usually accurate — most moratoriums buy drafting time rather than express a policy against the use. What happened next is why this entry is recorded rather than folded into a list. CREDIBLE THREATS were made against members of the Marshall City Council over the data center dispute, following the moratorium's passage. Councilmember Ryan Traver addressed the threat publicly, writing that 'we are neighbors first' and that council members — who are paid THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS A YEAR for their service — 'deserve better than this.' This dataset documents a great deal of public anger about data centers: chambers packed beyond capacity in Canton and Amherst, residents turned away into the rain, hour-long comment periods, petition drives. Marshall is the point at which that anger produced threats against unpaid local officials deciding a land-use question. It belongs in the record of what this policy fight has actually cost the people administering it.","summary_technical":"City of Marshall, Mich. (Calhoun County) — ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM on new data center development, approved UNANIMOUSLY by the City Council in August 2026. STATED CHARACTER, per city official Hackworth: the moratorium 'is not a vote for or against data centers' but is intended to give the city time to REVIEW AND STRENGTHEN ITS ORDINANCES before considering projects of that scale \\u2014 the drafting-time rationale that characterises most instruments in this dataset. THE AFTERMATH IS THE REASON FOR A SEPARATE ENTRY: CREDIBLE THREATS WERE MADE AGAINST MARSHALL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS over the data center dispute following the moratorium's passage. Councilmember RYAN TRAVER responded publicly that 'we are neighbors first' and that council members, PAID $300 A YEAR for their service, 'deserve better than this.' CONTEXT FROM THIS DATASET, which makes the escalation legible rather than anomalous: oh-canton-dc-zoning-chapter-2026 records more than 50 residents speaking in unanimous opposition with dozens turned away from City Hall into the rain; oh-amherst-bza-nordson-data-center-variance-denial-2026 records over 100 attendees spilling onto the lawn and around the block; wi-town-of-janesville-dc-moratorium-2026 records a hearing relocated to a convention centre; nm-sierra-county-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026 records more than an hour of public comment converting a non-binding resolution into an 18-month moratorium on the floor. Intense public participation is the norm in this policy area. THREATS AGAINST OFFICIALS ARE NOT, and this is the only instance located in the entire triage. It is recorded because the governance cost of these decisions \\u2014 borne by part-time, nominally paid local officials \\u2014 is a real feature of the 2026 data center record and is invisible in any register that indexes only the instruments themselves. MICHIGAN CONTEXT: mi-garfield-township-dc-crypto-moratorium-2026, mi-corunna-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026, mi-east-lansing-dc-moratorium-extension-2026, mi-ypsilanti-township-electric-utility-moratorium-2026, mi-utica-dc-moratorium-extension-2026 and litig-raeden-v-gibraltar-mi-moratorium-challenge-2026 are all indexed.","who_is_protected":"Marshall, Michigan residents in Calhoun County","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking new data center approvals in Marshall during the moratorium year","citation":"City of Marshall, Mich. — one-year data center moratorium (approved August 2026)","source_url":"https://wwmt.com/news/local/marshall-threat-council-city-data-center-dispute-moratorium-project","source_title":"'Credible' threats over data center dispute made against Marshall City Council — WWMT","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Marshall / Marshall City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"New data center development may not be approved during the one-year moratorium"},{"id":"fl-panama-city-bay-county-dc-moratoria-2026","title":"Panama City and Bay County, Florida — City Adopts a 12-Month Moratorium on AI Data Center Applications While the County Approves a Separate Six-Month Ban to Review Land Development Regulations (2026)","short_title":"Panama City and Bay County FL data center moratoria (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Panama City, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Bay County","city":"Panama City","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-15","enacted_date":"2026-07-15","expires_date":"2027-07-15","last_verified_date":"2026-10-06","summary_plain":"Two governments in the Florida panhandle acted on data centers within the same period, at different lengths and for different stated purposes. PANAMA CITY implemented a TWELVE-MONTH moratorium on AI data center applications. BAY COUNTY commissioners separately approved a SIX-MONTH BAN to review land development regulations. The pairing is the useful part: the city paused applications for a year while the county gave itself half that time to rewrite the regulations that would govern any facility in unincorporated territory. A developer looking at the Panama City area therefore faces two different clocks and two different territorial scopes, and the earlier county expiry does not open the city. This is the standard Florida county-municipality split — county land-use authority reaches unincorporated areas only — and the same structure recorded here for Escambia County and Pensacola. The measures surfaced in coverage of a gubernatorial campaign visit: Democratic nominee David Jolly and running mate Gwen Graham proposed an IMMEDIATE, ONE-YEAR STATEWIDE MORATORIUM on construction of hyperscale AI data centers, with Jolly framing it as a temporary pause rather than an outright ban, to give Florida time to study long-term environmental, economic and health impacts. That statewide proposal is a campaign position, not a measure, and is recorded as context only.","summary_technical":"PANAMA CITY, Fla. and BAY COUNTY, Fla. — two separate data center measures in place as of late August 2026. (1) PANAMA CITY: a 12-MONTH MORATORIUM ON AI DATA CENTER APPLICATIONS. (2) BAY COUNTY: a SIX-MONTH BAN approved by county commissioners TO REVIEW LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE PAIRING IS WHAT MAKES THIS WORTH A SINGLE ENTRY: the two instruments differ in length (12 months vs 6), in subject framing (applications for AI data centers vs a ban pending regulatory review), and necessarily in territory. Florida county land-use authority reaches UNINCORPORATED areas; the municipality legislates for itself. A developer in the Panama City area therefore faces two clocks and two jurisdictions, and the county's earlier expiry does NOT open the city. The same county/municipality split is recorded on fl-escambia-county-large-dc-ban-2026, whose ban expressly excludes the City of Pensacola and the Town of Century, and on md-dorchester-county-dc-moratorium-2026, where the council noted each municipality must legislate for itself. CAMPAIGN CONTEXT, recorded as context and NOT as a measure: Democratic gubernatorial nominee DAVID JOLLY and running mate GWEN GRAHAM proposed an IMMEDIATE ONE-YEAR STATEWIDE MORATORIUM on construction of hyperscale AI data centers during a Panama City visit, with Jolly stating that a temporary moratorium rather than an outright ban would give the state time to study long-term environmental, economic and health impacts, and that 'voters across the state of Florida right now are saying we don't want data centers.' A campaign proposal is not an instrument. FLORIDA COHORT indexed here: fl-levy-county-dc-moratorium-ord-2026-05, fl-putnam-county-dc-moratorium-2026, fl-palm-beach-county-hyperscale-moratorium-pending-2026, fl-escambia-county-large-dc-ban-2026, fl-flagler-county-dc-moratorium-2026 and fl-fdot-alpr-permit-revocation-2026.","who_is_protected":"Panama City residents and residents of unincorporated Bay County, Florida","who_must_comply":"Applicants for AI data centers in Panama City (12 months) and developers in unincorporated Bay County (six months)","citation":"Panama City, Fla. — 12-month AI data center application moratorium (July 15, 2026); Bay County, Fla. — six-month moratorium pending land development regulation review (July 8, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wjhg.com/2026/07/15/panama-city-hits-pause-ai-data-centers-with-12-month-moratorium/","source_title":"Panama City hits pause on AI data centers with 12-month moratorium — WJHG","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Panama City Commission; Bay County Board of County Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"AI data center applications are not accepted in Panama City during the 12-month term; covered development is banned in unincorporated Bay County during the six-month review"},{"id":"az-tusd-ai-policy-revisions-2026","title":"Tucson Unified School District, Arizona — Governing Board Votes 3-2 to EXPAND Student AI Access, Adding Agentic AI to the Policy Definition and Opening Approved Platforms to Middle Schoolers, Over Dissent That the Policy Should Be More Prohibitive (2026)","short_title":"Tucson Unified School District AI policy revisions (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Tucson, AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Pima County","city":"Tucson","topics":["education","children","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-10-06","summary_plain":"Tucson Unified School District's governing board approved a trio of AI policy revisions in a close 3-2 vote, and the direction is the opposite of most school AI measures in this dataset: TUSD EXPANDED student access rather than restricting it. The revisions do three things. They EXPAND THE AI DEFINITION TO INCLUDE AGENTIC AI — systems that take actions rather than only generating text, which most district policies written a year earlier do not contemplate at all. They ALLOW MIDDLE SCHOOLERS access to approved AI-enhanced platforms such as CodeHS and Canva. And they ADDRESS EMBEDDED AI IN PRODUCTIVITY SUITES, which is the provision most districts are missing entirely — AI features now ship inside the word processors and presentation tools schools already license, so a policy that governs only standalone AI tools does not reach most of the AI a student actually touches. The dissent is recorded because it is substantive rather than procedural. Board members Val Romero and Sadie Shaw voted no, and Shaw explained why: 'I do think our district needs to have a policy, but personally, I would like our policy to be more prohibitive.' That is a disagreement about direction inside a district that already accepts it needs rules. Set against New York City's one-year prohibition for grades 2-K through 8, and Haddonfield New Jersey's proposed K-5 ban, TUSD represents the permissive pole of the same 2026 debate — and it arrived there by two votes.","summary_technical":"Tucson Unified School District, Ariz. (Pima County) — THREE AI POLICY REVISIONS approved by the governing board in a CLOSE 3-2 VOTE at a Tuesday evening meeting. DISSENTING: board members VAL ROMERO and SADIE SHAW. THE REVISIONS EXPAND RATHER THAN RESTRICT STUDENT AI ACCESS: (1) EXPANDING THE AI DEFINITION TO INCLUDE AGENTIC AI \\u2014 systems that take actions on a user's behalf rather than only producing output. Most district policies in this dataset were drafted around generative AI and do not contemplate agentic systems at all, so this is definitional catch-up ahead of the field. (2) ALLOWING MIDDLE SCHOOLERS ACCESS to approved AI-enhanced platforms including CodeHS and Canva. (3) ADDRESSING EMBEDDED AI IN PRODUCTIVITY SUITES \\u2014 THE MOST IMPORTANT AND LEAST COMMON PROVISION. AI features now ship inside the word processing, presentation and spreadsheet tools districts already license; a policy governing only standalone AI tools fails to reach the majority of AI a student actually encounters, and leaves staff without guidance on software the district itself procured. Almost no other district policy indexed here addresses it. POSITION IN THE 2026 SPECTRUM: TUSD sits at the PERMISSIVE POLE. Contrast nyc-doe-generative-ai-school-moratorium-2026 (one-year prohibition, grades 2-K through 8, ~600,000 students) and nj-haddonfield-schools-genai-policy-first-reading-2026 (proposed total K-5 prohibition with supervised graduated access above). fl-wakulla-county-schools-ai-policy-2026 is permissive but conditions use on PII and bias-review rules; md-caroline-county-schools-ai-policy-2026 enumerates 23+ prohibited uses. DISSENT ON DIRECTION, NOT PROCESS \\u2014 Shaw: 'I do think our district needs to have a policy, but personally, I would like our policy to be more prohibitive.' A 3-2 margin means the permissive direction is not settled in the district. strength is `limited`: the revisions expand access and add definitional coverage rather than creating enforceable protections. STATE CONTEXT: Arizona's indexed measures are dominated by data center items (az-pima-county-dc-moratorium-2026, tucson-az-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026); this is among the few Arizona education AI entries.","who_is_protected":"Tucson Unified School District students and staff, through defined rules covering agentic and embedded AI rather than an absence of guidance","who_must_comply":"TUSD staff and students; district procurement of AI-enhanced platforms and productivity suites","citation":"Tucson Unified School District, Ariz. — AI policy revisions adopted 3-2 (2026)","source_url":"https://tucson.com/news/local/education/precollegiate/article_60e3206d-d25f-4fb7-8a43-abc0416fe.html","source_title":"More TUSD students to have access to AI in classroom — Arizona Daily Star","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Tucson Unified School District Governing Board and administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"sc-york-school-district-ai-responsible-use-2026","title":"York School District, South Carolina — First District in York County to Enact an Official 'Artificial Intelligence Responsible Use' Policy, Adopted Unanimously by the Board of Trustees on August 11, 2026","short_title":"York School District SC AI Responsible Use policy (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"York County, SC","state_abbr":"SC","county":"York County","topics":["education","children","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-11","enacted_date":"2026-08-11","last_verified_date":"2026-10-06","summary_plain":"The York School District is the FIRST of York County, South Carolina's four school districts to enact an official policy for 'ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RESPONSIBLE USE.' The district's Board of Trustees approved it unanimously in August 2026, as York County's districts made decisions about screen time, AI and technology use for the returning 2026-27 school year. The 'first in the county' framing is the part worth recording, because it marks where the diffusion curve actually was in South Carolina. Ohio had by then become the first state to REQUIRE every public school district to have an AI policy, and Maryland's AI Ready Schools Act obliges every local education agency to adopt one within 120 days of state guidance. South Carolina had no such mandate, so districts there were acting one at a time and on their own initiative — and in York County, three of four still had not. A district adopting voluntarily in a state without a mandate is doing something different from one complying with a deadline: it has to write or source the policy itself, with no state model to fall back on. The contrast with Ohio's approach, where a district that does nothing else can simply adopt the state's own model policy, is the practical argument for state-level mandates with default text. The policy's substantive terms are not stated in the located source.","summary_technical":"York School District, S.C. (York County) — 'ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RESPONSIBLE USE' policy, approved UNANIMOUSLY by the district's Board of Trustees in August 2026, ahead of the 2026-27 school year. FIRST-IN-COUNTY: the source identifies York as the FIRST of York County's FOUR school districts to enact an official AI policy, in a county where the districts were collectively making decisions about screen time, AI and technology use. WHY THE DIFFUSION POINT MATTERS: South Carolina had NO STATE MANDATE requiring district AI policies. Contrast oh-school-ai-policy-mandate-2026, under which Ohio became the FIRST STATE to require every public school district to adopt one \\u2014 with the option of simply adopting the Ohio Department of Education's model policy \\u2014 and md-sb720-ai-ready-schools-act-2026, which obliges every Maryland local education agency to adopt a policy within 120 DAYS of MSDE guidance and directs the state to publish an evaluative rubric for AI tools. A DISTRICT ACTING VOLUNTARILY IN A NO-MANDATE STATE FACES A DIFFERENT PROBLEM from one meeting a deadline: it must source or draft the policy itself with no state model, no evaluative rubric and no shared baseline, which is precisely the capacity gap the Ohio and Maryland designs address. That three of York County's four districts had not yet acted illustrates the uneven coverage a voluntary regime produces. ADDITIONAL CONTEXT from the same report: the Clover district went one-to-one with iPads and MacBooks for K-12 students in 2011-12, per Superintendent Sheila Quinn \\u2014 a reminder that these districts have been making device and platform decisions for well over a decade and that AI policy lands on top of existing technology commitments. THE POLICY'S SUBSTANTIVE TERMS ARE NOT STATED in the located source and are the material gap on this entry.","who_is_protected":"York School District students and staff in York County, South Carolina","who_must_comply":"York School District staff and students","citation":"York School District, S.C. — Artificial Intelligence Responsible Use policy (adopted August 11, 2026, unanimous Board of Trustees vote)","source_url":"https://www.postandcourier.com/york-county/news/york-county-school-districts-ai-technology/article_add6b5ac-f5c0-49cc-a8c9-0caab8afd943.html","source_title":"How York County schools are navigating AI and technology in the classroom — The Post and Courier","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"York School District Board of Trustees and administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"mi-groveland-township-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Groveland Township, Michigan — Board of Trustees Votes 5-0 to Enact a Temporary One-Year Data Center Moratorium in February 2026, Pausing Expansion Into Rural Areas, Followed by a Local Committee Impact Study","short_title":"Groveland Township MI one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Groveland Township, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Oakland County","city":"Groveland Township","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-02-01","enacted_date":"2026-02-01","expires_date":"2027-02-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-16","summary_plain":"The Groveland Township Board of Trustees voted 5-0 in FEBRUARY 2026 to enact a temporary ONE-YEAR moratorium on data centers, pausing their expansion into rural areas. A local committee later delivered a data center impact study, which is the follow-through most moratoriums promise and comparatively few are shown to complete. The date is what makes this entry worth having. February 2026 is early. The overwhelming majority of local measures in this dataset were adopted between June and September 2026, during a wave that followed a summer of proposals, packed hearings and state-level action. Groveland Township acted months before that, when data center moratoriums were still unusual rather than routine — and it did so unanimously, in a rural township in Oakland County, Michigan. Recording early adopters matters for reading the rest of the dataset correctly: a jurisdiction that paused in February was not following a trend, and the reasons it gave are less likely to be borrowed from a neighbouring council's template. It also means Groveland's moratorium is among the first in this dataset due to EXPIRE — a one-year term from February 2026 runs out in February 2027 — so the operative question for this township is now whether permanent regulations emerged from the impact study before the pause lapses.","summary_technical":"Groveland Township, Mich. (Oakland County) — TEMPORARY ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM on data centers, enacted by a 5-0 vote of the Board of Trustees in FEBRUARY 2026, pausing data center expansion into rural areas. FOLLOW-THROUGH: a LOCAL COMMITTEE subsequently DELIVERED A DATA CENTER IMPACT STUDY \\u2014 the deliverable most moratoriums in this dataset promise and few are documented as producing. THE ADOPTION DATE IS THE ANALYTICALLY SIGNIFICANT FACT. The overwhelming majority of local instruments indexed here were adopted between JUNE and SEPTEMBER 2026, in a wave that followed statewide action (ny-hochul-eo-statewide-dc-moratorium-2026 in July, pa-eo-2026-05-data-center-grid-requirements-2026 in August), a summer of packed hearings and heavy syndicated coverage. Groveland Township acted in FEBRUARY, months ahead of that wave, when a municipal data center moratorium was still an unusual instrument rather than a template circulating between councils. EARLY ADOPTERS SHOULD BE READ DIFFERENTLY from wave participants: their stated rationales are less likely to be borrowed, and their drafting reflects local analysis rather than a neighbouring jurisdiction's ordinance. EXPIRY CONSEQUENCE: a one-year term from February 2026 lapses in FEBRUARY 2027, placing Groveland among the EARLIEST MORATORIUMS IN THIS DATASET TO EXPIRE. The operative question is therefore whether permanent regulations emerged from the committee's impact study before the pause ends \\u2014 the transition this dataset documents at oh-clearcreek-township-dc-permit-moratorium-2026, which records Dayton converting a 180-day April 2026 pause into a permanent June 2026 zoning prohibition. MICHIGAN COHORT: mi-garfield-township-dc-crypto-moratorium-2026, mi-corunna-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026, mi-east-lansing-dc-moratorium-extension-2026, mi-ypsilanti-township-electric-utility-moratorium-2026, mi-utica-dc-moratorium-extension-2026, mi-marshall-dc-moratorium-2026 and litig-raeden-v-gibraltar-mi-moratorium-challenge-2026.","who_is_protected":"Groveland Township residents in Oakland County, Michigan, particularly in rural areas","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals in Groveland Township during the one-year moratorium","citation":"Groveland Township, Mich. — temporary one-year data center moratorium (enacted 5-0, February 2026)","source_url":"https://www.thecitizenonline.com/local-committee-delivers-data-center-impact-study/","source_title":"Local committee delivers Data Center impact study — The Citizen","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Groveland Township Board of Trustees / township zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center approvals are paused for the one-year term"},{"id":"il-champaign-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Champaign County, Illinois — County Board Unanimously Passes a One-Year Data Center Moratorium in April 2026 After More Than 100 Residents Packed the Chamber Carrying 'Protect Our Water' Signs, Creating a Task Force to Write Zoning Standards for Undeveloped Land","short_title":"Champaign County IL one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Champaign County, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Champaign County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-04-23","enacted_date":"2026-04-23","expires_date":"2027-04-23","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"The Champaign County Board UNANIMOUSLY passed a one-year data center moratorium in April 2026, giving a newly created task force time to develop ZONING STANDARDS FOR UNDEVELOPED LAND in the county. More than a hundred people packed the county board's tight chambers on April 23, 2026, carrying signs reading 'PROTECT OUR WATER' and 'APPROVE THE MORATORIUM,' to support pressing pause on large-scale data center development. Two things make this entry worth recording beyond the measure itself. The timing is early — April 2026, well before the June-to-September wave that produced most of the local instruments in this dataset, and at a point when a county pausing data centers was still unusual. And the task force's remit is unusually precise: not 'study data centers' in the abstract, but develop zoning standards for UNDEVELOPED LAND. That framing identifies the actual exposure for a largely agricultural county in east central Illinois — large parcels with no existing use designation, which is exactly what a hyperscale developer looks for and exactly the category most rural zoning codes address least. A county that names undeveloped land as the problem is further along in its analysis than one that simply pauses everything. Illinois context: the state's POWER Act stalled in the spring session, which is why Ottawa extended its own moratorium into 2027 explicitly to wait for state rules that never came.","summary_technical":"Champaign County, Ill. — ONE-YEAR DATA CENTER MORATORIUM passed UNANIMOUSLY by the County Board in APRIL 2026. TASK FORCE REMIT, and the analytically interesting part: the moratorium gives a NEW TASK FORCE time to DEVELOP ZONING STANDARDS FOR UNDEVELOPED LAND IN THE COUNTY. That is a materially more precise mandate than the open-ended 'study the impacts' remit most moratoriums in this dataset confer. UNDEVELOPED LAND IS THE CORRECT TARGET for a largely agricultural county: large unzoned or minimally-zoned parcels are what a hyperscale developer seeks, and rural codes typically address them least \\u2014 the same structural gap that let a data center be readable as a WAREHOUSE in oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026 and that Forest Park, Georgia discovered when Digital Realty built BY RIGHT (ga-forest-park-dc-moratorium-2026). PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: more than 100 people packed the county board chambers on APRIL 23, 2026 carrying signs reading 'PROTECT OUR WATER' and 'APPROVE THE MORATORIUM'. TIMING: April 2026 places Champaign County among the EARLY ADOPTERS, months ahead of the June-September 2026 wave that produced the majority of instruments indexed here, and before the statewide actions (ny-hochul-eo-statewide-dc-moratorium-2026 in July, pa-eo-2026-05-data-center-grid-requirements-2026 in August) that accelerated it. EXPIRY: a one-year term from April 2026 lapses around APRIL 2027 \\u2014 among the earlier expiries in this dataset, alongside mi-groveland-township-dc-moratorium-2026 (February 2027). ILLINOIS CONTEXT: the state POWER Act STALLED in the spring 2026 legislative session, which is the express reason il-ottawa-dc-moratorium-extension-2027 extended through 2027-08-25 \\u2014 Illinois counties and municipalities have been acting without the state framework they expected. Other indexed Illinois measures: il-rockford-dc-moratorium-2026 and il-godfrey-dc-moratorium-extension-2026.","who_is_protected":"Champaign County, Illinois residents; county groundwater and agricultural land","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking large-scale data center approvals in Champaign County during the one-year moratorium","citation":"Champaign County, Ill. — one-year data center moratorium (passed unanimously, April 2026)","source_url":"https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/07/05/as-people-protest-data-centers-across-the-heartland","source_title":"As people protest data centers across the Heartland, lawmakers rush to regulate — MPR News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Champaign County Board; county zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Large-scale data center development may not be approved during the one-year moratorium"},{"id":"ny-highlands-dc-moratorium-3yr-2026","title":"Highlands, New York — Board Approves a THREE-YEAR Data Center Moratorium After a Nearly Two-Hour Public Hearing at Which Residents Expressed Emotions Ranging From Concern to Fear (2026)","short_title":"Highlands NY three-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Highlands, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"Putnam County","city":"Highlands","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","expires_date":"2029-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-16","summary_plain":"The Highlands board approved a THREE-YEAR data center moratorium after a nearly two-hour public hearing at which residents aired emotions ranging from concern to fear. Three years is at the extreme end of any local pause in this dataset, matched only by five Arkansas counties and exceeded only by a reported five-year moratorium in Independence County, Arkansas. It is also well beyond the ceilings municipal officials elsewhere in this record have stated on the record: a Minnesota development director advised that twelve months is that state's statutory maximum, a Wisconsin village administrator described twelve months plus one six-month extension, and a Nevada city attorney assessed moratoriums as defensible for roughly twelve to eighteen months before permanent code changes are required. New York's enabling law for town moratoria is not identified in the located source, and a three-year pause may rest on a different footing there — but the gap between this term and those figures is large enough to be worth flagging rather than passing over. New York is also unusual in having a statewide hyperscale pause operating at a fifty-megawatt threshold, which means a town measure like this one is doing work the state instrument does not: reaching everything below that line. Auburn and the Town of Tonawanda adopted local measures for precisely that reason, and Camden adopted one in August.","summary_technical":"Town of Highlands, N.Y. — THREE-YEAR DATA CENTER MORATORIUM approved by the board following a NEARLY TWO-HOUR PUBLIC HEARING at which residents expressed emotions ranging from CONCERN TO FEAR. DURATION IS THE FEATURE REQUIRING SCRUTINY: three years sits at the extreme end of the distribution in this dataset, matched only by ar-madison-county-dc-moratorium-3yr-2026 and four other Arkansas counties, and exceeded only by a reported FIVE-YEAR Independence County, Arkansas moratorium. IT EXCEEDS EVERY CEILING STATED ON THE RECORD BY A MUNICIPAL OFFICIAL IN THIS DATASET: mn-isanti-dc-moratorium-12mo-2026 (a Minnesota development director: 12 months is the statutory maximum, AND the municipality must be proving staff are actively drafting), wi-bellevue-dc-moratorium-2026 (a Wisconsin village administrator: 12 months plus one 6-month extension, and 'moratoriums are not meant to be a tool to prohibit something forever'), and nv-henderson-dc-moratorium-rejected-code-changes-2026 (a Nevada city attorney: defensible 'up to 12 to 18 months before you have to make some permanent changes to your code'). NEW YORK TOWN MORATORIUM AUTHORITY IS NOT IDENTIFIED in the located source and may differ materially \\u2014 New York town boards act under Town Law rather than the municipal planning statutes those officials were describing, and the point is FLAGGED FOR CHECKING, NOT ASSERTED AS A DEFECT. It is nonetheless the kind of exposure developer plaintiffs are already pleading: litig-raeden-v-gibraltar-mi-moratorium-challenge-2026 attacks a ONE-year moratorium in federal court, and litig-nj-developer-suits-municipal-dc-bans-2026 pleads that officials exceeded their authority. NEW YORK LAYERING: ny-hochul-eo-statewide-dc-moratorium-2026 was the nation's first statewide hyperscale pause but operates at a 50 MW threshold, leaving everything beneath it to local government \\u2014 which is expressly why ny-auburn-dc-moratorium-2026 and ny-town-of-tonawanda-dc-moratorium-ll2-2026 were adopted, and the layer ny-camden-dc-moratorium-2026 and this measure occupy.","who_is_protected":"Town of Highlands residents in New York","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals in the Town of Highlands during the three-year moratorium","citation":"Town of Highlands, N.Y. — three-year data center moratorium (2026)","source_url":"https://highlandscurrent.org/data-centers-face-backlash/","source_title":"Data Centers Face Backlash — The Highlands Current","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Town of Highlands Board / town zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center approvals are paused for three years"},{"id":"in-valparaiso-dc-moratorium-open-ended-2026","title":"Valparaiso, Indiana — City Council Unanimously Adopts a Data Center Moratorium With NO FIXED EXPIRATION DATE, Running Until the Plan Commission Finishes Revising the Unified Development Ordinance (2026)","short_title":"Valparaiso IN open-ended data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Valparaiso, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Porter County","city":"Valparaiso","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"Valparaiso City Council unanimously approved a moratorium on new data center development, effective immediately — and it carries NO FIXED EXPIRATION DATE. That is the distinguishing feature, and it is rare. Almost every local measure in this dataset states a term: forty-five days, six months, a year, eighteen months, three years. Valparaiso instead tied the moratorium's life to a DELIVERABLE: it holds new data center proposals while the city's Plan Commission reviews and recommends changes to Valparaiso's UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, and ends when that work is done. There is a real argument for structuring it this way. A fixed term creates a deadline the city may miss, after which either the pause lapses with no rules in place or the council must extend it — and extensions are where moratoriums run into their statutory ceilings, as officials in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Nevada have each said on the record elsewhere in this record. Tying the pause to completion of the ordinance removes that cliff. The corresponding risk is the mirror image: an open-ended pause with no external deadline has no forcing function, and it is precisely the shape a developer challenging a moratorium as indefinite or arbitrary would attack. Indiana's own practice matters here, and the located source does not address whether an open-ended municipal moratorium is sound under Indiana law. Valparaiso is in Porter County, which also contains Portage — whose Technology Campus district ordinance is the most numerically detailed instrument in this dataset.","summary_technical":"City of Valparaiso, Ind. (Porter County) — MORATORIUM on new data center development, approved UNANIMOUSLY by the City Council on a Monday night and TAKING EFFECT IMMEDIATELY. THE DEFINING FEATURE: THE MORATORIUM DOES NOT INCLUDE A FIXED EXPIRATION DATE. It holds new data center proposals while the city's PLAN COMMISSION REVIEWS AND RECOMMENDS CHANGES to Valparaiso's UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO), and is tied to completion of that work rather than to a calendar. THIS IS UNCOMMON AND CUTS BOTH WAYS. IN ITS FAVOUR: a fixed-term moratorium creates a cliff. If the drafting is not finished when the term lapses, the city either loses the pause with no permanent rules in place or must extend \\u2014 and extension is exactly where statutory ceilings bind, as three officials have stated on the record in this dataset: mn-isanti-dc-moratorium-12mo-2026 (Minnesota, 12 months maximum AND contingent on proving staff are actively drafting), wi-bellevue-dc-moratorium-2026 (Wisconsin, 12 months plus one 6-month extension) and nv-henderson-dc-moratorium-rejected-code-changes-2026 (a city attorney: defensible 12 to 18 months). Tying the pause to the deliverable removes the cliff entirely. AGAINST IT: an open-ended prohibition has no external forcing function on the municipality, and indefiniteness is precisely the ground on which developer plaintiffs attack moratoriums \\u2014 litig-raeden-v-gibraltar-mi-moratorium-challenge-2026 challenges a ONE-YEAR moratorium in federal court, and litig-nj-developer-suits-municipal-dc-bans-2026 pleads that officials acted arbitrarily and exceeded their authority. Minnesota's statutory condition that staff be demonstrably working on an ordinance exists to address the same concern from the other direction. WHETHER AN OPEN-ENDED MUNICIPAL MORATORIUM IS SOUND UNDER INDIANA LAW IS NOT ADDRESSED by the located source and is the material open question on this entry. INDIANA CONTEXT: Porter County also contains PORTAGE, whose Technology Campus district ordinance (in-portage-technology-campus-district-2026) is the most numerically complete municipal instrument in this dataset \\u2014 55 dB, 65 ft, 500 ft residential setback, and a 50 MW / 500,000 sq ft hyperscale trigger. Nearly a third of Indiana counties had moved to restrict data centers by July 2026.","who_is_protected":"Valparaiso residents in Porter County, Indiana","who_must_comply":"Developers proposing new data centers in Valparaiso, for the duration of the Plan Commission's UDO review","citation":"City of Valparaiso, Ind. — data center moratorium with no fixed expiration date (2026)","source_url":"https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/articles/valparaiso-approves-data-center-moratorium-with-no-set-end-date","source_title":"Valparaiso approves data center moratorium with no set end date — Inside INdiana Business","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Valparaiso Plan Commission / Valparaiso City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"New data center proposals are held while the moratorium runs; no fixed end date"},{"id":"md-caroline-county-eastern-shore-dc-moratoria-2026","title":"Caroline County, Maryland and Its Towns — County Commissioners Adopt a One-Year Moratorium for Unincorporated Areas (July 21, 2026) While Federalsburg Passes THREE YEARS and Ridgely One Year Within Their Own Town Limits","short_title":"Caroline County MD, Federalsburg and Ridgely data center moratoria (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Caroline County, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Caroline County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-21","enacted_date":"2026-07-21","expires_date":"2027-07-21","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"Three governments in Caroline County, Maryland adopted data center moratoria of three different lengths within weeks of each other. The CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS passed a ONE-YEAR moratorium for the UNINCORPORATED AREAS of the county on July 21, 2026. FEDERALSBURG council members then passed a THREE-YEAR moratorium in August. And RIDGELY commissioners passed a ONE-YEAR moratorium within their own town limits shortly afterwards. This is the county/municipality split in unusually clean form. Maryland county land-use authority reaches unincorporated territory only, so the county's July measure left every incorporated town inside it to decide for itself — and two of them did, at different terms. Federalsburg chose three times the county's length. A developer assessing Caroline County therefore faces three separate clocks depending on which side of a town line a parcel sits, and the county measure expiring in July 2027 does nothing to open Federalsburg, whose pause runs into 2029. The pattern recurs across this dataset: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin had to adopt its own eighteen-month moratorium because Dane County's pause did not reach villages with their own zoning codes, and Dorchester County, Maryland's council said explicitly that each municipality would have to make its own legislation. Maryland has been among the most active states — more than half its counties had acted on data centers by September 2026.","summary_technical":"CAROLINE COUNTY, Md. and two of its incorporated towns \\u2014 THREE SEPARATE MORATORIA at THREE DIFFERENT TERMS. (1) CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: a ONE-YEAR moratorium on data centers for THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS of the county, passed JULY 21, 2026. (2) FEDERALSBURG: council members passed a THREE-YEAR moratorium at a meeting in AUGUST 2026. (3) RIDGELY: town commissioners passed a ONE-YEAR moratorium WITHIN TOWN LIMITS shortly afterwards. THE STRUCTURE IS THE CONTENT. Maryland county land-use authority extends to UNINCORPORATED territory; incorporated municipalities legislate independently. The county's July action therefore covered none of its towns, and two acted separately \\u2014 at terms differing by a factor of three. PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCE: coverage in Caroline County depends on which side of a municipal boundary a parcel falls, and the county moratorium's expiry around JULY 2027 does nothing to open Federalsburg, whose pause runs to roughly AUGUST 2029. Anyone assessing the county must check all three instruments. THE SAME SPLIT IS DOCUMENTED REPEATEDLY IN THIS DATASET: wi-cottage-grove-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026 (the village adopted its own 18-month pause BECAUSE Dane County's did not reach municipalities with their own zoning codes), md-dorchester-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (council president: 'Each municipality would have to make their own legislation as to what they're going to do', naming Hurlock), ky-logan-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (unincorporated only), fl-escambia-county-large-dc-ban-2026 (expressly excluding Pensacola and Century) and wa-snohomish-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (unincorporated only). FEDERALSBURG'S THREE-YEAR TERM is at the extreme end of the distribution here, matched by five Arkansas counties and ny-highlands-dc-moratorium-3yr-2026, and exceeds the 12-to-18-month ceilings municipal officials have stated on the record in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Nevada \\u2014 flagged for checking against Maryland municipal authority, not asserted as defective. MARYLAND COHORT: md-worcester-county-data-center-cable-landing-moratorium-2026, md-montgomery-county-dc-moratorium-2026, md-howard-county-smart-siting-act-2026, md-dorchester-county-dc-moratorium-2026, md-chesapeake-beach-dc-prohibition-ord-o-26-14 and baltimore-md-dc-moratorium-2026; more than half of Maryland's counties had acted by September 2026. DISTINCT FROM md-caroline-county-schools-ai-policy-2026, which is the same county's SCHOOL AI POLICY and an unrelated instrument.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Caroline County, Maryland, and of Federalsburg and Ridgely within their own limits","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals in unincorporated Caroline County (one year), Federalsburg (three years) or Ridgely (one year)","citation":"Caroline County, Md. — one-year data center moratorium for unincorporated areas (July 21, 2026); Federalsburg three-year and Ridgely one-year moratoria (August 2026)","source_url":"https://www.somdnews.com/apgstate/ridgely-passes-one-year-moratorium-on-data-centers/article.html","source_title":"Ridgely passes one-year moratorium on data centers — SoMdNews / APG","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Caroline County Commissioners; Federalsburg Town Council; Ridgely Town Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center approvals are paused under each instrument within its own territory and for its own term"},{"id":"co-salida-dc-moratorium-ord-2026-19","title":"Salida, Colorado — Ordinance 2026-19 Imposes a 12-Month Data Center Moratorium, Passed Unanimously Over a Councilmember's Question Whether Twelve Months Was Too Long (2026)","short_title":"Salida CO 12-month data center moratorium Ord. 2026-19","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Salida, CO","state_abbr":"CO","county":"Chaffee County","city":"Salida","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","expires_date":"2027-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"Salida City Council passed ORDINANCE 2026-19 imposing a TWELVE-MONTH moratorium on data centers, unanimously, taken up in Unfinished Business alongside an unrelated ordinance on council removal and sanctions procedures. The detail worth preserving is the dissent that wasn't. During discussion, council member SUZANNE FONTANA QUESTIONED WHETHER TWELVE MONTHS WAS 'TOO LONG' for a moratorium on dealing with data centers in the Salida Land Use Code — and then the ordinance passed unanimously anyway. That direction of challenge is unusual in this record. Across this dataset the pressure on councils runs almost entirely the other way: residents packing chambers demanding longer pauses, a New Mexico county converting a non-binding resolution into an eighteen-month moratorium on the floor after an hour of public comment, a Minnesota county doubling its term from six months to twelve after testimony. A councilmember asking whether twelve months is excessive is the counterweight, and it is worth recording that the question was raised inside a body that then voted for it anyway. Salida is a small city in Chaffee County in central Colorado. The moratorium's purpose is to allow the city to address data centers in the Salida Land Use Code, which is the same drafting-window rationale most instruments here rest on.","summary_technical":"City of Salida, Colo. (Chaffee County) — ORDINANCE 2026-19, imposing a 12-MONTH MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTERS, PASSED UNANIMOUSLY in Unfinished Business alongside Ordinance 2026-20 (clarifying removal and sanctions procedures for members of City Council, an unrelated measure). PURPOSE: to allow the city to address data centers in the SALIDA LAND USE CODE. THE RECORDED OBJECTION IS THE NOTABLE CONTENT: during discussion, council member SUZANNE FONTANA QUESTIONED WHETHER 12 MONTHS WAS 'TOO LONG'. THE DIRECTION OF THAT CHALLENGE IS RARE IN THIS DATASET. The documented pressure on local bodies runs overwhelmingly toward LONGER pauses: nm-sierra-county-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026 (commissioners amended a non-binding opposition resolution into an 18-month binding moratorium on the floor after more than an hour of public comment), mn-pine-county-dc-moratorium-extension-2026 (six months doubled to twelve after testimony overwhelmingly called for longer), il-champaign-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (100+ residents with 'Approve the Moratorium' signs), oh-canton-dc-zoning-chapter-2026 (50+ speakers in unanimous opposition to data centers). A councilmember questioning whether a term is EXCESSIVE, inside a body that then adopts it unanimously, is the counterweight and is recorded for that reason. It also aligns with the durability concern officials have raised elsewhere \\u2014 nv-henderson-dc-moratorium-rejected-code-changes-2026 (a city attorney: moratoriums defensible 12 to 18 months before permanent code changes are required) and wi-bellevue-dc-moratorium-2026 ('Moratoriums are not meant to be a tool to prohibit something forever') \\u2014 though Fontana's stated basis is not reported. PROCEDURAL NOTE: taken up in UNFINISHED BUSINESS, indicating a prior reading or continuance. COLORADO COHORT: co-lochbuie-data-center-moratorium-ord-2026-720, co-aurora-dc-regulations-resolution-2026, co-fremont-county-dc-emergency-moratorium-2026 and denver-co-dc-moratorium-2026; local governments across Colorado enacted data center moratoriums through 2026.","who_is_protected":"Salida, Colorado residents in Chaffee County","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals in Salida during the 12-month moratorium","citation":"City of Salida, Colo. Ordinance 2026-19 — 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","source_url":"https://arkvalleyvoice.com/salida-city-council-approves-moratorium-on-data-centers-pool-repairs-county-swat-team-iga-terminated/","source_title":"Salida City Council Approves Moratorium on Data Centers, Pool Repairs, County SWAT Team IGA Terminated — Ark Valley Voice","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Salida / Salida City Council; Salida Land Use Code administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center approvals are paused for 12 months"},{"id":"mn-cambridge-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Cambridge, Minnesota — One-Year Moratorium on Data Center Construction Within City Limits, Adopted Partly to See Whether State Legislation Arrives First (2026)","short_title":"Cambridge MN one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cambridge, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Isanti County","city":"Cambridge","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","expires_date":"2027-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"The City of Cambridge placed a ONE-YEAR moratorium on the construction of data centers within its city limits. The sequence leading to it is worth recording because it is more deliberate than most: the council had PREVIOUSLY INSTRUCTED STAFF to do initial research into data centers specifically in order to determine WHETHER AN OFFICIAL MORATORIUM WAS NEEDED — and only adopted one after that preliminary work came back. Many jurisdictions in this dataset went the other way, adopting a pause first and researching afterwards, which is a defensible response to an imminent application but produces measures whose necessity was never established. During the moratorium, more extensive research will be performed leading up to crafting appropriate ordinances and city codes. One stated reason for the twelve-month term is a wait-and-see posture toward the legislature: 'It would be best to see if new legislation comes from the State in the next year.' That is the same reasoning Ottawa, Illinois gave for extending its moratorium into 2027 — the Illinois POWER Act had stalled — and that Utica, Michigan's city attorney gave for holding her draft ordinance until other communities decided. Twelve months is also Minnesota's statutory maximum for such a moratorium, as the development director in neighbouring Isanti told her own council; Cambridge sits in Isanti County, so the two cities are working the same problem a few miles apart.","summary_technical":"City of Cambridge, Minn. (Isanti County) — ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM on the construction of data centers within city limits. PROCEDURAL SEQUENCE, which is more rigorous than the norm here: the council FIRST INSTRUCTED STAFF TO CONDUCT INITIAL RESEARCH into data centers TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN OFFICIAL MORATORIUM WAS NEEDED, and adopted one only after that preliminary work. Contrast the prevailing pattern in this dataset \\u2014 adopt immediately, study afterwards \\u2014 which is a rational response to an imminent filing (see in-warrick-county-dc-moratorium-2026, where the plan commission suspended its rules and commissioners met at 9 a.m. the next morning) but yields measures whose predicate was never independently established. DURING THE MORATORIUM: more extensive research leading to appropriate ordinances and city codes. STATED RATIONALE FOR THE TERM: a wait-and-see posture toward the legislature \\u2014 'It would be best to see if new legislation comes from the State in the next year.' THIS IS A RECURRING INSTRUMENT CLASS IN THIS DATASET, distinct from a study pause: il-ottawa-dc-moratorium-extension-2027 extended through 2027-08-25 expressly because the Illinois POWER Act STALLED and the city wants local rules to ALIGN with whatever the state passes; mi-utica-dc-moratorium-extension-2026 records a city attorney holding her draft until other communities' decisions were available; wa-elma-alpr-moratorium-2026 defers to a state Attorney General model policy due 2027-07-01 in a different subject area. A municipality in this posture extends for as long as the state stays silent. STATUTORY CEILING: 12 months is the Minnesota maximum for a municipal interim ordinance, as stated on the record by the Community Development Director of NEIGHBOURING ISANTI (mn-isanti-dc-moratorium-12mo-2026), which cut its own proposed 30-month moratorium to 12 for that reason \\u2014 AND noted the accompanying condition that the city must be proving staff are actively drafting. Cambridge and Isanti are both in Isanti County and are working the same question within miles of each other. MINNESOTA COHORT: mn-carlton-county-dc-moratorium-2026, mn-otsego-dc-moratorium-2026, mn-pine-county-dc-moratorium-extension-2026, mn-isanti-dc-moratorium-12mo-2026, inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06 and minneapolis-data-center-moratorium-2026-05.","who_is_protected":"Cambridge, Minnesota residents in Isanti County","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to construct data centers within Cambridge city limits during the moratorium year","citation":"City of Cambridge, Minn. — one-year data center construction moratorium (2026)","source_url":"https://www.isanti-chisagocountystar.com/news/cambridge-officially-imposes-data-center-moratorium/article.html","source_title":"Cambridge officially imposes data center moratorium — Isanti-Chisago County Star","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Cambridge / Cambridge City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center construction may not be approved within city limits during the one-year moratorium"},{"id":"md-federalsburg-dc-moratorium-3yr-2026","title":"Federalsburg, Maryland — Town Council Passes a THREE-YEAR Data Center Moratorium, the First Eastern Shore Community to Go That Far (August 2026)","short_title":"Federalsburg MD three-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Federalsburg, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Caroline County","city":"Federalsburg","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-01","enacted_date":"2026-08-01","expires_date":"2029-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"Federalsburg council members passed a THREE-YEAR moratorium on data centers at their August 2026 meeting, and separate reporting describes the town as the first Eastern Shore community to go that far. Three years is at the outer edge of every local pause in this dataset. Only five Arkansas counties, the Town of Highlands in New York, and a reported five-year moratorium in Independence County, Arkansas match or exceed it — and it is two to three times the ceilings municipal officials have stated on the record elsewhere in this record. A Minnesota city development director told her council twelve months was that state's statutory maximum; a Wisconsin village administrator described twelve months plus a single six-month extension, adding that 'moratoriums are not meant to be a tool to prohibit something forever'; a Nevada city attorney assessed them as defensible for twelve to eighteen months before permanent code changes become necessary. Maryland municipal authority is not addressed in the located source and may be broader. The point is flagged rather than resolved, but it matters here more than usual: Federalsburg sits inside Caroline County, whose commissioners adopted a ONE-year moratorium for unincorporated areas on July 21, and alongside Ridgely, which adopted ONE year within its own limits. Three neighbouring governments reached terms differing by a factor of three for the same use in the same county within weeks — which suggests the term is being set by local appetite rather than by any shared reading of what the law permits.","summary_technical":"Town of Federalsburg, Md. (Caroline County) — THREE-YEAR MORATORIUM on data centers, passed by council members at their August 2026 meeting; separate reporting describes Federalsburg as the FIRST EASTERN SHORE COMMUNITY to adopt a three-year term. DURATION IN CONTEXT: three years sits at the extreme of this dataset's distribution, matched only by ar-madison-county-dc-moratorium-3yr-2026 and four other Arkansas counties and by ny-highlands-dc-moratorium-3yr-2026, and exceeded only by a reported FIVE-YEAR Independence County, Arkansas moratorium. IT IS TWO TO THREE TIMES THE CEILINGS MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS HAVE STATED ON THE RECORD IN THIS DATASET: mn-isanti-dc-moratorium-12mo-2026 (Minnesota: 12 months statutory maximum, and the city must be proving staff are actively drafting), wi-bellevue-dc-moratorium-2026 (Wisconsin: 12 months plus one 6-month extension; 'Moratoriums are not meant to be a tool to prohibit something forever'), nv-henderson-dc-moratorium-rejected-code-changes-2026 (a city attorney: defensible 'up to 12 to 18 months before you have to make some permanent changes to your code'). MARYLAND MUNICIPAL MORATORIUM AUTHORITY IS NOT ADDRESSED by the located source and may differ materially \\u2014 FLAGGED FOR CHECKING, NOT ASSERTED AS A DEFECT. THE INTRA-COUNTY DIVERGENCE IS THE ANALYTICALLY INTERESTING FACT: within weeks and inside the same county, CAROLINE COUNTY adopted ONE year for unincorporated areas (2026-07-21), RIDGELY adopted ONE year within its limits, and FEDERALSBURG adopted THREE. Three neighbouring governments regulating the same use reached terms differing by a factor of three, which indicates the term is being set by local political appetite rather than by any shared understanding of the outer limit of the power \\u2014 and means at least one of the three readings of Maryland law is likely wrong. See md-caroline-county-eastern-shore-dc-moratoria-2026 for the county and Ridgely measures. EXPOSURE: developer plaintiffs in this dataset are already attacking ONE-year moratoriums (litig-raeden-v-gibraltar-mi-moratorium-challenge-2026, federal court) and pleading that officials exceeded their authority (litig-nj-developer-suits-municipal-dc-bans-2026).","who_is_protected":"Federalsburg residents in Caroline County, Maryland","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals within Federalsburg town limits during the three-year moratorium","citation":"Town of Federalsburg, Md. — three-year data center moratorium (August 2026)","source_url":"https://www.somdnews.com/apgstate/ridgely-passes-one-year-moratorium-on-data-centers/article.html","source_title":"Ridgely passes one-year moratorium on data centers — SoMdNews / APG (reporting the Federalsburg three-year measure)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Federalsburg Town Council / town zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center approvals are paused for three years"},{"id":"md-ridgely-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Ridgely, Maryland — Town Commissioners Pass a One-Year Data Center Moratorium Within Town Limits (August 2026)","short_title":"Ridgely MD one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Ridgely, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Caroline County","city":"Ridgely","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-15","enacted_date":"2026-08-15","expires_date":"2027-08-15","last_verified_date":"2026-09-16","summary_plain":"Ridgely commissioners passed a ONE-YEAR moratorium on data centers within town limits in August 2026. Ridgely is a small town in Caroline County, Maryland, and its measure is the third of three adopted in that county within about a month — the county commissioners covered unincorporated areas for one year on July 21, Federalsburg took three years in August, and Ridgely took one. Recording Ridgely separately matters for the same reason the other two do: Maryland county land-use authority does not reach incorporated towns, so a developer checking Caroline County has to check each town individually, and the county's own moratorium tells you nothing about whether a parcel inside Ridgely is covered. What is not known is as important as what is. The located source gives the term and the territory and nothing else — no vote, no date beyond 'recently', no ordinance number, and no definition or threshold for the facilities covered. The entry is recorded so the measure exists in the register and can be found, not because it is fully documented.","summary_technical":"Town of Ridgely, Md. (Caroline County) — ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM on data centers WITHIN TOWN LIMITS, passed by town commissioners and reported as recent in August 2026. TERRITORIAL SIGNIFICANCE: Maryland county land-use authority reaches UNINCORPORATED territory only, so the Caroline County Commissioners' one-year moratorium of 2026-07-21 does NOT cover Ridgely; the town had to act for itself, as did Federalsburg. THE COUNTY NOW CARRIES THREE SEPARATE INSTRUMENTS AT TWO DIFFERENT TERMS: county (one year, unincorporated, 2026-07-21), FEDERALSBURG (THREE years, August \\u2014 md-federalsburg-dc-moratorium-3yr-2026), RIDGELY (one year, town limits, August). See md-caroline-county-eastern-shore-dc-moratoria-2026 for the combined structure and the significance of neighbouring governments reaching terms differing by a factor of three. THIS ENTRY IS DELIBERATELY THIN AND SAYS SO: the located source supplies ONLY the term, the territory and the adopting body. NO VOTE TALLY, NO CALENDAR DATE BEYOND 'recently', NO ORDINANCE NUMBER, AND NO DEFINITION OR SIZE THRESHOLD for the covered use were obtained. It is recorded so the measure is discoverable in the register, NOT because it is adequately documented, and it must not be cited for any particular requirement. MARYLAND CONTEXT: more than half of Maryland's counties had acted on data centers by September 2026; the indexed cohort includes md-worcester-county-data-center-cable-landing-moratorium-2026, md-montgomery-county-dc-moratorium-2026, md-dorchester-county-dc-moratorium-2026, md-chesapeake-beach-dc-prohibition-ord-o-26-14, md-howard-county-smart-siting-act-2026 and baltimore-md-dc-moratorium-2026.","who_is_protected":"Ridgely residents in Caroline County, Maryland","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals within Ridgely town limits during the moratorium year","citation":"Town of Ridgely, Md. — one-year data center moratorium within town limits (August 2026)","source_url":"https://www.somdnews.com/apgstate/ridgely-passes-one-year-moratorium-on-data-centers/article.html","source_title":"Ridgely passes one-year moratorium on data centers — SoMdNews / APG","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Ridgely Town Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center approvals are paused within town limits for one year"},{"id":"pa-montgomery-township-dc-curative-regulations-2026","title":"Montgomery Township, Pennsylvania — Supervisors COMPLETE the Curative Amendment Cycle: Having Declared Their Own Zoning Ordinance Substantively Invalid in March for Not Identifying Data Centers, They Unanimously Adopt Regulations Permitting Them Only as a Conditional Use in the Limited Industrial District (2026)","short_title":"Montgomery Township PA data center curative regulations (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Montgomery Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Montgomery County","city":"Montgomery Township","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"Montgomery Township supervisors unanimously adopted a zoning amendment establishing where data centers may operate and imposing detailed regulations intended to protect neighbouring properties. The new ordinance permits data centers as a CONDITIONAL USE within the township's LIMITED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. What makes this entry important is how the township got here. It began preparing the regulations after supervisors DECLARED THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBSTANTIVELY INVALID IN MARCH 2026, because the ordinance DID NOT IDENTIFY DATA CENTERS AS A PERMITTED USE. This dataset already records Falls Township, Pennsylvania doing exactly that — declaring its own ordinance invalid to launch a curative amendment and shield itself from developer validity challenges — but Falls was recorded at the moment of declaration, with the outcome unknown. Montgomery Township shows the completed cycle: declare the defect, control the remedy, and emerge months later with an ordinance that channels the use into one district under discretionary review rather than one imposed by a successful developer challenge. That is the strategy working as designed, and it is only available under Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning Code. The March declaration also confirms what the Clayton, Ohio and Palm Springs, California records suggest: a zoning ordinance silent on data centers is not neutral — it is a vulnerability, and Pennsylvania townships have been treating it as one.","summary_technical":"Montgomery Township, Pa. (Montgomery County) — ZONING AMENDMENT adopted UNANIMOUSLY by the Board of Supervisors on a Monday, establishing where data centers may operate and imposing detailed regulations intended to protect neighbouring properties. OPERATIVE STRUCTURE: data centers are permitted as a CONDITIONAL USE within the township's LIMITED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT \\u2014 a single-district confinement plus discretionary review, comparable to in-portage-technology-campus-district-2026 (Technology Campus district as the only permissible classification) and tx-north-richland-hills-dc-sup-regulations-2026 (conversion from by-right to special use permit). THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY IS THE SIGNIFICANT CONTENT: the township began preparing the regulations AFTER SUPERVISORS DECLARED THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBSTANTIVELY INVALID IN MARCH 2026, BECAUSE IT DID NOT IDENTIFY DATA CENTERS AS A PERMITTED USE. THIS COMPLETES A CYCLE THIS DATASET PREVIOUSLY RECORDED ONLY AT ITS START. pa-falls-township-zoning-curative-amendment-dc-2026 records Falls Township (Bucks County) declaring portions of its own ordinance substantively invalid in August 2026 to initiate a curative amendment and foreclose developer-side validity challenges \\u2014 but at the moment of declaration, with no outcome. MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP DECLARED IN MARCH AND ADOPTED THE CURATIVE ORDINANCE MONTHS LATER, demonstrating the full sequence: concede the defect, retain control of the remedy, and produce an ordinance on the municipality's own terms rather than one imposed through a landowner's successful substantive validity challenge under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. THE MARCH DECLARATION ALSO CORROBORATES A PATTERN ASSERTED ELSEWHERE IN THIS DATASET: a zoning ordinance SILENT on data centers is an exposure, not a neutral position. oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026 records staff noting a data center could be admitted as a WAREHOUSE-type use under a code with no definition; ca-palm-springs-dc-moratorium-2026 records municipal and zoning codes containing no data center definition at all; ga-forest-park-dc-moratorium-2026 records Digital Realty building BY RIGHT for the same reason. Pennsylvania townships have been treating that silence as a legal vulnerability and curing it pre-emptively. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA CLUSTER: pa-norristown-dc-ordinance-2026, pa-falls-township-zoning-curative-amendment-dc-2026, pa-swatara-township-dc-ordinance-2026, pa-ligonier-township-dc-zoning-regulations-2026, and unindexed leads at Morrisville Borough, Whitemarsh Township, West Conshohocken and Upper Merion. THE DETAILED REGULATIONS THEMSELVES are not enumerated in the located source.","who_is_protected":"Montgomery Township residents in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, particularly properties neighbouring the Limited Industrial District","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Montgomery Township, confined to the Limited Industrial District and required to obtain conditional use approval","citation":"Montgomery Township, Pa. — zoning amendment regulating data centers as a conditional use in the Limited Industrial District (2026), following a March 2026 declaration of substantive invalidity","source_url":"https://northpennnow.com/news/montgomery-township-adopts-extensive-regulations-for-future-data-centers/","source_title":"Montgomery Township adopts extensive regulations for future data centers — North Penn Now","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Montgomery Township Board of Supervisors; township zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data centers may operate only as a conditional use in the Limited Industrial District, subject to the ordinance's regulations"},{"id":"pa-swatara-township-dc-ordinance-2026","title":"Swatara Township, Pennsylvania — Ordinance Defining Data Centers and Admitting Them to the Industrial District Subject to a 35-Foot Height Cap, a 300-Foot Residential Setback, Proof of an Electric Service Provider, a Traffic Study and an Emergency Management Plan (August 2026)","short_title":"Swatara Township PA data center ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Swatara Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Lebanon County","city":"Swatara Township","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-17","enacted_date":"2026-08-17","last_verified_date":"2026-09-16","summary_plain":"The Swatara Township Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted an ordinance at its regular monthly August 2026 meeting that revises the residential forest district and governs data centers. The data center provisions are among the more complete in this dataset, and they are specific enough to be usable. The ordinance ESTABLISHES DEFINITIONS for data centers and places them as an ALLOWED USE IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, with limitations including a 35-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT and a 300-FOOT SETBACK FROM RESIDENTIAL properties. Three submission requirements go further than most: the applicant must produce DOCUMENTATION FROM AN ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDER THAT WILL SERVE THE DATA CENTER, a TRAFFIC STUDY, and an EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN. The electric-service documentation is the notable one. It requires a developer to demonstrate that power is actually available and committed before the township approves anything — which addresses the problem several jurisdictions in this dataset have run into from the other end, where a facility is approved locally and the grid consequences surface afterwards. Fort Worth, Texas reached the same idea by a different route, requiring evidence of PUCT or ERCOT interconnection approval at multiple stages of development review. A 35-foot height cap is also notably low for an industrial use and would constrain building form considerably.","summary_technical":"Swatara Township, Pa. (Lebanon County) — ORDINANCE adopted UNANIMOUSLY by the Board of Supervisors at its regular monthly meeting in August 2026, making revisions to the RESIDENTIAL FOREST DISTRICT and GOVERNING DATA CENTERS. DATA CENTER PROVISIONS: (1) ESTABLISHES DEFINITIONS for data centers \\u2014 the step whose absence created exposure in oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026 (a data center readable as a WAREHOUSE), ca-palm-springs-dc-moratorium-2026 (no definition in the municipal or zoning codes) and pa-montgomery-township-dc-curative-regulations-2026 (zoning declared substantively invalid for failing to identify the use); (2) places data centers as an ALLOWED USE IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT; (3) 35-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT \\u2014 notably restrictive for an industrial use, and well below the 65-foot cap in in-portage-technology-campus-district-2026 or the 100-foot cap (waivable to 165) in mi-corunna-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026, which would materially constrain building form and may push floor area outward; (4) 300-FOOT SETBACK FROM RESIDENTIAL, between Corunna's 500 feet and Portage's 200 feet from non-residential property. THREE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, and the first is the transferable one: (a) DOCUMENTATION FROM AN ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDER THAT WILL SERVE THE DATA CENTER. This makes demonstrated, committed power a PRECONDITION OF LOCAL APPROVAL rather than a downstream discovery. The same idea appears in tx-fort-worth-dc-moratorium-process-2026, whose adopted ordinance requires EVIDENCE OF PUCT OR ERCOT GRID INTERCONNECTION APPROVAL at pre-development conferences, platting, building permits and infrastructure plan review \\u2014 making a state grid determination a precondition to a municipal land-use approval. Swatara achieves a similar effect through the utility rather than the regulator, which is available to any municipality regardless of its state's grid governance. (b) a TRAFFIC STUDY; (c) an EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN \\u2014 relevant to on-site fuel, battery storage and generator hazards, the class of risk that drove wa-mount-vernon-dc-moratorium-2026's flood-siting concern and tx-austin-county-dc-bess-moratorium-2026's fire-safety evaluation. The residential forest district revisions in the same ordinance are not detailed in the located source.","who_is_protected":"Swatara Township residents in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, particularly properties within 300 feet of the industrial district","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Swatara Township — confined to the industrial district, capped at 35 feet, set back 300 feet from residential, and required to produce electric service provider documentation, a traffic study and an emergency management plan","citation":"Swatara Township, Pa. — ordinance governing data centers and revising the residential forest district (adopted August 2026)","source_url":"https://lebtown.com/2026/08/17/swatara-township-passes-data-center-residential-forest-revision-ordinance/","source_title":"Swatara township passes data center, residential forest revision ordinance — LebTown","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Swatara Township Board of Supervisors; township zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data centers may be established only in the industrial district and only on satisfying the height, setback and documentation requirements"},{"id":"ok-shawnee-dc-moratorium-through-2027","title":"Shawnee, Oklahoma — Temporary Moratorium on New Data Centers Taking Effect Immediately and Running THROUGH THE END OF 2027 (2026)","short_title":"Shawnee OK data center moratorium through 2027","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Shawnee, OK","state_abbr":"OK","county":"Pottawatomie County","city":"Shawnee","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","expires_date":"2027-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"The City of Shawnee approved a temporary moratorium on new data centers, putting new proposals on hold THROUGH THE END OF 2027. It takes effect immediately. The end date is what distinguishes it. Almost every moratorium in this dataset is expressed as a duration — forty-five days, six months, twelve months — which means it expires on a rolling date the public has to calculate. Shawnee instead fixed a CALENDAR ENDPOINT, which from a mid-2026 adoption is roughly sixteen months. A fixed endpoint is easier for residents and developers to hold in mind and harder for a city to let lapse unnoticed, and it aligns the pause with budget and legislative cycles rather than with the accident of when the vote happened. It also puts Shawnee near the long end of this dataset's distribution, past the twelve-to-eighteen-month window municipal officials in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Nevada have each described on the record as the practical or statutory limit. Oklahoma has been unusually active on data centers — the state enacted HB 2992 protecting ratepayers from large-load costs and SB 259 on groundwater, Oklahoma City adopted an emergency rezoning moratorium, Edmond a permit moratorium, Tulsa a moratorium that ran from March, and four tribal nations have acted, including a Cherokee Nation ban on hyperscale development.","summary_technical":"City of Shawnee, Okla. (Pottawatomie County) — TEMPORARY MORATORIUM on new data centers, TAKING EFFECT IMMEDIATELY and REMAINING IN PLACE THROUGH THE END OF 2027, holding new proposals. THE FIXED CALENDAR ENDPOINT IS THE DISTINGUISHING FEATURE. Nearly every instrument in this dataset states a DURATION (45 days, 90 days, six months, one year, 18 months, three years), which produces an expiry the public must compute from an adoption date often not published. Shawnee fixed a DATE. Practical consequences: the endpoint is legible without knowing the adoption date; it is harder for a municipality to let lapse inadvertently; and it aligns the pause with fiscal and legislative calendars rather than with the accident of meeting scheduling. From a mid-2026 adoption it yields roughly SIXTEEN MONTHS. DURATION IN CONTEXT: that exceeds the ceilings municipal officials have stated on the record elsewhere here \\u2014 mn-isanti-dc-moratorium-12mo-2026 (Minnesota, 12 months statutory maximum), wi-bellevue-dc-moratorium-2026 (Wisconsin, 12 plus one 6-month extension) and nv-henderson-dc-moratorium-rejected-code-changes-2026 (a city attorney: 12 to 18 months of defensibility). Oklahoma municipal moratorium authority is not addressed by the located source; FLAGGED, not asserted. OKLAHOMA COHORT, one of the densest in this dataset: ok-hb2992-data-center-ratepayer-protection-act-2026 (ratepayer protection, large load defined above 75 MW, strengthening Corporation Commission authority), ok-sb259-groundwater-modernization-act-2026, okc-data-center-emergency-moratorium-2026-04, edmond-ok-dc-moratorium-2026, plus FOUR TRIBAL INSTRUMENTS \\u2014 cherokee-nation-dc-ban-2026 (ban on hyperscale development), cherokee-nation-eo-2026-02-cth-data-center-task-force, muscogee-nation-dc-task-force-2026, kickapoo-tribe-ok-dc-opposition-2026 and seminole-nation-ok-data-center-genai-moratorium. A separate queued row records the TULSA moratorium as effective 2026-03-25 and expiring. DISTINCT FROM ks-shawnee-county-dc-moratorium-2026, which is SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS \\u2014 a different jurisdiction in a different state.","who_is_protected":"Shawnee, Oklahoma residents in Pottawatomie County","who_must_comply":"Developers proposing new data centers in Shawnee through the end of 2027","citation":"City of Shawnee, Okla. — temporary moratorium on new data centers, effective immediately through the end of 2027","source_url":"https://www.news9.com/data-centers-in-oklahoma/shawnee-approves-temporary-moratorium-on-new-data-centers","source_title":"Shawnee approves temporary moratorium on new data centers — News 9","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Shawnee","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"New data center proposals are held through December 31, 2027"},{"id":"fl-pinellas-park-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Pinellas Park, Florida — City Council Unanimously Imposes a One-Year Data Center Moratorium While Staff Draft Land Development Code Amendments on Design, Review, Land Capability and Water Resources (2026)","short_title":"Pinellas Park FL one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Pinellas Park, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Pinellas County","city":"Pinellas Park","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-11","enacted_date":"2026-08-11","expires_date":"2027-08-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"Pinellas Park City Council unanimously voted at its Tuesday meeting to impose a ONE-YEAR moratorium on data center development. The work programme attached to it is unusually specific. During the twelve-month period city staff will examine the LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE and create proposed amendments addressing DESIGN, REVIEW AND LAND CAPABILITY, ENVIRONMENTAL AND WATER RESOURCE IMPACTS. 'Land capability' is the term worth noticing — it asks whether a given parcel can physically support the use at all, which in a low-lying Gulf coast county is a different question from whether the zoning permits it. Most moratoriums in this dataset promise to study impacts; naming land capability alongside design and review means the city intends to write siting criteria, not just operating conditions. A city official, Biron, placed the measure in context by noting that PASCO, MANATEE AND LAKE COUNTIES, among others, had adopted data center moratoriums during the year — an accurate description of a Florida wave this dataset documents at Levy County, Putnam County, Flagler County, Escambia County, Palm Beach County, Panama City and Bay County, alongside the state transportation department's revocation of every ALPR permit on state highway rights-of-way.","summary_technical":"City of Pinellas Park, Fla. (Pinellas County) — ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM on data center development, imposed by UNANIMOUS vote of the City Council at its Tuesday meeting. WORK PROGRAMME: during the 12-month period City staff will EXAMINE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE and CREATE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS addressing DESIGN, REVIEW AND LAND CAPABILITY, ENVIRONMENTAL AND WATER RESOURCE IMPACTS. 'LAND CAPABILITY' IS THE ANALYTICALLY INTERESTING TERM: it addresses whether a parcel can PHYSICALLY SUSTAIN the use \\u2014 soils, drainage, elevation, water availability \\u2014 which is distinct from whether zoning permits it, and it is a siting criterion rather than an operating condition. In a low-lying Gulf coast county that question carries real content; compare wa-mount-vernon-dc-moratorium-2026, whose stated rationale included the city's HIGH FLOOD RISK and which this dataset records as the only entry concerned with water REACHING a facility rather than being consumed by it. Most moratoriums here promise to 'study impacts' without specifying what the resulting rules would regulate; naming design, review AND land capability indicates an intent to produce siting standards. CONTEXT PROVIDED ON THE RECORD: city official Biron noted that PASCO, MANATEE AND LAKE COUNTIES, among others, adopted data center moratoriums during 2026 \\u2014 none of which is separately indexed and all three are leads. FLORIDA COHORT: fl-levy-county-dc-moratorium-ord-2026-05, fl-putnam-county-dc-moratorium-2026, fl-flagler-county-dc-moratorium-2026, fl-escambia-county-large-dc-ban-2026, fl-palm-beach-county-hyperscale-moratorium-pending-2026, fl-panama-city-bay-county-dc-moratoria-2026 and fl-fdot-alpr-permit-revocation-2026. NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH pinellas-fl-ai-guidance-2025, which is Pinellas County AI guidance and an unrelated instrument.","who_is_protected":"Pinellas Park residents in Pinellas County, Florida; local water resources","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals in Pinellas Park during the 12-month moratorium","citation":"City of Pinellas Park, Fla. — one-year data center moratorium (2026)","source_url":"https://stpetecatalyst.com/pinellas-park-imposes-moratorium-on-data-center-development/","source_title":"Pinellas Park imposes moratorium on data center development — St Pete Catalyst","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Pinellas Park; Land Development Code administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center development may not be approved during the 12-month moratorium"},{"id":"mi-pere-marquette-township-dc-moratorium-ord-162-2026","title":"Pere Marquette Township, Michigan — Board Adopts TWO Ordinances Establishing a Temporary Data Center Moratorium, Ordinance 162 Having Received Its First Reading on July 14 (August 11, 2026)","short_title":"Pere Marquette Township MI data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Pere Marquette Township, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Mason County","city":"Pere Marquette Township","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-11","enacted_date":"2026-08-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"The Pere Marquette Township board adopted TWO ORDINANCES on August 11, 2026 establishing a temporary moratorium on data centers, having given Ordinance 162 its first reading on July 14. The two-ordinance structure is worth recording. Most moratoriums in this dataset are a single instrument; using a pair usually means one establishes or amends the underlying zoning authority while the other imposes the pause itself — the same architecture Garfield Township, Michigan chose deliberately, where the planning commission first recommended a zoning ordinance amendment AUTHORISING temporary bans and the moratorium was then adopted under it. Garfield's officials said plainly why they took the longer route: municipalities that enacted standalone 'knee-jerk moratoriums' without that groundwork 'are being challenged and losing in court.' Two Michigan townships independently reaching a two-instrument structure suggests the advice is circulating among Michigan municipal solicitors, and it is worth noting that Michigan is also where a developer is currently suing the City of Gibraltar in federal court over a one-year moratorium. What is not known here is substantial: the located source gives the adoption date and the ordinance number but not the term, the threshold, or what the second ordinance does.","summary_technical":"Pere Marquette Township, Mich. (Mason County) — TWO ORDINANCES establishing a TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTERS, adopted by the township board on AUGUST 11, 2026. ORDINANCE 162 received its FIRST READING on JULY 14, 2026. THE TWO-INSTRUMENT STRUCTURE IS THE NOTABLE FEATURE. Most moratoriums in this dataset are single instruments. A pair typically separates the ENABLING amendment \\u2014 establishing or confirming the zoning authority to impose a temporary prohibition, and often adding a definition of the regulated use \\u2014 from the MORATORIUM itself adopted under that authority. THAT IS EXACTLY THE ARCHITECTURE RECORDED AT mi-garfield-township-dc-crypto-moratorium-2026, where the Planning Commission first recommended a ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AUTHORISING temporary bans and the one-year moratorium was then adopted under it \\u2014 and where officials stated the reason on the record: municipalities that enacted standalone 'knee-jerk moratoriums' without that groundwork 'are being challenged and losing in court because they didn't go through the process that we went through.' wi-bellevue-dc-moratorium-2026 made the same choice in Wisconsin, adopting its moratorium as an amendment to Zoning Code ch. 500 rather than as a freestanding resolution. TWO MICHIGAN TOWNSHIPS INDEPENDENTLY ADOPTING A TWO-INSTRUMENT STRUCTURE suggests the approach is circulating among Michigan municipal solicitors \\u2014 an inference, clearly marked, not a finding. The context supports it: litig-raeden-v-gibraltar-mi-moratorium-challenge-2026 records Raeden Acquisitions and Cal Realty suing the City of Gibraltar IN FEDERAL COURT over a one-year data center moratorium, seeking review of their 100 MW application under the existing code. MATERIAL GAPS: the located source gives the adoption date, the first-reading date and one ordinance number but NOT the moratorium's TERM, any THRESHOLD or DEFINITION, or what the SECOND ordinance does. MICHIGAN COHORT: mi-garfield-township-dc-crypto-moratorium-2026, mi-corunna-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026, mi-east-lansing-dc-moratorium-extension-2026, mi-ypsilanti-township-electric-utility-moratorium-2026, mi-utica-dc-moratorium-extension-2026, mi-marshall-dc-moratorium-2026 and mi-groveland-township-dc-moratorium-2026.","who_is_protected":"Pere Marquette Township residents in Mason County, Michigan","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking data center approvals in Pere Marquette Township during the temporary moratorium","citation":"Pere Marquette Township, Mich. — two ordinances establishing a temporary data center moratorium, including Ordinance 162 (adopted August 11, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.shorelinemedia.net/ludington_daily_news/news/data-center-moratorium-adopted/article.html","source_title":"Data Center Moratorium Adopted — Shoreline Media Group / Ludington Daily News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Pere Marquette Township Board; township zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center approvals are paused under the two ordinances"},{"id":"va-amherst-county-dc-zoning-rules-2026","title":"Amherst County, Virginia — Supervisors Approve Data Center Zoning Rules After Nearly Four Hours of Discussion at a Standing-Room-Only Meeting, Alongside Restrictions on Vape Shops and Marijuana Dispensaries (August 2026)","short_title":"Amherst County VA data center zoning rules (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Amherst County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Amherst County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-18","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"It was standing-room-only at the Amherst County Board of Supervisors meeting as county leaders took up highly anticipated zoning ordinances. After NEARLY FOUR HOURS of discussion, supervisors voted to approve major zoning changes for vape shops, medicinal marijuana dispensaries, and FUTURE DATA CENTERS looking to set up shop in the county. Two things are worth drawing out. The first is that the data center rules arrived inside a general zoning package rather than as a standalone measure — the same ordinance session handled vape shops and dispensaries, and the reported restrictions for those uses keep them away from areas frequented by children. A county addressing data centers as one item in a routine zoning update is treating them as an ordinary land-use question rather than an emergency, which is a different posture from the emergency and urgency ordinances that fill this dataset. The second is the four hours. This record contains many accounts of intense public engagement — fifty speakers in Canton, a hundred people spilling onto the lawn in Amherst Ohio, a hearing relocated to a convention centre in Wisconsin — and a four-hour session in a county of Amherst's size belongs with them. What the located source does not provide is the substance of the data center rules themselves, which is the material gap on this entry. Virginia is the largest data center market in the world, and its local measures carry weight accordingly.","summary_technical":"Amherst County, Va. — MAJOR ZONING CHANGES approved by the Board of Supervisors at a STANDING-ROOM-ONLY Tuesday night meeting following NEARLY FOUR HOURS OF DISCUSSION, covering FUTURE DATA CENTERS alongside vape shops and medicinal marijuana dispensaries. REPORTED CONTENT: supervisors approved new restrictions keeping vape shops and medicinal marijuana dispensaries away from areas frequented by children; the data center provisions are described only as 'major zoning changes... for future data centers looking to set up shop in the county'. TWO OBSERVATIONS. (1) INSTRUMENT POSTURE: the data center rules arrived INSIDE A GENERAL ZONING PACKAGE rather than as a standalone emergency measure. A county handling data centers as one item in a routine zoning update is treating the use as an ordinary land-use question, which contrasts with the emergency and urgency ordinances that dominate this dataset \\u2014 co-fremont-county-dc-emergency-moratorium-2026, wa-chewelah-dc-emergency-moratorium-2026, ca-commerce-dc-urgency-moratorium-2026, tn-knox-county-flock-removal-ordinance-2026 \\u2014 and suggests either a county under less immediate development pressure or one that judged its ordinary process sufficient. (2) PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT: a four-hour session with standing-room attendance in a county of Amherst's size belongs with the participation records this dataset documents at oh-canton-dc-zoning-chapter-2026 (50+ speakers, dozens turned away into the rain), oh-amherst-bza-nordson-data-center-variance-denial-2026 (100+ attendees spilling onto the lawn \\u2014 a DIFFERENT Amherst, in Ohio), wi-town-of-janesville-dc-moratorium-2026 (hearing relocated to a convention centre) and nm-sierra-county-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026 (an hour of comment converting a resolution into an 18-month moratorium). VIRGINIA CONTEXT: Virginia is the largest data center market in the world and its local instruments carry disproportionate weight; this dataset indexes va-virginia-beach-dc-moratorium-2026, va-chesapeake-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026, va-botetourt-wvwa-google-water-cap-2026, warren-county-va-dc-ord-2025 and loudoun-county-va-lcso-alpr-2025. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DATA CENTER RULES IS NOT REPORTED and is the material gap \\u2014 this entry records that the county acted, not what it required.","who_is_protected":"Amherst County, Virginia residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking to establish facilities in Amherst County under the new zoning rules","citation":"Amherst County, Va. — zoning changes covering future data centers (approved August 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wdbj7.com/2026/08/19/amherst-county-passes-new-zoning-rules-vape-shops-data-centers/","source_title":"Amherst County passes new zoning rules for vape shops and data centers — WDBJ7","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Amherst County Board of Supervisors; county zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Future data centers are subject to the approved zoning changes"},{"id":"mn-freeborn-county-dc-moratorium-extension-2026","title":"Freeborn County, Minnesota — Board Extends Its Data Center Moratorium a Further Year Following an August 18 Public Hearing, Continuing a Pause First Adopted in August 2025 That Bars Permits in Unincorporated Areas","short_title":"Freeborn County MN data center moratorium extension (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Freeborn County, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Freeborn County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-08-19","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","expires_date":"2027-08-19","last_verified_date":"2026-09-16","summary_plain":"The Freeborn County Board of Commissioners approved an extension of its data center moratorium following a public hearing on August 18, 2026, putting off data center development for another year while officials work on rules for how such projects could be regulated. The original moratorium was approved on AUGUST 19, 2025 — a full year before the wave of local measures that fills most of this dataset — and it stopped the county from accepting, processing or approving permits for data centers in the UNINCORPORATED parts of Freeborn County. Two things follow. First, Freeborn County is among the earliest adopters recorded here by a wide margin. Almost everything else in this dataset dates from 2026, and most of it from June onward; a county pausing data centers in August 2025 was acting well before the issue became a national local-government preoccupation. Second, the extension raises a question the dataset now has three data points on. A Minnesota city development director told her own council that twelve months is the state's statutory maximum for such a moratorium, and that the municipality must be proving staff are actively drafting. Freeborn County has now run a moratorium for two years across two authorisations. County interim ordinance authority under Minnesota law differs from the municipal provision she was describing, so this is not necessarily inconsistent — but it is the kind of divergence worth checking rather than assuming away.","summary_technical":"Freeborn County, Minn. — EXTENSION of the county's data center moratorium for a further year, approved by the Board of Commissioners following a PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 18, 2026. ORIGINAL INSTRUMENT: approved AUGUST 19, 2025, stopping the county from ACCEPTING, PROCESSING OR APPROVING PERMITS for data centers in the UNINCORPORATED parts of Freeborn County. PURPOSE: officials are working on rules for how such projects could be regulated. TWO POINTS OF SIGNIFICANCE. (1) EARLY ADOPTION: an August 2025 original places Freeborn County among the very earliest measures in this dataset. The overwhelming majority of indexed local instruments date from 2026, most from June onward, following the statewide actions of July and August 2026 (ny-hochul-eo-statewide-dc-moratorium-2026, pa-eo-2026-05-data-center-grid-requirements-2026). Only mi-groveland-township-dc-moratorium-2026 (February 2026) and il-champaign-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (April 2026) are comparably early, and both are later than this. Early adopters' rationales are less likely to be borrowed from a circulating template. (2) CUMULATIVE DURATION AND THE MINNESOTA CEILING: with the extension, Freeborn County will have maintained a moratorium for TWO YEARS across two authorisations. mn-isanti-dc-moratorium-12mo-2026 records a city Community Development Director advising her council that TWELVE MONTHS IS THE MAXIMUM under Minnesota law and that the municipality 'ha[s] to be proving staff is working on an ordinance and doing research on it.' MINNESOTA COUNTY INTERIM ORDINANCE AUTHORITY (Minn. Stat. \\u00a7 394.34) IS A DIFFERENT PROVISION from the municipal authority (\\u00a7 462.355 subd. 4) she was describing, and permits a county interim ordinance for up to one year with a possible extension \\u2014 so a two-year total across two adoptions is not necessarily inconsistent. FLAGGED FOR CHECKING, NOT ASSERTED AS A DEFECT. The active-drafting condition is satisfied on the face of the reporting: officials are working on rules. MINNESOTA COHORT: mn-carlton-county-dc-moratorium-2026, mn-otsego-dc-moratorium-2026, mn-pine-county-dc-moratorium-extension-2026 (six months extended to twelve after testimony), mn-isanti-dc-moratorium-12mo-2026, mn-cambridge-dc-moratorium-2026, inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06 and minneapolis-data-center-moratorium-2026-05.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Freeborn County, Minnesota","who_must_comply":"Applicants for data center permits in unincorporated Freeborn County; incorporated municipalities within the county are unaffected","citation":"Freeborn County, Minn. — extension of the data center moratorium (approved following a public hearing August 18, 2026); original moratorium approved August 19, 2025","source_url":"https://www.kaaltv.com/news/top-news/freeborn-county-extends-data-center-moratorium-for-another-year/","source_title":"Freeborn County extends data center moratorium for another year — KAAL / ABC 6 News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Freeborn County Board of Commissioners; county zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"The county will not accept, process or approve data center permits in unincorporated areas during the extended moratorium"},{"id":"ky-murray-dc-regulations-2026","title":"Murray, Kentucky — City Council Unanimously Passes the Second Reading of a REVISED Data Center Ordinance, After a Study Group Review and a Planning Commission Hearing That Drew a Large Crowd (2026)","short_title":"Murray KY data center regulations (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Murray, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Calloway County","city":"Murray","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"Murray City Council unanimously voted to pass the SECOND READING of a REVISED ordinance regulating data centers, with Mayor Bob Rogers calling for City Clerk Kim Miles to recite the reading at the Thursday meeting. Two details make this more than a routine adoption. The ordinance is REVISED — it went through a STUDY GROUP REVIEW before returning to council — and the revision followed a Murray Planning Commission public hearing in JUNE 2026 that drew what the reporting describes as a huge crowd. More than a dozen city residents still spoke at the council meeting, though the turnout was smaller than at the June hearing. That sequence is the deliberative version of what this dataset more often records as confrontation: a proposal, a large and hostile hearing, a study group, a revision, and then unanimous adoption of the revised text. Compare Joplin, Missouri, where a council publicly refused to approve rules it considered too weak and eventually adopted a version with doubled setbacks; or Portage, Indiana, where the council tightened noise and height caps by floor amendment. Murray took the slower path of sending it to a study group. Kentucky has one of the densest local cohorts in this dataset, running from Woodford County's permanent ban through two-year moratoriums in Bell and Rowan Counties to Louisville Metro's pause.","summary_technical":"City of Murray, Ky. (Calloway County) — REVISED ORDINANCE REGULATING DATA CENTERS, second reading passed UNANIMOUSLY by the City Council at a Thursday meeting, with Mayor BOB ROGERS calling on City Clerk KIM MILES to recite the reading. PROCEDURAL HISTORY, which is the substance here: the ordinance was REVISED FOLLOWING A STUDY GROUP REVIEW, and the study group process followed a MURRAY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING IN JUNE 2026 that drew a 'huge crowd'. More than a dozen city residents spoke at the council meeting itself, a smaller turnout than the June hearing. THE SEQUENCE IS THE DELIBERATIVE VARIANT of a pattern this dataset usually records as confrontation: proposal \\u2192 large hostile hearing \\u2192 STUDY GROUP \\u2192 revision \\u2192 unanimous adoption of the revised text. Compare the adversarial variants: mo-joplin-dc-regulations-2026 (council publicly refused to approve rules it considered too weak, then adopted a version with setbacks DOUBLED from 300 to 600 feet and a 45 dB limit, 5-4); in-portage-technology-campus-district-2026 (noise cap cut from 65 to 55 dB and height from 75 to 65 feet BY FLOOR AMENDMENT); oh-canton-dc-zoning-chapter-2026 (adopted 8-3 over unanimous public opposition). Murray routed the disagreement through a study group instead and emerged with unanimity \\u2014 which is a different governance outcome from the same inputs, and the kind of contrast that is only visible across a dataset of this size. Kentucky is also where mi-east-lansing's strategy of learning from other communities' feedback would find the most material. KENTUCKY COHORT, among the densest here: ky-woodford-county-permanent-dc-ban-2026 (the state's first permanent county ban), ky-bell-county-kentucky-two-year-moratorium-on-data-center-construction-and-ope-2026, ky-rowan-county-dc-moratorium-2yr-2026, ky-mercer-county-dc-moratorium-2026, ky-logan-county-dc-moratorium-2026, ky-nicholasville-dc-moratorium-2026, ky-london-dc-moratorium-2026, ky-winchester-dc-moratorium-2026, ky-louisville-metro-dc-moratorium-2026, ky-lexington-fayette-urban-county-moratorium-on-data-center-permits-development-plans-and-2026 and ky-beshear-eo-data-center-development-2026. THE ORDINANCE'S SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT REPORTED and are the material gap.","who_is_protected":"Murray, Kentucky residents in Calloway County","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Murray, subject to the revised ordinance","citation":"City of Murray, Ky. — revised ordinance regulating data centers, second reading passed unanimously (2026)","source_url":"https://www.murrayledger.com/news/murray-city-council-approves-data-center-regulations-after-study-group-review/article.html","source_title":"Murray City Council approves data center regulations after study group review — Murray Ledger & Times","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Murray; Murray Planning Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data centers are subject to the revised ordinance's regulations"},{"id":"ca-irwindale-dc-ban-2026","title":"Irwindale, California — City Council Unanimously Adopts an Ordinance PROHIBITING Data Centers Outright in the Zoning Code, Citing Continuous Electrical Demand Backed by Diesel or Gas Generators, Noise, and Cooling Water Use; Mayor Confirms No Ballot Initiative Is Planned, Unlike Neighbouring Monterey Park and Alhambra (September 2026)","short_title":"Irwindale CA data center ban ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Irwindale, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Los Angeles County","city":"Irwindale","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-16","enacted_date":"2026-09-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"Irwindale's City Council unanimously approved an ordinance banning data centers in the city on Wednesday, September 16, 2026, writing the prohibition into the zoning code. This is a PERMANENT BAN, not a temporary moratorium — an important distinction, because most of the local measures in this dataset are pauses of 45 days to 18 months while officials write rules. Irwindale decided not to write rules. The city's stated reasons, recorded when it recently updated its zoning code, were data centers' substantial and continuous electrical demand often supported by diesel or gas-powered backup generators, significant noise, significant water use for cooling systems, and the pressure such facilities create for related infrastructure and land-use changes. Mayor Manuel Ortiz framed the ordinance as compatible with growth: Irwindale should remain open to responsible economic development while carefully weighing the impact data centers would create. Irwindale joins a dense San Gabriel Valley cluster — El Monte and Monterey Park have both imposed bans or moratoriums. Two of those neighbours went further than an ordinance: Monterey Park and Alhambra approved BALLOT INITIATIVES putting the ban to voters, on the theory that a voter-enacted ban is harder to undo, since a future council can only overturn it with another ballot measure. Irwindale's mayor says the city has no plans for a ballot initiative, which means its ban rests on an ordinary council majority and a future council could repeal it.","summary_technical":"Irwindale, Calif. (Los Angeles County, San Gabriel Valley) — ZONING CODE PROHIBITION on data centers adopted UNANIMOUSLY by the City Council by ordinance on WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2026. THIS IS A PROHIBITION, NOT A MORATORIUM: the source reports the city 'ban[s] data centers in its zoning code,' placing this with monterey-park-ca-dc-ban-measure-ndc-2026, fl-edgewater-ai-dc-ban-2026, fl-escambia-county-large-dc-ban-2026 and nj-jersey-city-dc-industrial-ban-ord-26-057 rather than with the interim-urgency cohort (ca-gilroy-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026, ca-palm-springs-dc-moratorium-2026). FINDINGS RECITED IN THE ORDINANCE RECORD, per the source: (1) substantial and continuous electrical demand, OFTEN SUPPORTED BY DIESEL OR GAS-POWERED BACKUP generation; (2) significant noise generation; (3) significant water usage for cooling systems; (4) pressure for related infrastructure and land-use changes. Council directed staff and legal counsel to prepare a prohibiting ordinance after recognising these potential environmental impacts and compatibility concerns following a recent Zoning Code update. THE DURABILITY POINT IS THE ANALYTICALLY IMPORTANT ONE. The source records that MONTEREY PARK AND ALHAMBRA COUNCILS 'GONE FURTHER THAN ORDINANCE BANS, APPROVING BALLOT INITIATIVES TO LET VOTERS DECIDE' — and states the proponents' rationale explicitly: 'ballot initiative bans are a stronger safeguard against the technology; a future council looking to overturn can only do so with another ballot initiative.' ALHAMBRA'S BALLOT MEASURE IS UP FOR A VOTE IN NOVEMBER (UNINDEXED LEAD — no Alhambra entry exists in this dataset). IRWINDALE'S MAYOR ORTIZ STATES THERE ARE NO PLANS FOR A BALLOT INITIATIVE, so Irwindale's ban is repealable by a simple future council majority. This is the clearest statement in the dataset of the ordinance-versus-initiative entrenchment tradeoff. SAN GABRIEL VALLEY CLUSTER: the source names EL MONTE and MONTEREY PARK as having imposed bans and moratoriums; only Monterey Park is currently indexed (monterey-park-ca-dc-ban-measure-ndc-2026). EL MONTE AND ALHAMBRA ARE UNINDEXED LEADS. UTILITY RESPONSE: Southern California Edison spokesperson Scott Johnson said SCE was aware of the ordinance but noted 'data center growth is more moderate than many other regions in the country' for electrical consumption in its territory. ORDINANCE NUMBER NOT OBTAINED; the ordinance's effective date (California ordinances ordinarily take effect 30 days after adoption unless adopted as an urgency measure) IS NOT STATED IN THE SOURCE.","who_is_protected":"Irwindale residents in Los Angeles County, California","who_must_comply":"Data center developers, who may not site data centers in Irwindale under the zoning code","citation":"Irwindale, Cal. — zoning code ordinance prohibiting data centers, adopted unanimously September 16, 2026","source_url":"https://www.sgvtribune.com/2026/09/16/irwindale-approves-data-center-ban-adding-to-growing-list-of-san-gabriel-valley-cities/","source_title":"Irwindale approves data center ban, adding to growing list of San Gabriel Valley cities — San Gabriel Valley Tribune","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Irwindale City Council; city zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data centers are prohibited as a use under the Irwindale zoning code"},{"id":"ca-richmond-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026","title":"Richmond, California — City Council Approves a 45-Day Moratorium on New Data Centers, the Opening Interval of a California Interim Urgency Ordinance, on the Same Night Neighbouring Hayward Directed Staff to Return With Moratorium Options (September 2026)","short_title":"Richmond CA 45-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Richmond, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Contra Costa County","city":"Richmond","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-15","enacted_date":"2026-09-15","expires_date":"2026-10-30","last_verified_date":"2026-09-21","summary_plain":"The Richmond City Council approved a 45-day moratorium on new data centers on Tuesday, September 15, 2026. The 45-day figure is not arbitrary: California Government Code section 65858 lets a city adopt an interim urgency ordinance freezing land uses for 45 days by a four-fifths vote, then extend it once for 10 months and 15 days, and once more for a year — a maximum of two years. Almost every California pause in this dataset starts at exactly 45 days for this reason, and the real question for any of them is whether the council comes back and extends. Richmond's adoption came the same night the Hayward City Council directed staff to return with options for its own data center moratorium, and while more than 70 speakers were registering opposition to data centers at the Oakland City Council — evidence of a co-ordinated East Bay wave rather than three unrelated local decisions.","summary_technical":"Richmond, Calif. (Contra Costa County) — 45-DAY MORATORIUM ON NEW DATA CENTERS approved by the City Council on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2026. THE 45-DAY TERM IDENTIFIES THE INSTRUMENT: Cal. Gov. Code § 65858 authorises an interim urgency ordinance prohibiting uses in conflict with a contemplated zoning proposal, adopted by a FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE, effective for 45 DAYS, extendable once by 10 MONTHS AND 15 DAYS and once more by 1 YEAR (two years maximum aggregate), with each extension requiring notice, hearing and a written report on measures taken to alleviate the condition. Cohort: ca-gilroy-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026 (45-day, unanimous, September 14 2026), ca-palm-springs-dc-moratorium-2026. expires_date 2026-10-30 IS COMPUTED as 45 days from adoption and IS NOT STATED IN THE SOURCE. EAST BAY CLUSTER, SAME NIGHT: the source reports that on the same Tuesday the HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO RETURN WITH OPTIONS for a data center moratorium (unindexed lead, deferred in the triage ledger — direction to staff is not an adopted measure), while more than 70 speakers addressed the OAKLAND City Council in opposition even though data centers were not on that day's agenda (ca-oakland-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026 is already indexed; Oakland Councilmember CARROLL FIFE is proposing an urgency ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on city approval of land-use entitlements or agreements for data centers, to receive its first formal airing at the council's Life Enrichment Committee). NAMING CAUTION RECORDED DELIBERATELY: the source headline reads 'Following Richmond, Hayward, Fife seeks pause' — 'Fife' THERE IS OAKLAND COUNCILMEMBER CARROLL FIFE, NOT THE CITY OF FIFE, WASHINGTON. No Fife WA measure is asserted by this source and none should be inferred from it. SOURCE LIMIT: the reporting sentence is CUT MID-CLAUSE BY A PAYWALL ('the Richmond City Council approved a 45-day moratorium on new data centers,') so any scope qualifiers, exemptions, vote tally and ordinance number that followed WERE NOT CAPTURED.","who_is_protected":"Richmond residents in Contra Costa County, California","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking new approvals in Richmond during the moratorium","citation":"Richmond, Cal. — 45-day interim moratorium on new data centers, approved September 15, 2026","source_url":"https://richmondstandard.com/community/2026/09/16/richmond-city-council-approves-45-day-moratorium-on-new-data-centers/","source_title":"Richmond City Council approves 45-day moratorium on new data centers — Richmond Standard, Sept. 16, 2026","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Richmond City Council; city planning department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"New data center applications may not be approved during the moratorium period"},{"id":"wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Sauk County, Wisconsin — County Board Votes 27-1 for an 18-Month Moratorium on Data Center Applications and Zoning Approvals in County-Zoned Areas Despite No Known Pending Project, Because the Zoning Ordinance Has No Mechanism to Address One (September 2026)","short_title":"Sauk County WI 18-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Sauk County, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Sauk County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-15","enacted_date":"2026-09-15","expires_date":"2028-03-15","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"The Sauk County Board voted 27-1 on Tuesday, September 15, 2026 to stop accepting data center applications and granting data center zoning approvals for 18 months in the parts of the county under county zoning. County leaders say they are not aware of any data center project currently planned in Sauk County. That is the point. Supervisor William Kinsman told the board the county has no specific mechanism in its zoning ordinance to address a data center proposal at all, and officials said the goal is to get regulations in place BEFORE a developer comes forward. This is pre-emptive rather than reactive, which matters legally: a moratorium enacted while an application is pending invites vested-rights litigation, and this dataset already records several moratoriums defeated exactly that way. Sauk County faces no such exposure. One caution belongs on the face of this entry: 18 months is a long moratorium under Wisconsin practice, where the usual understanding is an initial term of up to 12 months with one 6-month extension. An 18-month term adopted in a single enactment is at the outer edge of that framework, and its defensibility, if challenged, would turn on the county's record of actively drafting regulations.","summary_technical":"Sauk County, Wis. — 18-MONTH MORATORIUM on data center proposals adopted by the COUNTY BOARD 27-1 on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2026. OPERATIVE SCOPE: temporarily stops the county from ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS or GRANTING ZONING APPROVALS for data centers IN AREAS UNDER COUNTY ZONING — which in Wisconsin excludes municipalities and, under Wis. Stat. § 59.69(5)(c), towns that have not adopted county zoning; the source does not enumerate which Sauk County towns are covered. PRE-EMPTIVE POSTURE, EXPRESSLY STATED: county leaders 'say they are not aware of any projects currently planned there,' and officials said 'the goal is to get regulations in place before a developer comes forward.' Supervisor WILLIAM KINSMAN told the board THE COUNTY CURRENTLY HAS NO SPECIFIC MECHANISM IN ITS ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADDRESS A DATA CENTER PROPOSAL; the moratorium gives staff time to research the developments and determine appropriate requirements. THIS IS THE SAME DIAGNOSIS recorded at oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026 (a data center admissible as a warehouse-type use under an undefined code), ca-palm-springs-dc-moratorium-2026 (no data center definition in municipal or zoning code) and ga-forest-park-dc-moratorium-2026 (Digital Realty building by right for that reason) — code silence treated as exposure. THE PRE-EMPTIVE TIMING IS A LEGAL ASSET: this dataset records moratoriums defeated by vested rights where an application or agreement predated the pause (Rockford IL annexation agreement, Cle Elum WA 2002 development agreement, Salem pre-filed application, Lowell settlement, Athens site outside city limits). With no pending project, Sauk County has no equivalent exposure. DURATION FLAG — RECORDED AS A CAUTION, NOT AS A DEFECT FOUND BY A COURT: Wisconsin moratorium practice is generally understood as an initial term of UP TO 12 MONTHS WITH ONE 6-MONTH EXTENSION; an 18-MONTH TERM ADOPTED IN A SINGLE ENACTMENT sits at the outer edge of that framework. The same ceiling question is recorded against the Minnesota entries (Minn. Stat. § 462.355 subd. 4 / § 394.34, 12 months maximum) and against the multi-year terms elsewhere in this dataset. NO CHALLENGE TO THE SAUK COUNTY ORDINANCE IS REPORTED. expires_date IS COMPUTED as 18 months from adoption and is NOT stated in the source. ORDINANCE NUMBER NOT OBTAINED.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Sauk County, Wisconsin in areas subject to county zoning","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking applications or zoning approvals in county-zoned areas of Sauk County","citation":"Sauk County, Wis. — 18-month moratorium on data center applications and zoning approvals, adopted 27-1 on September 15, 2026","source_url":"https://www.wmtv15news.com/2026/09/16/sauk-county-approves-18-month-moratorium-new-data-centers/","source_title":"Sauk County approves 18-month moratorium on new data centers — WMTV 15 News (NBC, Madison)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Sauk County Board of Supervisors; county zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"The county may not accept applications or grant zoning approvals for data centers during the moratorium"},{"id":"or-woodburn-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Woodburn, Oregon — City Council Unanimously Enacts a 120-Day Moratorium on Data Center Development Because the City May Not Be Able to Supply the Water Such Facilities Require, After Verrus Was Reported Exploring a Site Within City Limits (September 2026)","short_title":"Woodburn OR 120-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Woodburn, OR","state_abbr":"OR","county":"Marion County","city":"Woodburn","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-14","enacted_date":"2026-09-14","expires_date":"2027-01-12","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"The Woodburn City Council unanimously enacted a 120-day moratorium on data center development on Monday, September 14, 2026, preventing the city from considering any new applications while officials analyse the potential impacts on the environment, city regulations and overall quality of life. The stated driver is WATER, not electricity — city officials say Woodburn might not be able to accommodate the large amount of water data centers often require. That is a distinct rationale from most entries in this dataset, where grid capacity and ratepayer cost dominate, and it is the same constraint recorded in the desert-southwest and Great Plains entries. Woodburn has no current or pending data center application. City officials had previously said that California-based Verrus had been exploring building a center within city limits, so the pause is pre-emptive but not speculative — it was adopted against a named prospective developer that has not yet applied, which is the strongest possible position for a moratorium to occupy: early enough to avoid vested-rights problems, late enough to be demonstrably needed.","summary_technical":"Woodburn, Ore. (Marion County) — 120-DAY MORATORIUM on data center development, approved UNANIMOUSLY by the City Council on MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2026. OPERATIVE EFFECT: prevents the city from CONSIDERING ANY NEW APPLICATIONS for the duration; the source characterises it as 'the next three months' although the stated term is 120 days. PURPOSE: during the pause, city officials will analyse potential impacts to THE ENVIRONMENT, CITY REGULATIONS AND OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE. THE OPERATIVE CONSTRAINT IS WATER, NOT POWER: 'City officials say Woodburn might not be able to accommodate the potentially large amount of water that data centers often require.' This distinguishes the entry from the ratepayer/grid-capacity rationale that dominates the dataset (us-hr-9340-ratepayer-protection-act-2026, tn-hb1847-data-center-ratepayer-protection-2026, az-hb2756-utilities-high-load-factor-2026) and aligns it with the water-scarcity cohort. PRE-EMPTIVE BUT NOT SPECULATIVE: Woodburn has NO CURRENT OR PENDING DATA CENTER APPLICATIONS, but city officials previously said CALIFORNIA-BASED VERRUS had been EXPLORING building a center within city limits. That posture — a named prospective developer, no filed application — is the optimal moratorium timing under the vested-rights pattern this dataset repeatedly records, where pauses adopted after an application or development agreement were defeated (Rockford IL annexation agreement, Cle Elum WA 2002 development agreement, Salem pre-filed application, Lowell settlement). OREGON CONTEXT: Oregon land-use law channels local regulation through the statewide planning goals and the Land Use Board of Appeals; the source does not state the ordinance's statutory basis, the vote's form (emergency clause or otherwise), or whether the moratorium was adopted under ORS 197.520, the statute governing local moratoria on construction, WHICH REQUIRES WRITTEN FINDINGS of a shortage of public facilities or a demonstrated need. THAT STATUTORY QUESTION IS UNRESOLVED HERE and is flagged rather than answered. expires_date IS COMPUTED as 120 days from adoption and is NOT stated in the source. ORDINANCE NUMBER NOT OBTAINED.","who_is_protected":"Woodburn residents in Marion County, Oregon, and users of the city's water supply","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking new applications in Woodburn during the moratorium, including Verrus","citation":"Woodburn, Or. — 120-day moratorium on data center development, adopted unanimously September 14, 2026","source_url":"https://www.opb.org/article/2026/09/15/woodburn-moratorium-new-data-centers/","source_title":"Woodburn council passes moratorium on new data centers — Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Woodburn City Council; city planning department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"The city may not consider new data center applications during the moratorium"},{"id":"mn-bemidji-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Bemidji, Minnesota — PLANNING BOARD, Not the City Council, Votes 6-1 for a One-Year Moratorium Barring Data Centers Over 10,000 Square Feet and Cryptocurrency Mining Facilities of ANY Size, After a February News Report Wrongly Listed the City Among Minnesota Data Center Sites (September 2026)","short_title":"Bemidji MN one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Bemidji, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Beltrami County","city":"Bemidji","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-14","enacted_date":"2026-09-14","expires_date":"2027-09-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-21","summary_plain":"The Bemidji Planning Board voted 6-1 on September 14, 2026 to prohibit new data centers larger than 10,000 square feet inside the city limits for one year, and the prohibition extends to CRYPTOCURRENCY MINING FACILITIES OF ANY SIZE. City staff now have that year to draft an ordinance specific to data center development. Two features make this entry unusual. First, the body that acted is the PLANNING BOARD, and the source describes the September 14 vote as the FINAL action — not a recommendation forwarded to the city council, which is the normal path. That is worth flagging, because Minnesota's interim ordinance statute vests the authority in the governing body, and an entry recorded here as adopted would be wrong if a council ratification step exists and was simply not mentioned. Second, the size threshold is asymmetric and deliberately so: data centers are caught only above 10,000 square feet, while crypto mining is caught at any size — a judgment that a small crypto operation imposes the same grid and noise burden as a much larger conventional facility. The origin is striking. The moratorium was first discussed in August 2026 following a February news report that INACCURATELY included Bemidji on a list of planned Minnesota data center sites. The city was never a target; the erroneous report itself prompted the regulation.","summary_technical":"Bemidji, Minn. (Beltrami County) — ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM adopted by the BEMIDJI PLANNING BOARD on a 6-1 VOTE at its SEPTEMBER 14, 2026 meeting. OPERATIVE SCOPE, TWO ASYMMETRIC THRESHOLDS: (1) prohibits NEW DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENTS EXCEEDING 10,000 SQUARE FEET within Bemidji's city limits; (2) EXTENDS TO CRYPTOCURRENCY MINING FACILITIES OF ANY SIZE — no floor. The size-graduated approach places this with the MW- and square-foot-threshold cohort rather than the flat bans; the any-size crypto carve-in is the distinguishing feature and reflects a judgment that small crypto-mining loads carry grid and acoustic impacts disproportionate to their footprint. PURPOSE: Bemidji city staffers have ONE YEAR to craft an ordinance specific to data center development. PROCEDURAL ANOMALY FLAGGED, NOT RESOLVED: the acting body is the PLANNING BOARD and the source states the September 14 vote 'was the final action to prohibit development.' Under MINN. STAT. § 462.355 SUBD. 4 the interim-ordinance power belongs to THE GOVERNING BODY (the city council), which may adopt an interim ordinance for up to 12 MONTHS while conducting a study, and the statute caps the total at that 12-month period. TWO READINGS ARE POSSIBLE: the Planning Board exercised a delegated or independent zoning power, or the source has compressed a recommendation-plus-council-adoption sequence into one vote. THE SOURCE DOES NOT RESOLVE THIS and this entry does not either — see notes. DURATION IS AT THE STATUTORY CEILING, NOT OVER IT: one year equals the § 462.355 subd. 4 maximum, unlike the multi-year terms flagged elsewhere in this dataset. ORIGIN: the measure was first discussed in AUGUST 2026, following a FEBRUARY 2026 NEWS REPORT THAT INACCURATELY INCLUDED BEMIDJI ON A LIST OF PLANNED DATA CENTERS IN MINNESOTA — a regulatory response triggered by an erroneous report rather than by an actual proposal, which is a documented instance of the sector's reputational dynamics producing law. expires_date IS COMPUTED as one year from the vote and is NOT stated in the source.","who_is_protected":"Bemidji residents in Beltrami County, Minnesota","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers exceeding 10,000 square feet and of cryptocurrency mining facilities of any size within Bemidji city limits","citation":"Bemidji, Minn. — one-year moratorium on data centers over 10,000 sq ft and crypto mining of any size, adopted 6-1 on September 14, 2026","source_url":"https://www.kaxe.org/local-news/2026-09-15/bemidji-adopts-1-year-moratorium-on-data-center-development","source_title":"Bemidji adopts 1-year moratorium on data center development — KAXE (Northern Community Radio)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Bemidji Planning Board; city planning and zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"New data centers over 10,000 square feet and crypto mining facilities of any size are prohibited during the moratorium"},{"id":"ok-broken-arrow-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Broken Arrow, Oklahoma — City Council's June 2026 Moratorium on Data Center Proposals Expires at Year's End and May Be Extended; City Manager States No Project Is Imminent and the Letter of Intent on the 51-Acre Site Expired Unrenewed (September 2026)","short_title":"Broken Arrow OK data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Broken Arrow, OK","state_abbr":"OK","county":"Tulsa County","city":"Broken Arrow","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-15","enacted_date":"2026-06-15","expires_date":"2026-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-21","summary_plain":"Broken Arrow's City Council approved a moratorium in June 2026 on any data center proposals, running through the end of the year, so city officials could investigate the impacts of large-scale data centers on local resources and create appropriate regulations. In September, City Manager Michael Spurgeon said the moratorium could be extended, that officials are still studying the question, and that there are no imminent projects on the horizon. He pushed back directly on social media claims that a data center is a foregone conclusion: the administration has reached no conclusions and is not close to a recommendation. The proximate cause has also gone away for now — the city learned in June of plans for a data center on 51 acres in the 8500 block of South, but the letter of intent to sell that property EXPIRED AND WAS NOT RENEWED. This entry is recorded because it is a real adopted measure with a defined end date approaching, and because it captures the ordinary case that rarely gets reported: a moratorium quietly running its course with no project to stop.","summary_technical":"Broken Arrow, Okla. (Tulsa County) — MORATORIUM ON ANY DATA CENTER PROPOSALS approved by the City Council in JUNE 2026, EXPIRING AT YEAR'S END (2026-12-31), with EXTENSION UNDER ACTIVE CONSIDERATION as of September 15, 2026. STATED PURPOSE: to let city officials investigate the impacts of large-scale data centers on local resources and create appropriate regulations. STATUS REPORT, 2026-09-15: City Manager MICHAEL SPURGEON stated the city is STILL STUDYING potential impacts, that THERE ARE NO IMMINENT PROJECTS, that 'the administration has not reached any conclusions or prepared to make any recommendations,' and that the city is 'performing our due diligence and not anywhere close to making a recommendation.' He expressly rebutted social-media claims that a data center development is a foregone conclusion. THE TRIGGERING PROJECT HAS LAPSED: in June the city learned of plans for a proposed data center on 51 ACRES in the 8500 BLOCK OF S. [street name truncated in the retrieved text], but THE LETTER OF INTENT TO SELL THE PROPERTY EXPIRED AND WAS NOT RENEWED. This is a documented instance of the pattern recorded at ia-marshalltown-dc-moratorium-2026 and elsewhere — the pause outliving the proposal that prompted it — and of the withdrawal pattern recorded for Southeast Raleigh, where a developer withdrew an annexation request in August 2026. enacted_date and effective_date of 2026-06-01 ARE PLACEHOLDERS: the source gives only 'June' with no day. EXACT TERM LENGTH IS NOT STATED; only the June adoption and year-end expiry are given. ORDINANCE NUMBER NOT OBTAINED. VOTE TALLY NOT STATED.","who_is_protected":"Broken Arrow residents in Tulsa County, Oklahoma","who_must_comply":"Data center developers submitting proposals in Broken Arrow during the moratorium","citation":"Broken Arrow, Okla. — moratorium on data center proposals adopted June 2026, expiring December 31, 2026, extension under consideration","source_url":"https://www.brokenarrowok.gov/Home/Components/News/News/3080","source_title":"Data Center moratorium to be considered — City of Broken Arrow (official city news)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Broken Arrow City Council; City Manager's office","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"The city will not process data center proposals during the moratorium"},{"id":"pa-lower-mount-bethel-township-dc-ordinance-2026","title":"Lower Mount Bethel Township, Pennsylvania — Supervisors Unanimously Pass a Data Center Ordinance to Have Regulations in Place BEFORE Considering a Farmland Rezoning Request for a Hyperscale Data Center, a Supervisor Warning 'If They Put a Plan in Tomorrow, We Have Nothing' (September 2026)","short_title":"Lower Mount Bethel Township PA data center ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lower Mount Bethel Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Northampton County","city":"Lower Mount Bethel Township","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-14","enacted_date":"2026-09-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"Lower Mount Bethel Township supervisors unanimously passed a data center ordinance on Monday, September 14, 2026, setting a benchmark for regulations as the township prepares to consider a farmland rezoning request for a HYPERSCALE data center. The timing is the whole story, and the supervisors said so out loud. A resident asked the board to table the vote so more feedback could be incorporated. Supervisor Richards — appointed following the resignation of Rob Siegfried — was the most vocal in urging his colleagues not to delay, answering: 'If they put a plan in tomorrow, we have nothing.' That is the vested-rights race stated in one sentence. Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning Code gives a developer who files a complete application meaningful protection against subsequently enacted zoning, so a township that waits for the application to arrive before writing rules may find the rules cannot be applied to it. Lower Mount Bethel chose an imperfect ordinance now over a better ordinance too late. The rezoning request itself is still to come, and this entry records only the ordinance, not its outcome.","summary_technical":"Lower Mount Bethel Township, Pa. (Northampton County, Lehigh Valley) — DATA CENTER ORDINANCE passed UNANIMOUSLY by the Board of Supervisors on MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2026, expressly 'setting a benchmark for regulations as the township prepares to consider a farmland rezoning request for a hyperscale data center.' THE OPERATIVE RATIONALE IS PRE-EMPTION OF A PENDING RESZONING REQUEST, STATED ON THE RECORD: a resident asked the board to TABLE the vote so more feedback could be incorporated; SUPERVISOR RICHARDS (appointed on the 24th following the RESIGNATION OF ROB SIEGFRIED) was 'the most vocal in urging his fellow board members to avoid further delay,' responding: 'IF THEY PUT A PLAN IN TOMORROW, WE HAVE NOTHING.' THIS IS THE PENNSYLVANIA MPC VESTED-RIGHTS RACE ARTICULATED BY THE DECISION-MAKER HIMSELF. Under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, a landowner filing a complete application acquires protection against later-enacted zoning, and the pending-ordinance doctrine cuts the other way only where the municipality has already advertised its amendment. The township's choice — adopt a possibly imperfect ordinance before the application lands rather than a better one after — is the same strategic logic recorded at pa-montgomery-township-dc-curative-regulations-2026 and pa-falls-township-zoning-curative-amendment-dc-2026, where townships declared their OWN ordinances substantively invalid to control the remedy and foreclose developer validity challenges. LOCAL CONTEXT: TALEN ENERGY operates the Lower Mount Bethel Power Plant at 6079 Depues Ferry Road in the township — existing large-scale generation adjacent to the proposed site, the co-location pattern recorded throughout this dataset. THE ORDINANCE'S SUBSTANTIVE STANDARDS ARE NOT ENUMERATED IN THE RETRIEVED TEXT: setbacks, height, noise limits, water, district placement and whether data centers are by-right or conditional USE ARE ALL UNKNOWN and must not be inferred. THE FARMLAND REZONING REQUEST REMAINS PENDING and its outcome is not recorded by this entry. LEHIGH VALLEY / SOUTHEASTERN PA CLUSTER: pa-norristown-dc-ordinance-2026, pa-swatara-township-dc-ordinance-2026, pa-montgomery-township-dc-curative-regulations-2026, pa-falls-township-zoning-curative-amendment-dc-2026, pa-ligonier-township-dc-zoning-regulations-2026, plus unindexed leads at Morrisville Borough, Whitemarsh Township, West Conshohocken and Upper Merion.","who_is_protected":"Lower Mount Bethel Township residents in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, including owners of farmland subject to the pending rezoning request","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Lower Mount Bethel Township, including the applicant for the hyperscale farmland rezoning","citation":"Lower Mount Bethel Township, Pa. — data center ordinance adopted unanimously September 14, 2026, ahead of a pending hyperscale farmland rezoning request","source_url":"https://www.mcall.com/2026/09/15/lower-mount-bethel-data-center-ordinance-passes/","source_title":"Lehigh Valley community becomes latest to pass data center ordinance, ahead of review of farmland rezoning request — The Morning Call","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Lower Mount Bethel Township Board of Supervisors; township zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center development is subject to the newly adopted ordinance's regulations"},{"id":"in-steuben-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Steuben County, Indiana — Board of Commissioners Formally Enacts a Six-Month Data Center Construction Moratorium by Resolution, Adopting the Plan Commission's August Recommendation, as Utilities Discuss Routing High-Transmission Lines Through the County (September 2026)","short_title":"Steuben County IN six-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Steuben County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Steuben County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-15","enacted_date":"2026-09-15","expires_date":"2027-03-15","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"The Steuben County Board of Commissioners formally enacted a six-month moratorium on data center construction on Tuesday, September 15, 2026, by a resolution adopting an August recommendation from the Steuben County Plan Commission. The pause gives local officials time to draft a permanent zoning ordinance governing where such facilities may go. The county framed this as defensive planning rather than opposition: officials said Steuben County is not completely closed to future technology business, but emphasised that the massive scale of these projects requires clear guardrails first. The urgency has a specific source. Utility companies are ACTIVELY DISCUSSING PLANS TO ROUTE HIGH-TRANSMISSION ELECTRIC LINES THROUGH STEUBEN COUNTY. Transmission capacity is what makes a county a data center target, so new lines are the leading indicator that developers will follow — and the county is moving to have rules written before that happens rather than after. Six months is a short pause by the standards of this dataset, where twelve and eighteen months are common; the drafting timetable is therefore tight and the likelihood of an extension request is real.","summary_technical":"Steuben County, Ind. (county seat Angola) — SIX-MONTH MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTER CONSTRUCTION formally enacted by the BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS by RESOLUTION on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2026. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: the resolution FORMALIZES AND ADOPTS AN AUGUST 2026 RECOMMENDATION FROM THE STEUBEN COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION — the recommend-then-adopt sequence, with the commissioners as the adopting body. This is the ORTHODOX path and is worth contrasting with mn-bemidji-dc-moratorium-2026 in this same wave, where a PLANNING BOARD vote is reported as the final action and the entry is held at needs-confirmation for that reason. STATED PURPOSE: to temporarily pause new developments and give local officials time to DRAFT A PERMANENT ZONING ORDINANCE governing where data centers may be sited. STATED POSTURE: the county 'says they are not completely closed to future technology business' but emphasises that 'the massive scale of these projects requires the county to establish clear guardrails first.' THE PRECIPITATING FACTOR IS TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE, NOT A PENDING APPLICATION: 'utility companies are actively discussing plans to route HIGH-TRANSMISSION ELECTRIC LINES THROUGH STEUBEN COUNTY, adding urgency to grid management.' TRANSMISSION AVAILABILITY IS THE PRIMARY SITING DETERMINANT for hyperscale data centers, so new high-voltage routing functions as a leading indicator of development pressure; Steuben County is regulating ahead of the load rather than behind it — the same pre-emptive posture as wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026 in this wave. DURATION: six months is SHORT relative to the dataset's 12- and 18-month norms, implying a compressed drafting timetable and a materially elevated probability of an extension request before 2027-03-15. INDIANA CONTEXT: county zoning authority runs through the Advisory Planning Law (Ind. Code art. 36-7-4); the source does not state the resolution number or the statutory basis, and NEITHER IS ASSERTED HERE. expires_date IS COMPUTED as six months from adoption and is NOT stated in the source. NO VOTE TALLY IS GIVEN.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Steuben County, Indiana","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking to construct facilities in Steuben County during the moratorium","citation":"Steuben County, Ind. — resolution enacting a six-month moratorium on data center construction, adopted September 15, 2026","source_url":"https://wtvbam.com/2026/09/16/981590/","source_title":"Steuben County places six month moratorium on data centers — WTVB","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Steuben County Board of Commissioners; Steuben County Plan Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center construction is paused during the moratorium period"},{"id":"nc-newport-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Newport, North Carolina — Town Council Approves a Moratorium of AT LEAST One Year Covering Data Centers, Data Processing Facilities and Cryptocurrency Mining, Applying Both Inside the Town and Across Its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, While the Unified Development Ordinance Is Rewritten (September 2026)","short_title":"Newport NC data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Newport, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Carteret County","city":"Newport","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-16","enacted_date":"2026-09-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"The Newport Town Council approved a temporary moratorium on data center development while town officials complete a comprehensive rewrite of the town's development regulations. Three features distinguish it. First, the SCOPE is broad by definition rather than by size: it covers data centers, data processing facilities, cryptocurrency mining operations AND associated uses — the 'associated uses' language is what prevents a developer from recharacterising a project to slip the net. Second, it applies not only within the Town of Newport but across its EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, the belt of unincorporated land outside the town limits that North Carolina municipalities may zone. ETJ coverage matters enormously here, because a town-limits-only pause simply moves the project a mile down the road, and this dataset records an Athens moratorium defeated precisely because the site lay outside the city limits. Third, the term is 'at least one year' — a floor, not a ceiling, which is unusual. Newport's current Unified Development Ordinance does not specifically address data centers or establish any standards governing them, and a comprehensive rewrite was already underway. Town Manager Michele Querry framed the moratorium as the opportunity to take a thoughtful approach to data centers within that rewrite.","summary_technical":"Newport, N.C. (Carteret County) — TEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM approved by the TOWN COUNCIL, reported 2026-09-16. SCOPE IS USE-DEFINED, NOT SIZE-THRESHOLD: covers DATA CENTERS, DATA PROCESSING FACILITIES, CRYPTOCURRENCY MINING OPERATIONS AND ASSOCIATED USES. The 'associated uses' catch-all is the anti-recharacterisation device and is the feature absent from the square-footage and megawatt-threshold moratoria elsewhere in this dataset (cf. mn-bemidji-dc-moratorium-2026 in this wave: 10,000 sq ft for data centers, any size for crypto). TERRITORIAL SCOPE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FEATURE: the moratorium applies WITHIN BOTH THE TOWN OF NEWPORT AND ITS EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. North Carolina municipalities may exercise zoning authority over an ETJ ring of unincorporated county land under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160D-202. ETJ COVERAGE CLOSES THE JURISDICTIONAL GAP THAT HAS DEFEATED MORATORIA ELSEWHERE IN THIS DATASET — most directly the Athens matter, where the site lay OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS and the municipal pause therefore could not reach it. A town-limits-only moratorium relocates a project; an ETJ moratorium does not. DURATION IS EXPRESSED AS A FLOOR: 'will remain in place FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR' — unusual phrasing, since most moratoria state a fixed term and require affirmative extension. NOTE THE TENSION: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160D-107 governs development moratoria and requires, for any moratorium exceeding 60 days on development for which no valid building permit has issued, a hearing and written findings including a DEFINITE DURATION and the specific problems justifying it. 'AT LEAST ONE YEAR' AS REPORTED DOES NOT OBVIOUSLY SATISFY A 'DEFINITE DURATION' REQUIREMENT, WHICH SUGGESTS THE ADOPTED ORDINANCE STATES A FIXED TERM THAT THE REPORTING HAS PARAPHRASED. THIS IS FLAGGED, NOT RESOLVED — expires_date is left NULL rather than computed for exactly this reason. TRIGGERING CONDITION: Newport's current UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS DATA CENTERS OR ESTABLISH STANDARDS governing their development — the code-silence diagnosis recorded at oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026, ca-palm-springs-dc-moratorium-2026, ga-forest-park-dc-moratorium-2026 and wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026. A COMPREHENSIVE UDO REWRITE WAS ALREADY UNDERWAY, which is the strongest possible posture for defending a moratorium: the required showing is generally that the municipality is actively drafting, and Newport was already doing so before the pause. Town Manager MICHELE QUERRY: 'With our Unified Development Ordinance already undergoing a comprehensive rewrite, this is an opportunity for the Town to take a thoughtful approach to data centers and related uses.' NORTH CAROLINA CLUSTER: nc-cary-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026, nc-yadkin-county-dc-moratorium-2026, nc-jackson-county-dc-moratorium-2026, with RALEIGH having directed its city attorney on 2026-09-15 to draft a six-month moratorium for a possible October 7 vote (deferred in the triage ledger, not an adopted measure).","who_is_protected":"Residents of the Town of Newport and its extraterritorial jurisdiction in Carteret County, North Carolina","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers, data processing facilities, cryptocurrency mining operations and associated uses within Newport and its ETJ","citation":"Newport, N.C. — temporary moratorium on data centers, data processing facilities, cryptocurrency mining and associated uses, town and ETJ, at least one year (2026)","source_url":"https://wcti12.com/news/local/newport-approves-one-year-moratorium-on-data-center-development","source_title":"Newport approves one-year moratorium on data center development — WCTI 12 (ABC, New Bern)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Newport Town Council; town planning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications for the covered uses may not proceed during the moratorium"},{"id":"fl-state-board-of-education-ai-rules-k12-and-colleges-2026","title":"Florida — State Board of Education Unanimously Adopts TWO Sets of Artificial Intelligence Rules, One for K-12 Districts and One for the State College System, Requiring Districts to Adopt Local Policies Governing Which AI Tools May Be Used and Requiring PARENTAL PERMISSION Before a Child Directly Interacts With an Approved AI Instructional Tool (September 2026)","short_title":"Florida State Board of Education AI rules, K-12 and state colleges (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Florida","state_abbr":"FL","topics":["education","children","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"Florida's State Board of Education unanimously approved two new sets of artificial intelligence rules on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 — one covering K-12 schools, the other covering Florida's state colleges. They are not bans. Henry Mack said the state is not trying to ban the technology: 'We've never banned access to computers in the classroom, we've never banned access to the internet, and likewise we'll never ban access to AI. It's about using it prudently and effectively.' What the K-12 rule actually does is push the decision down and add a consent gate. Every school district in Florida will have to develop LOCAL POLICIES governing which AI tools can be used and how they can be used. And parents will be NOTIFIED when certain AI instructional tools are approved, and will have to GIVE PERMISSION BEFORE THEIR CHILD DIRECTLY INTERACTS WITH THEM. That parental-consent requirement is the substantive protection here and it is stronger than the disclosure-only posture of most state education AI guidance. Not everyone on the board was comfortable. Member Layla Collins raised concerns about students becoming too reliant on the technology — 'It should not replace learning good practices' — and Mack agreed the goal is to complement rather than replace learning. The Florida Education Association's vice president, Carol Gauronskas, said she is pleased overall but that the test is implementation: whether it becomes more work for districts or something smoothly implemented. AI is already deployed in Florida districts — Hillsborough County teachers use the MagicSchool AI platform.","summary_technical":"FLORIDA — TWO ADMINISTRATIVE RULE SETS ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE approved UNANIMOUSLY by the STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION at its meeting of WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2026: one governing K-12 SCHOOLS, one governing THE FLORIDA STATE COLLEGE SYSTEM. THIS IS AGENCY RULEMAKING BY THE STATE BOARD, NOT LEGISLATION — the instrument is a State Board rule (Fla. Admin. Code, adopted under the Board's Art. IX, § 2 and ch. 1001 authority), which matters because rules are amendable by the Board without legislative action and are subject to ch. 120 rule challenges. K-12 RULE, OPERATIVE REQUIREMENTS AS REPORTED: (1) SCHOOL DISTRICTS ACROSS THE STATE MUST DEVELOP LOCAL POLICIES governing WHICH AI TOOLS MAY BE USED AND HOW THEY MAY BE USED — a delegation-with-mandate structure, the state requiring a policy rather than prescribing its content; (2) PARENTS MUST BE NOTIFIED WHEN CERTAIN AI INSTRUCTIONAL TOOLS ARE APPROVED; (3) PARENTS MUST GIVE PERMISSION BEFORE THEIR CHILD DIRECTLY INTERACTS WITH THOSE TOOLS. REQUIREMENT (3) IS THE SUBSTANTIVE PROTECTION AND IS AN OPT-IN CONSENT GATE, not notice-only — materially stronger than the disclosure-and-guidance posture of most state education AI frameworks and of the district-level policies indexed here (fl-brevard-schools-ai-policy-2026, fl-wakulla-county-schools-ai-policy-2026, fl-school-district-hillsborough-county-public-schools-fl-board-policy-2130-emerging-techno, fl-school-district-broward-county-public-schools-fl-bcps-ai-task-force-resources-and-distr, fl-school-district-miami-dade-county-public-schools-fl-board-directive-to-develop-comprehe). THE STATE COLLEGE RULE'S CONTENTS ARE NOT DESCRIBED IN THE SOURCE beyond its existence and the shared non-ban posture. EXPRESS NON-PROHIBITION POSTURE: HENRY MACK (Florida Department of Education) stated the rules 'don't ban the use of artificial intelligence within the classroom at the K-12 level, but also the colleges,' and 'We've never banned access to computers in the classroom, we've never banned access to the internet, and likewise we'll never ban access to AI. It's about using it prudently and effectively.' DISSENT/CAUTION ON THE RECORD: State Board member LAYLA COLLINS raised concerns about student over-reliance — 'It should not replace learning good practices' — with Mack agreeing the goal is to COMPLEMENT rather than REPLACE learning. STAKEHOLDER RESPONSE: CAROL GAURONSKAS, vice president of the FLORIDA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, is 'pleased with the policies overall' but flagged implementation: 'Will it just be more work on the district to provide what the State Board of Ed needs, or will it be something that is smoothly implemented?' EXISTING DEPLOYMENT: Hillsborough County teachers use the MAGICSCHOOL AI platform. RULE NUMBERS, EFFECTIVE DATES, COMPLIANCE DEADLINES FOR DISTRICT POLICY ADOPTION, AND ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM ARE ALL UNOBTAINED.","who_is_protected":"Florida K-12 students and their parents; Florida state college students","who_must_comply":"Florida school districts, which must adopt local AI tool policies and obtain parental permission before students directly interact with approved AI instructional tools; Florida state colleges","citation":"Fla. State Board of Education — two artificial intelligence rule sets for K-12 schools and the state college system, adopted unanimously September 16, 2026","source_url":"https://baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2026/09/16/florida-approves-new-ai-policies-for-k-1-schools-state-colleges","source_title":"Florida approves new AI policies for K-12 schools, state colleges — Bay News 9 (Spectrum, Tampa)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Florida State Board of Education; Florida Department of Education","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"ca-poway-ai-dc-ban-2026","title":"Poway, California — City Council Votes UNANIMOUSLY to Give Initial Approval to an Ordinance Establishing That AI DATA CENTERS ARE NOT AN ALLOWED LAND USE ANYWHERE IN THE CITY, Including the South Poway Business Park, Resting the Ban in Part on the Argument That Largely Automated Facilities Produce Fewer Long-Term Local Jobs Than Conventional Industrial Uses (September 2026)","short_title":"Poway CA AI data center ban ordinance, first reading (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Poway, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"San Diego County","city":"Poway","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"The Poway City Council voted unanimously on Tuesday, September 15, 2026 to give INITIAL approval to an ordinance banning artificial intelligence data centers. This is a first reading, not a final adoption — California ordinances ordinarily require a second reading, and this entry is recorded as PROPOSED for that reason. What the ordinance would do is unusually sweeping and unusually specific at the same time. Sweeping, because it would establish, in the city's own words, 'a clear, permanent land use policy that AI data centers are not an allowed land use anywhere within the city, thereby providing certainty to residents, businesses and property' owners — a permanent citywide prohibition rather than a pause, expressly extending to the South Poway Business Park, which is the city's industrial district and the only place such a facility would plausibly go. Specific, because the prohibition is aimed at AI DATA CENTERS as a category, not at data centers generally. Most local bans in this dataset regulate 'data centers' without distinguishing the workload, which raises hard definitional questions at the enforcement stage; Poway is attempting the narrower cut, and how it defines the term will determine whether the ordinance is administrable. The justification has two strands. The familiar one is resource strain: increasing evidence that these facilities use significant water and electricity and put pressure on water and electricity infrastructure. The less familiar one is ECONOMIC, and it is the more interesting: a council agenda summary argues that 'AI data centers are largely automated, and lead to a lack of long-term, local jobs and economic growth provided when compared to traditional industrial, manufacturing and office uses.' That reframes the question from environmental harm to opportunity cost — the land is finite, and the council is saying a data center is a worse use of industrial land than the alternatives, on employment grounds alone.","summary_technical":"Poway, Calif. (San Diego County) — ORDINANCE PROHIBITING AI DATA CENTERS, given UNANIMOUS INITIAL APPROVAL (FIRST READING) by the City Council on TUESDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 15, 2026. STATUS IS `proposed`, NOT `effective`: the source states the council voted 'to give INITIAL APPROVAL,' and California general-law cities ordinarily adopt ordinances at a second reading held at a subsequent meeting (Cal. Gov. Code § 36934), with effect 30 days thereafter absent an urgency finding. NO ADOPTION IS ASSERTED HERE. OPERATIVE STRUCTURE AS PROPOSED: the ordinance would 'establish a clear, PERMANENT LAND USE POLICY THAT AI DATA CENTERS ARE NOT AN ALLOWED LAND USE ANYWHERE WITHIN THE CITY, thereby providing certainty to residents, businesses and propert[y owners],' and would ALSO PROHIBIT development of AI data centers IN THE SOUTH POWAY BUSINESS PLAN, the policy document governing the city's Business Park. The Business Park carve-in matters: a citywide zoning prohibition that left the specific plan untouched would leave the one district where such a facility is economically plausible unregulated, and the ordinance closes that gap expressly. DEFINITIONAL NARROWING IS THE DISTINGUISHING FEATURE: the prohibition targets 'AI DATA CENTERS' AS A CATEGORY rather than data centers generally, unlike ca-irwindale-dc-ban-2026 in this same wave, monterey-park-ca-dc-ban-measure-ndc-2026, nj-jersey-city-dc-industrial-ban-ord-26-057, fl-edgewater-ai-dc-ban-2026 and fl-escambia-county-large-dc-ban-2026. A WORKLOAD-BASED DEFINITION IS SUBSTANTIALLY HARDER TO ADMINISTER THAN A SIZE- OR USE-BASED ONE — an operator can characterise a facility as general-purpose colocation — and the ordinance text defining 'AI data center' WAS NOT OBTAINED. This is the single most important open question on this entry. STATED JUSTIFICATIONS, TWO STRANDS: (1) RESOURCE STRAIN — city officials cite 'the increasing evidence that these types of data centers use significant water and electricity and result in strain on water and electricity infrastructure, adverse impac[ts]' (source text truncated mid-word); (2) EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COST, per a COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY: 'AI data centers are largely automated, and lead to a lack of long-term, local jobs and economic growth provided when compared to traditional industrial, manufacturing and office uses.' STRAND (2) IS ANALYTICALLY NOVEL IN THIS DATASET. The overwhelming majority of indexed local measures rest on environmental and infrastructure grounds — noise, water, grid load, ratepayer cost. Poway's agenda summary instead advances a LAND-USE OPPORTUNITY-COST argument: industrial land is finite, and a largely automated facility yields fewer long-term local jobs per acre than manufacturing or office use. That rationale is materially more defensible against a challenge framed around preemption or arbitrariness, because employment and economic-development objectives sit squarely within the traditional police power over zoning, whereas energy-policy rationales invite preemption arguments. SAN DIEGO COUNTY: no other San Diego County local data center measure is currently indexed. VOTE TALLY BEYOND 'UNANIMOUSLY' NOT STATED; ORDINANCE NUMBER NOT OBTAINED; SECOND READING DATE NOT STATED.","who_is_protected":"Poway residents in San Diego County, California, and users of the city's water and electricity infrastructure","who_must_comply":"Developers of AI data centers anywhere in Poway, including within the South Poway Business Park","citation":"Poway, Cal. — proposed ordinance establishing that AI data centers are not an allowed land use anywhere in the city; unanimous first reading September 15, 2026","source_url":"https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/poway-city-council-to-consider-ai-data-centers-ban/","source_title":"Poway City Council unanimously advances AI data center ban — NBC 7 San Diego (updated Sept. 16, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"Poway City Council; city planning and development services","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"If adopted, AI data centers would not be an allowed land use anywhere in the city"},{"id":"va-code-15-2-2209-5-dc-siting-disclosure-hb153-sb94-2026","title":"Virginia — Va. Code § 15.2-2209.5, Effective July 1, 2026: Identical Companion Bills HB 153 (Thomas) and SB 94 (Roem) REQUIRE a Noise Study by the Developer and Substation Disclosure by the Utility Before a Local Board Votes on the Largest Data Centers, But Set NO Noise Limit, NO Water Cap and NO Setback — Enacted by Gov. Spanberger After Gov. Youngkin Vetoed the Broader 2025 Version on Local-Autonomy Grounds","short_title":"Virginia § 15.2-2209.5 data center siting disclosure law (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["data-centers","transparency","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-04-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Virginia now has a statewide law governing where the largest data centers may go and what their developers must disclose before a local board votes. It took effect July 1, 2026 as Va. Code § 15.2-2209.5, enacted through identical companion bills HB 153 and SB 94. What it does is narrower than the debate around it suggests, and the distinction matters. The law REQUIRES STUDIES. It forces a developer to study NOISE, and it forces the utility to disclose SUBSTATIONS, before the local vote happens. It does NOT set a noise limit. It does NOT set a water cap. It does NOT set a setback. In the Roanoke Rambler's framing, understanding that difference is what separates holding a project accountable from misreading what local officials are actually empowered to do. This is a DISCLOSURE-AND-PROCESS statute, not a substantive-standards statute — it changes what a board must know before it votes, not what it may approve. That is a real but bounded protection, and it sits directly on a gap this dataset records again and again: local decibel ordinances that specify a dBA figure with no measurement methodology behind it. A mandatory noise study supplies the evidence that such limits presuppose, which is worth something even where no limit exists. The political history is the other reason to record this. Both patrons represent Prince William County, the heart of Northern Virginia's data center buildout, where fights over noise, substations and water produced the legislation. A BROADER version passed in 2025 — HB 1601 and SB 1449 — and Gov. Glenn Youngkin declined to sign it, returned it with amendments, and vetoed it on May 2, 2025, citing concerns about reduced local autonomy. Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed the 2026 version, which her office lists among the new laws taking effect July 1 and describes as bipartisan. More than 60 data center bills were introduced in Virginia in 2026; about 15 passed, many as identical House and Senate pairs.","summary_technical":"VIRGINIA — VA. CODE § 15.2-2209.5, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2026, enacted by IDENTICAL COMPANION BILLS HB 153 and SB 94 of the 2026 session. THE OPERATIVE CONTENT IS PROCEDURAL AND DISCLOSURE-BASED, AND THE SOURCE IS EMPHATIC ABOUT ITS LIMITS: 'It forces developers to study noise and utilities to disclose substations. It sets no limits on either.' And: 'The law requires studies. It does not set a noise limit, a water cap or a setback.' TWO OBLIGATIONS, BOTH PRE-VOTE: (1) THE DEVELOPER MUST STUDY NOISE; (2) THE UTILITY MUST DISCLOSE SUBSTATIONS — each owed BEFORE A LOCAL BOARD VOTES on the largest data centers. WHY A DISCLOSURE STATUTE IS WORTH INDEXING AS A PROTECTION: this dataset repeatedly records local decibel ordinances that fix a dBA figure without specifying measurement methodology, receptor location, or who bears the cost of measurement — the dBA MEASUREMENT GAP. A statutory noise-study mandate supplies the evidentiary predicate those ordinances assume and do not create. Similarly, SUBSTATION DISCLOSURE addresses the recurring pattern where transmission and substation build-out surfaces only after entitlement (see in-steuben-county-dc-moratorium-2026, where utilities' high-transmission routing discussions drove a county to pause). THE STATUTE ARMS LOCAL BOARDS WITH INFORMATION; IT DOES NOT ARM THEM WITH STANDARDS. `strength` is recorded as moderate for that reason and should not be read as a substantive cap on anything. SCOPE CAVEAT: the source says the law governs 'where the LARGEST data centers can go,' but THE APPLICABILITY THRESHOLD — square footage, megawatts, or otherwise — IS NOT STATED IN THE RETRIEVED TEXT and is NOT inferred here. This is the most important open question on this entry. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, WHICH IS THE ANALYTICALLY RICH PART: BOTH PATRONS REPRESENT PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, the centre of the Northern Virginia buildout, 'where fights over noise, substations and water produced the legislation.' HB 153 carried NINE ADDITIONAL PATRONS, ALL DEMOCRATS (Thomas, Guzman, Helmer, McAuliff, Reid, Carr, Keys-Gamarra, Rasoul, Reaser, Singh). HB 153 INCORPORATED Del. McAuliff's HB 511; SB 94 INCORPORATED SB 130. RECORDED VOTES from the source: Senate passed with substitute 26-14; House REJECTED the Senate substitute 0-98; House conference report adopted 93-2 (a separate House tracker logs 91-4-0); Senate conference report adopted 29-10; House passed with substitute 80-14-0. A ROEM FLOOR AMENDMENT passed 24-16 the day before. Committee margins: Senate Local Government 8-5-1; Senate Finance and Appropriations 10-5; House Counties, Cities and Towns reported HB 153's substitute 15-6. The source itself flags that 'something shifted between February and March, and the conference substitute is where to look for it,' and states plainly that it has not pulled the individual roll-call names. THE VETO HISTORY IS THE KEY CONTEXT: in 2025 the General Assembly passed a BROADER version, HB 1601 and SB 1449, also patroned by Thomas. GOV. GLENN YOUNGKIN DECLINED TO SIGN IT, RETURNED IT WITH AMENDMENTS, AND VETOED IT ON MAY 2, 2025, CITING CONCERNS ABOUT REDUCED LOCAL AUTONOMY. GOV. ABIGAIL SPANBERGER SIGNED THE 2026 VERSION. THE NARROWING FROM 2025 TO 2026 — from a broader bill to a studies-and-disclosure bill — IS THE PRICE OF ENACTMENT, and it is the clearest documented instance in this dataset of a state data center bill surviving by shedding its substantive standards. VOLUME CONTEXT: more than 60 data center bills introduced in Virginia in 2026; about 15 passed, many as identical House/Senate pairs. LOCAL TRIGGER FOR THE REPORTING: a regional industrial board voted BEHIND CLOSED DOORS to buy land near the I-81/I-581 interchange three weeks before publication (Wood Haven, Roanoke area) — an unindexed lead.","who_is_protected":"Virginia residents and local governing bodies in jurisdictions considering large data center applications","who_must_comply":"Developers of the largest data centers in Virginia, who must study noise; electric utilities, which must disclose substations — both before a local board votes","citation":"Va. Code § 15.2-2209.5 (2026), enacted by HB 153 and SB 94, effective July 1, 2026","source_url":"https://www.roanokerambler.com/a-roanoke-delegate-helped-write-virginias-new-data-center-law-heres-what-it-does-and-what-it-doesnt/","source_title":"A Roanoke Delegate Helped Write Virginia's New Data Center Law. Here's What It Does, and What It Doesn't — The Roanoke Rambler (Sept. 16, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local governing bodies in Virginia exercising land use authority under Title 15.2","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source; the statute conditions the pre-vote record rather than imposing substantive limits"},{"id":"il-lawrence-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Lawrence County, Illinois — County Board Votes UNANIMOUSLY for a TWO-YEAR Moratorium on Any Data Center Exceeding 10,000 Square Feet, the Chairman Stating He Would Rather Pause an Unknown Than Let It Through (September 2026)","short_title":"Lawrence County IL two-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Lawrence County, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Lawrence County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-17","enacted_date":"2026-09-17","expires_date":"2028-09-17","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"The Lawrence County Board voted UNANIMOUSLY to approve a TWO-YEAR moratorium on data centers, pausing new development across the county. The temporary ban applies to any data center facility EXCEEDING 10,000 SQUARE FEET. Board members said the pause will give local officials and residents time to study the potential impacts, infrastructure demands and community effects before allowing projects to move forward. Board Chairman Jim Brewer put the reasoning in unusually candid terms: 'We did the moratorium so we as a board and the citizens could be better educated on problems or possibly benefits of data centers.' And then: 'We don't know that, but I would rather put a moratorium on something that is unknown than let it go through.' That is a precautionary rationale stated without varnish — not a claim that data centers are harmful, but a claim that the county does not yet know, and that not knowing is itself a reason to wait. Two years is at the long end of what this dataset records. Most county pauses run six to eighteen months, and the longer the term, the more a moratorium depends on the county showing it is actively drafting regulations rather than simply refusing to decide. Nothing in the reporting indicates a challenge, and Illinois does not impose the express statutory ceiling that Minnesota and Wisconsin do.","summary_technical":"Lawrence County, Ill. — TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM on data centers approved UNANIMOUSLY by the County Board, reported 2026-09-17. SCOPE IS SIZE-THRESHOLD: the temporary ban applies to ANY DATA CENTER FACILITY EXCEEDING 10,000 SQUARE FEET — the same threshold adopted at mn-bemidji-dc-moratorium-2026 (which additionally caught crypto mining at any size). PURPOSE: to give local officials and residents time to study potential impacts, INFRASTRUCTURE DEMANDS and community effects before allowing projects to move forward. STATED RATIONALE IS EXPRESSLY PRECAUTIONARY, Chairman JIM BREWER: 'We did the moratorium so we as a board and the citizens could be better educated on problems or possibly benefits of data centers' and 'We don't know that, but I would rather put a moratorium on something that is unknown than let it go through.' NOTE THE CONSTRUCTION — Brewer does not assert harm; he asserts UNCERTAINTY and treats the burden of that uncertainty as falling on the project rather than the county. That is the precautionary principle applied to land use, and it is stated more plainly here than anywhere else in this dataset. DURATION IS THE FEATURE REQUIRING CARE: TWO YEARS is at the long end of the indexed range, where six to eighteen months is the norm (in-steuben-county-dc-moratorium-2026 six months; ne-gage-county 12; wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026 and nc-cary-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026 eighteen). This dataset records express statutory ceilings elsewhere — Minn. Stat. § 462.355 subd. 4 and § 394.34 (12 months), Wisconsin (12 plus one 6-month extension), Cal. Gov. Code § 65858 (45 days + 10mo15d + 1 year, two years aggregate). ILLINOIS COUNTY ZONING under 55 ILCS 5/5-12001 et seq. DOES NOT IMPOSE AN EQUIVALENT EXPRESS MORATORIUM CEILING, so the two-year term is NOT facially over a statutory limit; its defensibility, if challenged, would turn on the ordinary reasonableness and active-study showing. NO CHALLENGE IS REPORTED. expires_date IS COMPUTED as two years from the reported action and is NOT stated in the source. WHETHER THE MORATORIUM REACHES APPLICATIONS, PERMITS, REZONINGS OR CONSTRUCTION is characterised only as 'pausing new development' and 'a temporary ban' — the precise operative verbs are not given. ORDINANCE NUMBER AND VOTE COUNT (beyond 'unanimously') NOT OBTAINED.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Lawrence County, Illinois","who_must_comply":"Developers of data center facilities exceeding 10,000 square feet in Lawrence County","citation":"Lawrence County, Ill. — unanimous two-year moratorium on data centers exceeding 10,000 square feet (2026)","source_url":"https://www.wthitv.com/2026/09/17/there-are-no-data-centers-lawrence-county-next-two-years/","source_title":"There Are No Data Centers in Lawrence County… For The Next Two Years — WTHI-TV (CBS, Terre Haute)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Lawrence County Board; county zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center facilities over 10,000 square feet may not proceed during the two-year moratorium"},{"id":"ca-eureka-dc-interim-moratorium-and-20k-cap-direction-2026","title":"Eureka, California — City Council Passes a 45-Day Moratorium on Data Center Siting, Then Two Weeks Later Directs Staff to Draft Zoning Admitting ONLY Data Centers of 20,000 Square Feet or Less in Industrial Areas and ONLY by Conditional Use Permit, on a Planning Record That One PG&E Substation Serving the City Is Already at Capacity (September 2026)","short_title":"Eureka CA data center moratorium and 20,000 sq ft cap direction (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Eureka, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Humboldt County","city":"Eureka","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-02","enacted_date":"2026-09-02","expires_date":"2026-10-17","last_verified_date":"2026-10-08","summary_plain":"Eureka has done two things in two weeks. First, the City Council passed a 45-DAY MORATORIUM on data center siting, effective immediately, to prevent development while staff write a long-term ordinance. Second, on September 15 the council weighed three regulatory options and directed staff to draft zoning that would allow only SMALL data centers — 20,000 SQUARE FEET OR SMALLER — and only in INDUSTRIAL AREAS, and only by CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT rather than by right, so that each one gets robust public review. That combination is more interesting than a flat ban, because it is an explicit decision about WHICH data centers a small city can absorb rather than a refusal to host any. The reasoning staff put on the record is the most useful part, and it is the clearest statement of the grid arithmetic anywhere in this dataset. Planning staffer Kenyon told the council that new data centers in 2026 commonly seek 50 to 100 megawatts, and the largest AI campuses can require hundreds or even more than 1,000 megawatts. For scale, PG&E uses roughly one to two kilowatts per housing unit as a planning estimate — so a ONE-MEGAWATT data center is roughly equivalent to the electrical demand of 500 to 1,000 HOMES. A 100-megawatt facility would therefore be on the order of 50,000 to 100,000 homes. Against that, PG&E told the city that ONE SUBSTATION SERVING EUREKA IS ALREADY AT CAPACITY, and another has about 10 MEGAWATTS of remaining capacity with a planned upgrade. A city with roughly 10 spare megawatts cannot host a facility that commonly asks for 50 to 100. The 20,000-square-foot cap is that arithmetic written into zoning.","summary_technical":"Eureka, Calif. (Humboldt County) — TWO LINKED ACTIONS. (1) 45-DAY MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTER SITING passed by the City Council approximately two weeks before the September 15, 2026 meeting, TAKING EFFECT IMMEDIATELY, to prevent development of such facilities while staff develop a long-term ordinance. The 45-day term and immediate effect identify this as a CAL. GOV. CODE § 65858 interim urgency ordinance (four-fifths vote; 45 days; extendable once by 10 months 15 days and once by 1 year). Cohort: ca-gilroy-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026, ca-richmond-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026, ca-palm-springs-dc-moratorium-2026. (2) POLICY DIRECTION, 2026-09-15: after weighing THREE REGULATORY OPTIONS the council DIRECTED STAFF to develop zoning regulations that would allow SMALL DATA CENTERS — 20,000 SQUARE FEET OR SMALLER — to be built IN INDUSTRIAL AREAS of the city, requiring a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RATHER THAN BEING PERMITTED OUTRIGHT, 'allowing for robust public review.' THE DIRECTION IS NOT ITSELF AN ADOPTED ORDINANCE — status `effective` on this entry attaches to THE MORATORIUM, not to the 20,000 sq ft cap, which remains staff direction. THE STAFF RECORD IS THE MOST SUBSTANTIVE GRID ANALYSIS INDEXED HERE. Planning staffer KENYON, quoted: 'New data centers in 2026 commonly seek 50 to 100 megawatts, and the largest AI campuses can require hundreds or even more than 1,000 megawatts.' 'To put those numbers in perspective, PG&E uses roughly one to two kilowatts per housing unit as a general planning estimate. So, a one-megawatt data center is roughly equivalent to the electrical demand associated with 500 to 1,000 homes.' 'PG&E has told us that ONE SUBSTATION SERVING EUREKA IS ALREADY AT CAPACITY, and one has about 10 MEGAWATTS OF REMAINING CAPACITY, with a planned upgrade to add more capacity.' Kenyon also distinguished facility types — basic data storage versus larger facilities hosting thousands of servers for AI and cryptocurrency mining — and noted that 'as they become larger in scale, data centers demand large continuous electrical loads and potentially large amounts of water for cooling.' THE POLICY FOLLOWS ARITHMETICALLY FROM THE CONSTRAINT: available headroom of roughly 10 MW against a typical ask of 50-100 MW makes a hyperscale facility physically unservable, and the 20,000 sq ft cap encodes that. THIS IS THE CAPACITY-DRIVEN COUNTERPART to the demand-driven caps elsewhere in this dataset, and it is a materially stronger evidentiary posture for defending a size limit than a bare policy preference. CONTRAST WITH THE FLAT-BAN COHORT (ca-irwindale-dc-ban-2026, ca-poway-ai-dc-ban-2026, monterey-park-ca-dc-ban-measure-ndc-2026): Eureka is calibrating to a measured constraint rather than excluding the use. expires_date 2026-10-17 IS COMPUTED from an ESTIMATED 2026-09-02 adoption ('two weeks' before September 15) and is UNRELIABLE — see notes.","who_is_protected":"Eureka residents in Humboldt County, California, and PG&E ratepayers served by the city's constrained substations","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking to site facilities in Eureka; under the directed zoning, facilities over 20,000 square feet would be excluded and smaller ones would require a conditional use permit in industrial areas","citation":"Eureka, Cal. — 45-day interim moratorium on data center siting (2026) and council direction for zoning capping data centers at 20,000 sq ft by conditional use permit in industrial areas","source_url":"https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2026/sep/16/eureka-city-council-moves-forward-plan-allowing-sm/","source_title":"Eureka City Council Advances Plan to Restrict Data Centers, Potentially Allowing Small Facilities in Industrial Areas — Lost Coast Outpost (Sept. 16, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Eureka City Council; city planning department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center siting is barred during the 45-day moratorium"},{"id":"co-aurora-evaporative-cooling-ban-ordinance-2026","title":"Aurora, Colorado — Council Unanimously Gives FIRST-READING Approval to an Ordinance BANNING EVAPORATIVE COOLING SYSTEMS Citywide, Targeting Water-Intensive Data Centers Amid Severe Colorado Drought; Paired the Same Night With a Turf and Irrigation Ordinance, With Siting and School/Home Setback Rules Promised Within Months (September 2026)","short_title":"Aurora CO evaporative cooling ban ordinance, first reading (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Aurora, CO","state_abbr":"CO","county":"Arapahoe County","city":"Aurora","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Aurora's City Council unanimously gave INITIAL approval on Monday, September 14, 2026 to an ordinance that would BAN THE USE OF EVAPORATIVE COOLING SYSTEMS in the city, with water-intensive data centers named as one of the main targets. This is a first reading, not a final adoption — the measure needs a final approval vote at the next council meeting, roughly two weeks later, to become law, which is why this entry is recorded as PROPOSED. What makes it worth recording separately is the INSTRUMENT. Almost every local measure in this dataset regulates data centers through LAND USE — where they may go, how big, how far from homes, whether by right or by permit. Aurora is instead regulating the COOLING TECHNOLOGY itself, citywide, without reference to zoning. A ban on evaporative cooling does not prohibit a data center; it forecloses the cheapest water-hungry way to cool one, and it applies to every building, not just to data centers. That is a genuinely different regulatory lever, and in a severe Colorado drought it is one with an obvious independent justification. The council paired it the same night with an unanimously passed turf ordinance restricting cool-weather grass like Kentucky bluegrass without written city manager permission, banning ornamental water features without approval, and restricting off-season spray irrigation. Aurora says this is the first of several data center rules expected this year, with plans in the coming months to dictate WHERE in the city data centers may locate and HOW FAR they must be from homes and schools.","summary_technical":"Aurora, Colo. (Arapahoe County) — ORDINANCE BANNING THE USE OF EVAPORATIVE COOLING SYSTEMS citywide, given UNANIMOUS INITIAL (FIRST-READING) APPROVAL on MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2026. STATUS IS `proposed`: the source states plainly that 'both that and the data center measure will need to pass final approval votes at the next council meeting in two weeks to become law.' NO ADOPTION IS ASSERTED. THE REGULATORY INSTRUMENT IS THE REASON THIS IS A SEPARATE ENTRY FROM co-aurora-dc-regulations-resolution-2026. That entry records the August 11, 2026 council session at which a six-month moratorium was REJECTED 6-5 on the mayor's tie-breaking vote and a resolution DIRECTING data-center-specific regulations was adopted 7-4, giving the city manager 35 days to develop them. THIS ORDINANCE IS THE FIRST PRODUCT OF THAT 35-DAY DIRECTION, arriving in mid-September as the August entry anticipated — the follow-through, not a duplicate. TECHNOLOGY REGULATION RATHER THAN LAND-USE REGULATION: the prohibition attaches to EVAPORATIVE COOLING SYSTEMS AS SUCH, citywide and building-agnostic, not to the data center use. 'Evaporative cooling systems circulate evaporated water through the air and can use a lot of it, especially across large spaces.' The measure therefore (a) does not prohibit a data center, (b) reaches every building type, and (c) rests on a drought rationale independent of any judgment about data centers — which makes it materially less vulnerable to a challenge framed as exclusionary zoning or as regulation of a disfavoured use. THIS IS THE ONLY TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC COOLING PROHIBITION CURRENTLY INDEXED; compare nc-north-carolina-north-carolina-senate-bill-730-data-center-water-and-co-2026 (state-level water and cooling bill). CONTEXT: 'a severe drought in Colorado'; 'one of the main targets being water-intensive data centers'; 'Data centers have become notorious for their heavy water use — with the liquid used as a cooling agent for the servers and computers that run 24 hours a day.' COMPANION MEASURE THE SAME NIGHT, also passed unanimously: a TURF AND IRRIGATION ORDINANCE that would (1) prohibit residents or businesses from installing cool-weather grass such as Kentucky bluegrass without WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE CITY MANAGER, permitting warm-season turf such as Tahoma 31 which Aurora Water General Manager MARSHALL BROWN said uses 60-70% LESS WATER; (2) ban installation of ornamental water features without city manager approval; (3) prohibit spray irrigation in NON-high-traffic areas between specified autumn dates (the existing equivalent ban already applies in high-traffic areas). Brown: 'What we saw this last winter was a lot of irrigation systems turning on as early as February.' The turf ordinance builds on a measure from four years ago barring cool-weather turf and ornamental water features in NEW DEVELOPMENT. THE TURF ORDINANCE IS NOT A DATA CENTER MEASURE and is recorded here only as context for the water-scarcity posture. FORWARD COMMITMENT, STATED: 'The measure is the first of a number of rules Aurora expects to enact on data centers this year, with plans in the next few months to dictate WHERE IN THE CITY THEY CAN LOCATE and HOW FAR THEY MUST BE FROM HOMES AND SCHOOLS.' Those siting and setback rules are NOT yet before the council and are queued as a recheck. THE ORDINANCE'S OWN TERMS — whether the ban is prospective only, whether existing systems are grandfathered, what exemptions exist, and how 'evaporative cooling system' is defined — ARE NOT STATED IN THE SOURCE.","who_is_protected":"Aurora residents in Arapahoe County, Colorado, and the city's water supply during severe drought","who_must_comply":"Anyone installing or using evaporative cooling systems in Aurora, with water-intensive data centers named as a principal target","citation":"Aurora, Colo. — proposed ordinance banning evaporative cooling systems citywide; unanimous first reading September 14, 2026","source_url":"https://www.denverpost.com/2026/09/15/aurora-data-centers-water-turf-ban/","source_title":"Aurora focuses on water savings with restrictions on data centers, new turf — The Denver Post (John Aguilar, Sept. 15, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"Aurora City Council; Aurora Water; city manager's office","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"litig-lipps-v-city-of-fargo-facial-recognition-2026","title":"Lipps v. City of Fargo and Det. Lucas Heck (D.N.D. 2026) — Tennessee Woman Held Five Months on Eight Felonies Sues for $10 Million, Alleging the Facial Recognition Match Was Run Against a Photo From the Suspect's OWN FAKE ID Rather Than Surveillance Footage, That West Fargo Police Thought It Too Weak to Charge On, and That Fargo Police Had NO Policy, Training or Supervision for the Technology","short_title":"Lipps v. City of Fargo — facial recognition wrongful arrest (2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"D.N.D.","state_abbr":"ND","county":"Cass County","city":"Fargo","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement","biometrics","automated-decisions"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Angela Lipps, of Elizabethton, Tennessee, filed a federal lawsuit on September 15, 2026 against the City of Fargo and Fargo Police Department Detective Lucas Heck, seeking $10 million. She alleges the detective relied on a flawed facial recognition match and ignored exculpatory evidence to bring bank fraud charges that cost her five months of her life. The sequence she alleges is worth setting out, because the technology failure is only the first link. In April and May 2025 a woman used stolen identities and false identification to defraud several Fargo-area banks. A West Fargo police analyst and North Dakota's state intelligence center ran facial recognition and flagged Lipps as a possible lead. According to the complaint, Heck pressed charges anyway despite knowing that Lipps LIVED IN TENNESSEE, HAD NEVER BEEN TO NORTH DAKOTA, DID NOT MATCH the physical description of the suspect on surveillance video, and had NO UNEXPLAINED FUNDS connecting her to the thefts. Two allegations go to the reliability of the match itself. First, the facial recognition result was not generated from the surveillance footage at all — it was generated from a PHOTO ON THE SUSPECT'S OWN FAKE ID. A match against a fraudulent document identifies whoever the fraudster's picture resembles, which is a fundamentally different thing from identifying the person in the footage, and the complaint says Heck failed to disclose this. Second, WEST FARGO POLICE THEMSELVES DID NOT BELIEVE the facial recognition results were strong enough on their own to bring charges. Facial recognition results, the complaint notes, are meant to be treated only as an investigative lead. North Dakota charged Lipps with eight felonies on June 30, 2025, the most serious carrying up to ten years. A nationwide warrant issued. On July 14, 2025 she was arrested at gunpoint by a U.S. Marshals fugitive task force at a neighbour's home in Tennessee, while she was babysitting the neighbour's children. She was jailed in Tennessee, extradited to North Dakota, and held at the Cass County Jail on a $100,000 bond she could not pay — through Thanksgiving and through her 50th birthday, with jail staff allegedly denying her access to her dentures and her medication for extended periods. Prosecutors dismissed the charges on December 24, 2025, after her attorney produced bank records showing she was in Tennessee when the thefts occurred. She was released that night with four cents and no winter coat, in temperatures near 10 degrees, and got home to Tennessee only with the help of a local nonprofit and a neighbour. The claim against the CITY rather than the detective rests on a policy gap: the suit alleges the Fargo Police Department had NO POLICY, NO TRAINING AND NO SUPERVISION governing officers' use of facial recognition at the time — UNLIKE the West Fargo Police Department, which restricts the tool to specially trained personnel. Two departments in the same metropolitan area, one with guardrails and one without, is about as clean a comparison as a municipal-liability claim ever gets.","summary_technical":"LIPPS v. CITY OF FARGO and DET. LUCAS HECK — federal complaint filed TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 in the U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA by ANGELA LIPPS of Elizabethton, Tennessee, seeking $10 MILLION against the City of Fargo and Fargo Police Department Detective LUCAS HECK. ALLEGATIONS ONLY — NO COURT HAS RULED, no answer is reported, and every fact below is the plaintiff's pleading. UNDERLYING OFFENCE: in APRIL-MAY 2025 a woman used stolen identities and false identification to fraudulently obtain money from several Fargo-area banks. THE MATCH: Heck received facial recognition results from a WEST FARGO POLICE ANALYST and NORTH DAKOTA'S STATE INTELLIGENCE CENTER suggesting Lipps was a possible lead. TWO ALLEGATIONS GO TO THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE MATCH AND ARE THE ANALYTICALLY IMPORTANT CONTENT OF THIS ENTRY: (1) THE FACIAL RECOGNITION RESULT WAS BASED ON A PHOTO FROM THE SUSPECT'S FAKE ID, NOT THE SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE, and Heck allegedly FAILED TO DISCLOSE THIS. A probe image taken from a fraudulent identity document returns whoever resembles the image the fraudster chose to use; it does not identify the person captured committing the offence. This is a distinct failure mode from the probe-image-quality problems that dominate the known wrongful-arrest cases, and it is not reducible to algorithmic error — the system may have matched correctly to the wrong question. (2) WEST FARGO POLICE DID NOT BELIEVE THE FACIAL RECOGNITION RESULTS WERE STRONG ENOUGH ON THEIR OWN TO BRING CHARGES, and the complaint states that facial recognition results are MEANT TO BE TREATED ONLY AS INVESTIGATIVE LEADS — the lead-not-probable-cause principle that this dataset records as the core operative limit in nearly every indexed facial-recognition policy. ADDITIONAL EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY KNOWN AND DISREGARDED: Lipps lived in Tennessee; had never been to North Dakota; did not match the physical description of the suspect on surveillance video; had no unexplained funds. PROCEDURAL HISTORY PLEADED: 8 FELONY CHARGES filed 2025-06-30 (most serious carrying up to 10 years); nationwide warrant; ARREST AT GUNPOINT 2025-07-14 by a U.S. Marshals fugitive task force at a neighbour's home in Tennessee while she was babysitting; jailed in Tennessee; extradited; held at CASS COUNTY JAIL on a $100,000 BOND she could not pay, through Thanksgiving and her 50th birthday, with jail staff allegedly denying access to her DENTURES AND MEDICATION for extended periods; CHARGES DISMISSED 2025-12-24 after her attorney produced BANK RECORDS placing her in Tennessee at the time of the thefts; released that night with FOUR CENTS and no winter coat in temperatures near 10°F, reaching home via a local nonprofit and a neighbour. APPROXIMATELY FIVE MONTHS IN CUSTODY (2025-07-14 to 2025-12-24); a companion report (MPR News) characterises it as six months. THE MUNICIPAL-LIABILITY THEORY IS THE REASON THIS MATTERS BEYOND THE INDIVIDUAL CASE: the suit accuses the FARGO POLICE DEPARTMENT of having NO POLICY, NO TRAINING AND NO SUPERVISION governing officers' use of facial recognition technology at the time — EXPRESSLY CONTRASTED WITH THE WEST FARGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, WHICH RESTRICTS THE TOOL TO SPECIALLY TRAINED PERSONNEL. A failure-to-train / failure-to-supervise claim under Monell v. Department of Social Services requires a policy or custom, and an adjacent department in the same metropolitan area operating the same technology under written restrictions supplies an unusually clean comparator for deliberate indifference. THAT IS THE PRECISE LEGAL MECHANISM BY WHICH THE ABSENCE OF A FACIAL RECOGNITION POLICY BECOMES MUNICIPAL LIABILITY, and it is the strongest practical argument in this dataset for why the policies indexed here (richmond-va-pd-fr-policy-2024, oakland-fr-ban-2019-historical and the department-level policies) are worth adopting. NOT STATED IN THE SOURCE: the case number, the assigned judge, the specific counts and statutory bases (42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the obvious vehicle but is NOT named), which facial recognition vendor or system produced the match, and any response from the City of Fargo or Heck.","who_is_protected":"Angela Lipps; prospectively, people subject to facial-recognition-derived charges by departments without governing policy or training","who_must_comply":"City of Fargo; Fargo Police Department Detective Lucas Heck","citation":"Lipps v. City of Fargo, complaint filed Sept. 15, 2026 (D.N.D.)","source_url":"https://www.valleynewslive.com/2026/09/15/tennessee-woman-sues-fargo-ex-detective-over-wrongful-arrest-tied-facial-recognition-error/","source_title":"Tennessee woman sues Fargo, detective over wrongful arrest tied to facial recognition error — Valley News Live (Sept. 15, 2026); corroborated by MPR News, 'Tennessee woman sues Fargo, city detective over AI-aided arrest' (Sept. 16, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Plaintiff seeks $10 million in damages; no judgment has issued"},{"id":"id-latah-county-dc-regulations-2026","title":"Latah County, Idaho — Commissioners Adopt Substantive Data Center Regulations Rather Than a Moratorium, PROHIBITING Consumptive Groundwater Use for Routine Cooling and Barring Groundwater as the Primary Cooling Source, and Requiring a Water Management Plan Plus an ANNUAL REPORT of Electrical Consumption and Maximum Peak Demand (September 2026)","short_title":"Latah County ID data center regulations (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Latah County, ID","state_abbr":"ID","county":"Latah County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-15","enacted_date":"2026-09-15","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Latah County's Commissioners approved new data center rules on Tuesday, September 15, 2026 — and the notable thing is that they adopted SUBSTANTIVE STANDARDS instead of a pause, at a moment when almost every other county in this dataset was buying time. The ordinance applies to data centers proposed on Latah County land, NOT inside incorporated cities, and it makes data centers a CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE in the industrial zoning designation. The strongest provision is about water. 'Consumptive use of groundwater for routine cooling operations is prohibited,' the ordinance states, and 'Groundwater shall not be used as the primary source of cooling water.' Groundwater may still be used for non-consumptive or sanitary purposes. A company proposing a data center must also produce a WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN detailing how it will minimise impacts on the local water supply. The county is following recently passed Idaho legislation limiting how much groundwater may be used for data centers. The ordinance also caps NOISE and ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION, and — unusually — imposes an ongoing reporting duty: 'An annual report shall be submitted that details electrical consumption, maximum peak demand, and any significant modifications to the electrical system.' That is a continuing obligation, not a one-time permit condition, and very few local measures in this dataset have one. There is no data center proposed in Latah County. At a September 9 public hearing, community members asked for a moratorium or an outright ban. Commissioner Tony Johnson said that since nothing is proposed, a moratorium does not make sense, and that the regulations are the county's way of preparing for what could happen. Planning director Michelle Fuson said it is unlikely a data center will be built on county land, but the county can always modify its rules if it needs to.","summary_technical":"Latah County, Idaho (county seat Moscow) — DATA CENTER REGULATIONS adopted by the BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2026, after a public hearing on SEPTEMBER 9. JURISDICTIONAL SCOPE: applies to data centers proposed ON LATAH COUNTY LAND, NOT IN INCORPORATED CITIES — the standard Idaho county/city land-use split; municipalities within the county are unaffected. ZONING TREATMENT: data centers become a CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DESIGNATION — single-district confinement plus discretionary review, the same structure as pa-montgomery-township-dc-curative-regulations-2026 and in-portage-technology-campus-district-2026. THE WATER PROVISIONS ARE THE STRONGEST IN THIS DATASET AND ARE QUOTED DIRECTLY FROM THE ORDINANCE: (1) 'CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER FOR ROUTINE COOLING OPERATIONS IS PROHIBITED'; (2) 'GROUNDWATER SHALL NOT BE USED AS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF COOLING WATER'; (3) groundwater MAY be used for NON-CONSUMPTIVE OR SANITARY uses; (4) the proposing company MUST CREATE A WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN detailing how it will minimise impacts on the local water supply. THIS IS A SOURCE-AND-USE PROHIBITION, NOT A VOLUMETRIC CAP, which is materially easier to administer — a regulator must determine what the cooling water IS and whether it is consumed, rather than meter a quantity against a threshold. Compare co-aurora-evaporative-cooling-ban-ordinance-2026, which bans the COOLING TECHNOLOGY; Latah bans the SOURCE for that use. STATE-LAW ANCHOR: the county 'is following recently passed IDAHO LEGISLATION that limits how much groundwater can be used for data centers' — AN UNINDEXED STATE STATUTE and a significant lead; the bill number is NOT given in the source. ADDITIONAL STANDARDS: the ordinance 'places limits on the amount of NOISE data centers can emit, and how much ELECTRICITY they can consume.' NEITHER THE DECIBEL FIGURE NOR THE ELECTRICAL CAP IS STATED IN THE SOURCE. CONTINUING DISCLOSURE OBLIGATION, QUOTED: 'AN ANNUAL REPORT SHALL BE SUBMITTED THAT DETAILS ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION, MAXIMUM PEAK DEMAND, AND ANY SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATIONS TO THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM.' THIS IS THE ANALYTICALLY IMPORTANT PROVISION. Nearly every local measure indexed here regulates at the ENTITLEMENT MOMENT and then goes silent; an annual electrical-consumption and peak-demand report creates an ongoing compliance record, makes an electrical cap enforceable after the fact rather than only at permitting, and gives the county data it would otherwise have to request from the utility. Compare va-code-15-2-2209-5-dc-siting-disclosure-hb153-sb94-2026, which mandates PRE-VOTE disclosure only. POSTURE: NO DATA CENTER HAS BEEN PROPOSED. At the September 9 hearing community members REQUESTED A MORATORIUM OR BAN; Commissioner TONY JOHNSON said that since no data center is being proposed a moratorium does not make sense, and that the regulations are the county's way of preparing for the future. Planning, building and GIS director MICHELLE FUSON said it is UNLIKELY a data center will be built on county land, but the county can always modify its rules. THE COUNTY THEREFORE CHOSE PERMANENT STANDARDS OVER A TEMPORARY PAUSE while facing no development pressure — the opposite trade from wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026 and or-woodburn-dc-moratorium-2026, which paused in the same no-pending-application posture. Standards adopted pre-emptively avoid the moratorium-duration and active-study problems entirely. ORDINANCE NUMBER AND VOTE TALLY NOT OBTAINED.","who_is_protected":"Latah County residents outside incorporated cities; local groundwater and water-supply users","who_must_comply":"Data center developers proposing facilities on Latah County land, who must obtain a conditional use permit in the industrial zone, may not use groundwater consumptively for routine cooling or as the primary cooling source, must file a water management plan, and must submit annual electrical consumption and peak demand reports","citation":"Latah County, Idaho — data center ordinance adopted September 15, 2026 (conditional use in industrial zone; groundwater cooling prohibition; noise and electrical limits; annual electrical reporting)","source_url":"https://www.lmtribune.com/local-news/latah-county-passes-new-rules-for-data-centers-5445f4c7","source_title":"Latah County passes new rules for data centers — The Lewiston Tribune (Anthony Kuipers, Sept. 16, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Latah County Board of Commissioners; Latah County planning, building and GIS department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source; compliance is conditioned through the conditional use permit and the annual reporting requirement"},{"id":"fl-marion-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Marion County, Florida — Commissioners Adopt a 365-Day Moratorium on Permits, Site Plans, Rezonings and Conditional Use Permits for Large-Scale Data Centers With EXEMPTIONS for Smaller Facilities, Over a Dissent Arguing That Even a 49-Megawatt Facility Equals 10,000 to 15,000 Households and That Staff Have Said On the Record They Are Not Ready (September 2026)","short_title":"Marion County FL 12-month large data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Marion County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Marion County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-15","enacted_date":"2026-09-15","expires_date":"2027-09-15","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Marion County commissioners voted on Tuesday, September 15, 2026 to enact a 12-month temporary moratorium — up to 365 days — on accepting or processing applications for LARGE-SCALE data centers, carving out exemptions for smaller facilities. The pause covers all development permits, site plans, rezonings and conditional use permits related to major commercial data centers and artificial intelligence processing facilities. The vote is worth recording precisely because it happened twice: the motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Kathy Bryant the lone no, and a subsequent procedural vote to adopt the ordinance passed unanimously 5-0. Bryant did not oppose the moratorium. She opposed the EXEMPTIONS. Her argument, which is the most valuable content here, is that the smaller facilities being let through are not small: 'A 49-megawatt facility is a 100,000 to 200,000-square-foot data center. That is the equivalent of 10,000 to 15,000 households.' A 49-megawatt project sits just under Florida's 50-megawatt state threshold, and Bryant's point is that a threshold set at 50 megawatts does not separate small from large — it separates regulated from unregulated while leaving something the size of a small city on the unregulated side. She also disputed developer representatives' claims that county staff can handle applications today: 'Our staff has explicitly stated on the record that they are not ready, they do not have the criteria, and they do not [have] all the right questions to ask yet.' Commissioner Matt McClain, supporting the pause, framed it the other way: 'I think the big concern is these really large hyperscale centers. I don't think it's the smaller ones, we can figure those out through the special use permit process.' He also noted the code will need continuous revision: 'It's not like we're going to be able to set this code once and then never touch it again.' Commissioners Craig Curry and Michelle Stone supported giving the community peace of mind while protecting the county's rural character, farmland and Outstanding Florida Springs — including Silver Springs and Rainbow Springs. 'We don't want to turn Marion County into Miami or New York,' Stone said.","summary_technical":"Marion County, Fla. (county seat Ocala) — 12-MONTH (UP TO 365 DAYS) TEMPORARY MORATORIUM on accepting or processing applications for LARGE-SCALE DATA CENTERS, adopted by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS at a public hearing at the McPherson Governmental Campus Auditorium on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2026. VOTE STRUCTURE, RECORDED PRECISELY: the MOTION carried 4-1 (Commissioner KATHY BRYANT the lone 'no'); a SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURAL VOTE TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. Both figures are accurate and describe different votes; citing either alone misstates the record. OPERATIVE SCOPE IS BROAD ACROSS INSTRUMENTS: a pause of up to 365 days on ALL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, SITE PLANS, REZONINGS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS related to MAJOR COMMERCIAL DATA CENTERS and ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PROCESSING facilities. Covering rezonings AND site plans AND conditional use permits closes the substitution routes that a permit-only pause leaves open. EXEMPTIONS FOR SMALLER FACILITIES are carved out; THE EXEMPTION THRESHOLD IS NOT STATED IN THE SOURCE, though the discussion is framed around FLORIDA'S 50-MEGAWATT STATE THRESHOLD (cf. fl-sb-484-data-centers). THE DISSENT IS THE MOST ANALYTICALLY USEFUL MATERIAL IN THIS ENTRY. Commissioner Bryant voted no NOT against the pause but AGAINST THE EXEMPTIONS, arguing that operations under the 50-megawatt state threshold carry enormous utility burdens: 'A 49-MEGAWATT FACILITY IS A 100,000 TO 200,000-SQUARE-FOOT DATA CENTER. THAT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF 10,000 TO 15,000 HOUSEHOLDS.' THAT IS A DIRECT CHALLENGE TO THRESHOLD DESIGN ACROSS THIS ENTIRE DATASET: a 50 MW line does not divide small from large, it divides regulated from unregulated, and a just-under-threshold project still imposes household-equivalent load in the five figures. It corroborates independently the household-equivalence arithmetic recorded at ca-eureka-dc-interim-moratorium-and-20k-cap-direction-2026, where staff put 1 MW at 500-1,000 homes — Bryant's 49 MW at 10,000-15,000 households implies roughly 200-300 homes per MW, a more conservative ratio from a different jurisdiction, and the two together bracket the figure. Bryant also REFUTED developer representatives' claims that county staff can handle applications today: 'OUR STAFF HAS EXPLICITLY STATED ON THE RECORD THAT THEY ARE NOT READY, THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CRITERIA, AND THEY DO NOT [HAVE] ALL THE RIGHT QUESTIONS TO ASK YET.' SUPPORTING RATIONALE: Commissioner MATT McCLAIN focused on preventing hyperscale facilities from overburdening local infrastructure without prohibiting smaller operators — 'I think the big concern is these really large hyperscale centers. I don't think it's the smaller ones, we can figure those out through the special use permit process' — and warned the code will require continuous revision: 'It's not like we're going to be able to set this code once and then never touch it again.' Commissioners CRAIG CURRY and MICHELLE STONE emphasised protecting the county's RURAL CHARACTER, FARMLAND and OUTSTANDING FLORIDA SPRINGS, naming SILVER SPRINGS and RAINBOW SPRINGS; Stone: 'We don't want to turn Marion County into Miami or New York.' The Outstanding Florida Waters designation is a state surface-water protection classification, and springs-shed protection is a distinct Florida-specific rationale not present elsewhere in this dataset. expires_date IS COMPUTED as 365 days from adoption and is not stated. ORDINANCE NUMBER NOT OBTAINED.","who_is_protected":"Marion County residents; the county's farmland, rural character and Outstanding Florida Springs including Silver Springs and Rainbow Springs","who_must_comply":"Developers of large-scale commercial data centers and AI processing facilities seeking development permits, site plans, rezonings or conditional use permits in Marion County; smaller facilities are exempted","citation":"Marion County, Fla. — ordinance imposing a moratorium of up to 365 days on large-scale data center applications, adopted September 15, 2026","source_url":"https://www.ocala-news.com/2026/09/16/marion-county-approves-12-month-moratorium-on-large-scale-data-centers/","source_title":"Marion County approves 12-month moratorium on large-scale data centers — Ocala-News.com (Sept. 16, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Marion County Board of County Commissioners; county growth services","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Covered applications may not be accepted or processed during the moratorium"},{"id":"ks-marysville-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Marysville, Kansas — City Council Unanimously Adopts a 12-Month Data Center Moratorium Whose Ordinance Defines the Use Expansively to Cover Hyperscale, Cloud, Colocation, Artificial-Intelligence AND Cryptocurrency Facilities While EXPRESSLY EXCLUDING Ordinary Server Rooms and Incidental IT Equipment (September 2026)","short_title":"Marysville KS 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Marysville, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Marshall County","city":"Marysville","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-14","enacted_date":"2026-09-14","expires_date":"2027-09-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"The Marysville City Council unanimously adopted a 12-month temporary moratorium on data centers on Monday, September 14, 2026. During the moratorium, no application to develop or establish a data center will be accepted, processed or approved within the city's zoning jurisdiction. The ordinance states its own purpose carefully, in terms designed to survive review: a temporary moratorium 'is appropriate as an interim land-use measure to PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO while the Planning Commission and city staff study data center uses, hear the concerns of citizens and affected sta[keholders] and conduct a comprehensive review of potential amendments to the Marysville Zoning Ordinance before new data center development applications are accepted, processed or approved.' That is the classic interim-ordinance formula — preserve the status quo, study, then amend — and it names the body doing the studying. What makes this entry genuinely useful is the DEFINITION, which is the most complete one quoted in this dataset. A data center is 'a building, facility or group of buildings or facilities principally used to house computer servers, data-processing equipment, networking equipment, digital storage systems or related infrastructure for the storage, processing, management, transmission or distribution of digital data, INCLUDING facilities commonly described hyper scale, cloud-computing, colocation, artificial-intelligence or cryptocurrency data-processing facilities.' And then the part most ordinances omit: 'The definition DOES NOT INCLUDE ordinary server rooms or information-technology equipment incidental to the main use of a property.' That exclusion is what prevents a data center ordinance from accidentally capturing every hospital, bank and school with a server closet — a drafting gap left open on several other entries here. The Planning Commission may consider and recommend permanent zoning regulations during the moratorium.","summary_technical":"Marysville, Kan. (Marshall County) — 12-MONTH TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTERS adopted UNANIMOUSLY by the CITY COUNCIL on MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2026; the ordinance text was published on page 6A of that week's Marysville Advocate. OPERATIVE EFFECT, QUOTED: 'During the moratorium, no application to develop or establish a data center will be accepted, processed or approved WITHIN THE CITY'S ZONING JURISDICTION' — accept/process/approve all three, closing the gap left by a pause that bars only approvals. STATED PURPOSE, QUOTED FROM THE ORDINANCE: a temporary moratorium 'is appropriate as an INTERIM LAND-USE MEASURE TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO while the Planning Commission and city staff STUDY data center uses, HEAR THE CONCERNS OF CITIZENS AND AFFECTED STA[KEHOLDERS] and conduct a COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS to the Marysville Zoning Ordinance before new data center development applications are accepted, processed or approved.' That recital does the work a moratorium's defensibility usually turns on — it identifies the studying body, the subject of study, and the intended legislative product. THE DEFINITION IS THE MOST COMPLETE ONE QUOTED IN THIS DATASET AND IS THE REASON THIS ENTRY IS WORTH ITS LENGTH. A data center is 'a BUILDING, FACILITY OR GROUP OF BUILDINGS OR FACILITIES PRINCIPALLY USED TO HOUSE computer servers, data-processing equipment, networking equipment, digital storage systems or related infrastructure for the STORAGE, PROCESSING, MANAGEMENT, TRANSMISSION OR DISTRIBUTION OF DIGITAL DATA, INCLUDING FACILITIES COMMONLY DESCRIBED HYPER SCALE, CLOUD-COMPUTING, COLOCATION, ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE OR CRYPTOCURRENCY DATA-PROCESSING FACILITIES.' FOUR DRAFTING FEATURES WORTH NOTING: (1) 'PRINCIPALLY USED' makes the use test dominant-purpose rather than any-presence; (2) the group-of-buildings language reaches campus configurations that a single-building definition would miss; (3) the enumerated inclusion of HYPERSCALE, CLOUD, COLOCATION, AI AND CRYPTOCURRENCY forecloses the recharacterisation defence that a workload-specific definition invites — contrast ca-poway-ai-dc-ban-2026, where the prohibition targets 'AI data centers' and the definition was not obtained, and orange-county-fl (deferred), framed around 'large-scale AI data centers'; (4) THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION — 'The definition does not include ORDINARY SERVER ROOMS OR INFORMATION-TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT INCIDENTAL TO THE MAIN USE OF A PROPERTY' — is the provision most commonly missing elsewhere and is what stops the ordinance from reaching every hospital, bank, school or office with a server closet. That question was flagged as unresolved on ca-irwindale-dc-ban-2026; Marysville answers it. FORWARD MECHANISM: 'During the moratorium, the Marysville Planning Commission may consider and recommend permanent zoning regulations governing data centers, as spelled out in the ordinance.' KANSAS CONTEXT: city zoning authority runs through K.S.A. ch. 12, art. 7; no express statutory moratorium ceiling comparable to Minnesota's or Wisconsin's is asserted here. expires_date IS COMPUTED as 12 months from adoption. ORDINANCE NUMBER NOT OBTAINED.","who_is_protected":"Marysville residents in Marshall County, Kansas, within the city's zoning jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Anyone seeking to develop or establish a data center — including hyperscale, cloud-computing, colocation, artificial-intelligence and cryptocurrency data-processing facilities — within Marysville's zoning jurisdiction; ordinary server rooms and incidental IT equipment are excluded","citation":"Marysville, Kan. — ordinance imposing a 12-month temporary moratorium on data centers, adopted unanimously September 14, 2026","source_url":"https://www.marysvilleonline.net/news/city-approves-data-center-moratorium/article_07fd9137-6541-44fa-ae26-551b2e200177.html","source_title":"City approves data center moratorium — Marysville Advocate / marysvilleonline.net (Sarah Kessinger)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Marysville City Council; Marysville Planning Commission; city staff","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No data center application may be accepted, processed or approved during the moratorium"},{"id":"in-gary-mayoral-eo-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Gary, Indiana — Mayor Eddie Melton Declares a One-Year Moratorium on Data Center Construction by EXECUTIVE ORDER, Citing Not Local Land Use but the Warnings of Tech Leaders About the Risks of Rapidly Advancing Artificial Intelligence, and Calling on the Federal Government to Establish Guardrails (September 2026)","short_title":"Gary IN mayoral executive order data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Gary, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Lake County","city":"Gary","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-16","enacted_date":"2026-09-16","expires_date":"2027-09-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-19","summary_plain":"Gary Mayor Eddie Melton declared a one-year moratorium on the construction of data centers in the city on Wednesday, September 16, 2026, by EXECUTIVE ORDER. Two things make this different from almost every other local measure in this dataset. The first is the INSTRUMENT: this is a unilateral mayoral act, not an ordinance adopted by a council after hearings. That makes it fast, and it makes it comparatively fragile — an executive order generally reaches what the executive controls, and its ability to bind land-use permitting depends on the mayor's authority under Indiana law and the city's own code, which the reporting does not address. The second, and more striking, is the REASON. Melton did not cite grid capacity, water, noise, setbacks or property values — the grounds on which essentially every other measure indexed here rests. He said in a release that he issued the order because of CONCERNS VOICED BY SOME TECH LEADERS who called for a slowdown of the rapid advance of artificial intelligence over fears about possible risks. He added: 'I also believe the federal government has an opportunity to establish thoughtful guardrails around the continued advancement of artificial intelligence.' In the week before the order, tech leaders had warned publicly of a potential dark future in which artificial intelligence threatens humanity. This is, so far as this dataset records, the only local land-use measure in the United States justified by AI EXISTENTIAL RISK rather than by local environmental or infrastructure impacts — a municipality using the one lever it has, control of construction, to register a position on a question of national and global technology policy.","summary_technical":"Gary, Ind. (Lake County) — ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTER CONSTRUCTION declared by MAYOR EDDIE MELTON BY EXECUTIVE ORDER on WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2026. THE INSTRUMENT IS THE FIRST DISTINGUISHING FEATURE. Nearly every measure indexed in this dataset is a council or board enactment — an ordinance, resolution or interim ordinance adopted after notice and hearing. A MAYORAL EXECUTIVE ORDER IS UNILATERAL AND IMMEDIATE, and correspondingly raises questions the reporting does not answer: the scope of the mayor's authority under Indiana law and the Gary city code to suspend or condition land-use permitting, whether the order binds the plan commission or board of zoning appeals, whether council ratification is required or contemplated, and whether it is revocable by a successor at will. NONE OF THIS IS ADDRESSED IN THE SOURCE and none of it is asserted here; `strength` is recorded as moderate on that uncertainty rather than on the order's nominal breadth. Compare ky-beshear-eo-data-center-development-2026 (a governor's executive order) as the nearest instrument analogue. THE STATED RATIONALE IS THE SECOND AND MORE SIGNIFICANT FEATURE, AND IT IS UNIQUE IN THIS DATASET. Melton did NOT cite the grounds that underpin essentially every other indexed local measure — grid load, ratepayer cost, water consumption, noise, setbacks, farmland, property values. Per the release, he issued the order 'because of concerns voiced by SOME TECH LEADERS WHO CALLED FOR A SLOWDOWN OF ITS RAPID ADVANCE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE OVER FEARS OVER POSSIBLE RIS[KS].' Quoted: 'I ALSO BELIEVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH THOUGHTFUL GUARDRAILS AROUND THE CONTINUED ADVANCEMENT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.' The report notes that in the preceding week tech leaders had warned of a potential future in which artificial intelligence threatens humanity. THIS IS A LOCAL LAND-USE ACTION JUSTIFIED BY AI SAFETY / EXISTENTIAL RISK RATHER THAN BY LOCAL IMPACT, and it is the only such instance currently recorded here. TWO IMPLICATIONS WORTH FLAGGING. (1) DOCTRINALLY, a land-use restriction whose stated purpose is national technology policy rather than local health, safety and welfare is on weaker footing than one grounded in infrastructure or environmental impact, because the police power justifying municipal zoning is local — a challenger would argue the order is ultra vires or pretextual. The rationale that makes this entry notable is also its legal vulnerability. (2) POLITICALLY, it inverts the preemption debate recorded elsewhere in this dataset: Speaker Mike Johnson's rejection of a federal AI moratorium (dispositioned in the triage ledger) and Rep. Tom Barrett's bill to bar federal intervention in local data center siting both concern whether Washington may override localities. Melton is a locality acting BECAUSE Washington has not, and expressly inviting it to. expires_date IS COMPUTED as one year from the declaration. THE ORDER'S TEXT, NUMBER AND OPERATIVE SCOPE — whether it reaches permits, applications, rezonings or only construction — WERE NOT OBTAINED.","who_is_protected":"Gary residents in Lake County, Indiana","who_must_comply":"Parties seeking to construct data centers in the City of Gary during the one-year moratorium","citation":"Gary, Ind. — mayoral executive order declaring a one-year moratorium on data center construction, September 16, 2026","source_url":"https://www.gary.gov/news-updates/mayor-melton-signs-data-center-moratorium-amid-rapid-ai-advancement-concerns","source_title":"Mayor Melton Signs Data Center Moratorium Amid Rapid AI Advancement Concerns — City of Gary, Indiana (Official)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of the Mayor of Gary; city departments subject to the executive order","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"co-loveland-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Loveland, Colorado — Council Votes 7-2 to Stop Processing Data Center Land-Use Applications for 12 Months OR LESS If New Land-Use Regulations Are Approved Sooner, Ratifying a Direction Given to Staff Two Weeks Earlier; the Mayor Dissents Over the Proposal's Guardrails (September 2026)","short_title":"Loveland CO 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Loveland, CO","state_abbr":"CO","county":"Larimer County","city":"Loveland","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-15","enacted_date":"2026-09-15","expires_date":"2027-09-15","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Loveland's City Council agreed not to process any land-use applications for data centers for 12 months — OR LESS, if the council approves new land-use regulations before that period is up. The 7-2 vote on Tuesday night, September 15, 2026 ratified a direction the council had already given staff on September 1: pause consideration of data center applications until land-use codes can be updated to protect the city from the negative impacts of such developments. The self-terminating structure is the feature worth noting. Most moratoriums in this dataset run a fixed term and end either by expiry or by an affirmative extension vote, which creates an incentive problem — the clock runs whether or not the drafting does. Loveland's ends as soon as the replacement regulations are adopted, which removes any reason to let the pause coast to its full term and directly answers the concern a Gage County supervisor raised about longer pauses diluting the pressure to finish. Mayor Pat McFall and Councilmember Geoff Frahm voted against, the mayor saying he opposed the measure based on the guardrails in the proposal. Notably, this is a resolution rather than an ordinance, and it is framed as the council agreeing not to PROCESS applications rather than as a prohibition on development.","summary_technical":"Loveland, Colo. (Larimer County) — 12-MONTH MORATORIUM on processing data center land-use applications, ratified 7-2 by the CITY COUNCIL on TUESDAY NIGHT, SEPTEMBER 15, 2026. OPERATIVE FORMULATION, WHICH IS UNUSUAL AND IS THE POINT OF THIS ENTRY: the council 'agreed to NOT PROCESS ANY LAND-USE APPLICATIONS FOR DATA CENTERS for a period of 12 MONTHS, OR LESS IF THE COUNCIL APPROVES NEW LAND-USE REGULATIONS BEFORE THAT.' THE TERM IS A CEILING THAT SELF-TERMINATES ON ADOPTION OF THE REPLACEMENT REGULATIONS. Almost every other moratorium indexed here runs a FIXED term ending by expiry or affirmative extension (in-steuben-county-dc-moratorium-2026 six months; ne-gage-county twelve; wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026 eighteen; il-lawrence-county-dc-moratorium-2026 twenty-four). A fixed term creates a known incentive defect — the clock runs whether or not drafting progresses. LOVELAND'S STRUCTURE ELIMINATES IT: the pause ends the moment its purpose is served, so there is no benefit to letting it coast. THIS IS THE DIRECT STRUCTURAL ANSWER TO THE OBJECTION RECORDED AT ne-gage-county-planning-and-zoning-commission-recommends-18-month-data-2026, where Supervisor Rex Adams argued against a longer term precisely because it would 'drag it out.' It also strengthens the active-study showing on which moratorium defensibility usually turns, since the ordinance's own terms tie its life to the drafting work. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: the September 15 vote RATIFIED A DIRECTION THE COUNCIL GAVE STAFF ON SEPTEMBER 1 that it wanted to pause consideration of data center applications until land-use codes could be updated 'to protect the city from negative impacts of such developments.' DISSENT: MAYOR PAT McFALL and Councilmember GEOFF FRAHM voted against, the mayor stating he opposed it BASED ON THE GUARDRAILS IN THE PROPOSAL — the nature of that objection (whether the guardrails were too strict or too weak) IS NOT EXPLAINED IN THE SOURCE and is not inferred here. INSTRUMENT CAUTION: the source calls the measure a RESOLUTION ('the council ratified a direction… voted against the resolution') and frames it as the council agreeing NOT TO PROCESS applications rather than as a prohibition on development. A resolution declining to process is a weaker instrument than an interim ordinance barring a use, and may be more exposed to a mandamus or equal-protection challenge by an applicant, though NO CHALLENGE IS REPORTED. COLORADO CLUSTER: co-aurora-dc-regulations-resolution-2026 and co-aurora-evaporative-cooling-ban-ordinance-2026 (Aurora rejected a six-month moratorium and pursued substantive regulations instead); adams-county-co-dc-zoning-2026. expires_date IS COMPUTED as 12 months from ratification and is a CEILING, not a fixed end date.","who_is_protected":"Loveland residents in Larimer County, Colorado","who_must_comply":"Data center developers submitting land-use applications in Loveland; the city will not process them during the pause","citation":"Loveland, Colo. — resolution pausing processing of data center land-use applications for up to 12 months, ratified 7-2 on September 15, 2026","source_url":"https://bizwest.com/2026/09/16/loveland-imposes-12-month-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Loveland imposes 12-month data center moratorium — BizWest (Ken Amundson, Sept. 16, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Loveland City Council; city development services","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center land-use applications will not be processed during the moratorium"},{"id":"ca-marina-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026","title":"Marina, California — City Council Unanimously Enacts a 45-Day Urgency Ordinance Barring Acceptance of Any Data Center Application, Expressly NOT Prompted by Any Current Application but Adopted to Prepare for Future Scenarios (September 2026)","short_title":"Marina CA 45-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Marina, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Monterey County","city":"Marina","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-15","enacted_date":"2026-09-15","expires_date":"2026-10-30","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"The Marina City Council voted unanimously on Tuesday night, September 15, 2026 to enact a 45-day moratorium on new data centers, giving the city time to create policies and evaluate the potential effects of such facilities. During the moratorium no applications for data centers will be accepted. The council was explicit that the URGENCY ORDINANCE WAS NOT PROMPTED BY ANY CURRENT APPLICATION — it was adopted to prepare for future scenarios. That matters more than it sounds. A moratorium enacted while an application is pending invites a vested-rights fight, and this dataset records several pauses defeated exactly that way, most starkly in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota, where a developer's suit forced the city to amend its ordinance to let the project through. Marina faces no such exposure. A resident speaking at the meeting expressed satisfaction with the decision and stressed the importance of having local discussions before higher levels of government intervene — which is the preemption anxiety running underneath a good deal of the local activity in this dataset. Forty-five days is the opening interval of a California interim urgency ordinance, not the likely total: state law lets a council extend it once by ten months and fifteen days and again by a year. The question for Marina, as for every other California city here, is whether it comes back to extend.","summary_technical":"Marina, Calif. (Monterey County) — 45-DAY URGENCY ORDINANCE barring new data centers, enacted UNANIMOUSLY by the CITY COUNCIL on TUESDAY NIGHT, SEPTEMBER 15, 2026. OPERATIVE EFFECT: 'During the moratorium, NO APPLICATIONS FOR DATA CENTERS WILL BE ACCEPTED' — an acceptance bar, which stops the clock before an application can ripen into a vested interest, rather than merely withholding approval. INSTRUMENT: the source calls it an URGENCY ORDINANCE and gives a 45-day term, which identifies CAL. GOV. CODE § 65858 — interim urgency ordinance prohibiting uses in conflict with a contemplated zoning proposal, adopted by FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE, effective 45 DAYS, extendable once by 10 MONTHS 15 DAYS and once more by 1 YEAR, two years aggregate, each extension requiring notice, hearing and a written report on measures taken to alleviate the condition. The unanimous vote satisfies the four-fifths requirement. PURPOSE: to allow time to CREATE POLICIES and EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS of data centers on the city. THE POSTURE IS THE STRONGEST AVAILABLE AND IS STATED EXPRESSLY: 'The urgency ordinance was NOT PROMPTED BY ANY CURRENT APPLICATIONS for data centers but was implemented to PREPARE FOR FUTURE SCENARIOS.' No pending application means no vested-rights exposure — the failure mode that defeated moratoria at Rockford IL (annexation agreement), Cle Elum WA (2002 development agreement), Salem (pre-filed application), Lowell (settlement) and Athens (site outside city limits), and that produced the litigation capitulation at inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06. Same pre-emptive posture as wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026, or-woodburn-dc-moratorium-2026 and id-latah-county-dc-regulations-2026. PUBLIC COMMENT RECORDED: a Marina resident expressed satisfaction with the decision and 'stressed the importance of local discussions BEFORE HIGHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENE' — the preemption anxiety that also surfaces in the federal material dispositioned in this sweep (Speaker Johnson's rejection of a federal AI moratorium; Rep. Tom Barrett's bill to bar federal intervention in local data center siting decisions). CALIFORNIA § 65858 COHORT, NOW SUBSTANTIAL: ca-gilroy-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026 (45-day, unanimous, 2026-09-14), ca-richmond-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026 (45-day, 2026-09-15), ca-eureka-dc-interim-moratorium-and-20k-cap-direction-2026 (45-day, ~2026-09-02), ca-palm-springs-dc-moratorium-2026. FOUR CALIFORNIA CITIES ADOPTED 45-DAY PAUSES WITHIN ROUGHLY TWO WEEKS. expires_date 2026-10-30 IS COMPUTED as 45 days from adoption and is NOT stated in the source. ORDINANCE NUMBER NOT OBTAINED; no vote tally beyond 'unanimously'.","who_is_protected":"Marina residents in Monterey County, California","who_must_comply":"Anyone seeking to file a data center application in Marina during the 45-day moratorium","citation":"Marina, Cal. — 45-day interim urgency ordinance barring acceptance of data center applications, adopted unanimously September 15, 2026","source_url":"https://www.ksbw.com/article/marina-data-center-moratorium-monterey-county/73761740","source_title":"Marina City Council imposes 45-day moratorium on new data centers — KSBW (NBC, Salinas/Monterey)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Marina City Council; city planning department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No data center applications will be accepted during the moratorium"},{"id":"oh-mcdonald-village-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"McDonald, Ohio — Village Council Takes Less Than Five Minutes at a Special Meeting to Pass an EMERGENCY Ordinance Imposing a One-Year Moratorium Barring the Village From Accepting, Processing or Considering Any Data Center Application, After Weeks of Two-Hour Meetings and Residents Protesting Outside the High School (September 2026)","short_title":"McDonald OH one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"McDonald, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Trumbull County","city":"McDonald","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-16","enacted_date":"2026-09-16","expires_date":"2027-09-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"McDonald's village council took less than five minutes at a special meeting on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 to approve an EMERGENCY ORDINANCE placing a one-year moratorium on data centers. The brevity is the story. Recent meetings on the subject had run two hours or more, and on the Tuesday before the vote residents stood outside McDonald High School holding signs against data centers as people filed into the gymnasium to meet representatives of the developer. By the time the council convened, the argument was over. The moratorium means the village will not ACCEPT, PROCESS OR CONSIDER any applications for any data centers in the village — all three verbs, which closes the routes a narrower pause leaves open. Adopting it as an EMERGENCY measure matters under Ohio law: an emergency ordinance takes effect immediately on passage rather than after the usual waiting period, and in Ohio it is also not subject to referendum. For a village facing an active developer courting residents in a school gymnasium, immediate effect is the whole point — a thirty-day delay is thirty days in which an application can be filed. Councilman Brian Bosheff was unable to attend. Council President Sean Schmidt said council and village officials will always do what is in the best interest of the village and its residents.","summary_technical":"McDonald, Ohio (Trumbull County, Mahoning Valley) — ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM adopted by EMERGENCY ORDINANCE at a SPECIAL MEETING of the VILLAGE COUNCIL on WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2026, in UNDER FIVE MINUTES. OPERATIVE SCOPE, ALL THREE VERBS: 'the village will NOT ACCEPT, PROCESS OR CONSIDER ANY APPLICATIONS FOR ANY DATA CENTERS IN THE VILLAGE.' An acceptance bar prevents an application from ripening into a vested interest; a processing bar prevents administrative advancement; a consideration bar reaches the council's own discretionary action. Compare ks-marysville-dc-moratorium-2026 ('accepted, processed or approved'). THE EMERGENCY DESIGNATION IS LEGALLY SIGNIFICANT IN OHIO AND IS THE REASON THIS ENTRY IS RECORDED AS `strong`. Under Ohio municipal law an ordinary ordinance takes effect after a statutory waiting period and is subject to referendum; AN EMERGENCY MEASURE, PASSED WITH THE REQUISITE VOTE AND A STATEMENT OF THE EMERGENCY, TAKES EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON PASSAGE AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO REFERENDUM. Against an active developer, immediate effect forecloses the filing window that a delayed effective date would leave open — which is precisely the gap that produced the vested-rights defeats recorded at Rockford IL, Cle Elum WA, Salem and Lowell. THE VOTE TALLY IS NOT GIVEN and the emergency vote threshold therefore cannot be confirmed from this source; Councilman BRIAN BOSHEFF was absent. CONTEXT SHOWING WHY SPEED MATTERED: recent meetings on the subject had run TWO OR MORE HOURS, and on the Tuesday preceding the vote residents (named in the source as Heather Johnson, Samantha Muche and Lou Muche) demonstrated with signs OUTSIDE McDONALD HIGH SCHOOL as people entered the gymnasium to meet representatives of the developer. A DEVELOPER CONDUCTING A PUBLIC OUTREACH MEETING IN A SCHOOL GYMNASIUM THE DAY BEFORE indicates an active, advanced proposal — so unlike the pre-emptive pauses in this wave (wi-sauk-county, or-woodburn, ca-marina, id-latah-county, all with nothing pending), MCDONALD ACTED AGAINST A LIVE PROJECT. That is the higher-risk posture, and the emergency designation is the mitigation. Council President SEAN SCHMIDT said council and village officials will always do what is in the best interest of the village and its residents. OHIO CLUSTER: oh-lima-dc-moratorium-2026, oh-canton-dc-zoning-chapter-2026, oh-twinsburg-dc-moratorium-2026, oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026, oh-pioneer-village-dc-moratorium-2026 (this wave). THE DEVELOPER IS NOT NAMED in the retrieved text (the sentence identifying the company was truncated at 'representatives of O…'). expires_date IS COMPUTED. ORDINANCE NUMBER NOT OBTAINED.","who_is_protected":"Residents of the Village of McDonald, Trumbull County, Ohio","who_must_comply":"Anyone seeking to file or advance a data center application in the Village of McDonald","citation":"McDonald, Ohio — emergency ordinance imposing a one-year data center moratorium, adopted September 16, 2026","source_url":"https://www.tribtoday.com/news/local-news/2026/09/mcdonald-passes-1-year-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"McDonald passes 1-year moratorium on data centers — Tribune Chronicle (Warren, Ohio)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"McDonald Village Council; village administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No data center application may be accepted, processed or considered during the moratorium"},{"id":"oh-pioneer-village-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Pioneer, Ohio — Village Council Passes a Six-Month Moratorium on a Data Center Proposed for the Former AquaBounty Site Near the Ohio-Indiana Line, to Conduct Studies Including a New Electrical Study, Council Members Saying They Do Not Want Anything Fast-Tracked Without Knowing Who Their New Neighbour Would Be (September 2026)","short_title":"Pioneer OH six-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Pioneer, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Williams County","city":"Pioneer","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-16","enacted_date":"2026-09-16","expires_date":"2027-03-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"The site of the former AquaBounty facility near the Ohio-Indiana line is being pitched as a possible location for a data center, and Pioneer's village council has passed a SIX-MONTH MORATORIUM on the plan in order to conduct studies — including a NEW ELECTRICAL STUDY. Council members said they do not want anything fast-tracked without knowing exactly who their new neighbour would be. Two details are worth drawing out. First, the moratorium is tied to a SPECIFIC SITE and a SPECIFIC PROPOSAL rather than framed as a general land-use pause, which is a narrower posture than most entries here and one that a developer could more plausibly characterise as targeted. Second, the commissioning of a NEW ELECTRICAL STUDY is the substantive work product, and it is the right instinct: this dataset repeatedly records that grid headroom is the binding constraint local officials discover last, most vividly in Eureka, California, where planning staff learned from PG&E that one substation was already at capacity and another had roughly ten megawatts left against a typical data center ask of fifty to a hundred. A village of Pioneer's size commissioning its own electrical study before deciding is doing in advance what larger jurisdictions have had to do under time pressure. The AquaBounty site is itself notable — a former land-based aquaculture facility, the kind of large industrial parcel with existing power and water service that makes an attractive data center conversion.","summary_technical":"Pioneer, Ohio (Williams County, near the Ohio-Indiana line) — SIX-MONTH MORATORIUM passed by the VILLAGE COUNCIL, reported 2026-09-17, on a data center proposed for the FORMER AQUABOUNTY FACILITY SITE. STATED PURPOSE: to CONDUCT STUDIES, 'INCLUDING A NEW ELECTRICAL STUDY.' Council members said 'they don't want anything fast-tracked without knowing exactly who their new neighbor would be.' SCOPE IS PROJECT-SPECIFIC, WHICH IS THE PRINCIPAL ANALYTICAL CAVEAT: the source describes the moratorium as being 'on the plan' rather than on data center development generally. A pause directed at an identified proposal is materially more exposed than a general interim ordinance — it invites the argument that the village is singling out one applicant rather than exercising general legislative judgment, and it sits closer to the spot-zoning and equal-protection objections than the general pauses in this wave (ks-marysville-dc-moratorium-2026, ca-marina-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026). WHETHER THE ADOPTED ORDINANCE IS IN FACT DRAFTED AS A GENERAL MEASURE IS NOT ESTABLISHED BY THIS SOURCE, which is brief; the project-specific framing may be the reporter's rather than the ordinance's, and this entry does not resolve it. THE ELECTRICAL STUDY IS THE SUBSTANTIVE FEATURE. Commissioning an independent electrical study before deciding addresses the constraint this dataset repeatedly shows officials discovering late: at ca-eureka-dc-interim-moratorium-and-20k-cap-direction-2026 planning staff reported PG&E advising that ONE SUBSTATION SERVING THE CITY WAS ALREADY AT CAPACITY and another had ~10 MW remaining against a typical 2026 ask of 50-100 MW; at in-steuben-county-dc-moratorium-2026 utilities' high-transmission routing discussions were the precipitating factor; at id-latah-county-dc-regulations-2026 the county imposed an ANNUAL electrical consumption and peak demand reporting duty. A village commissioning its own study pre-decision is the same diagnostic applied early. SITE CONTEXT: AquaBounty operated land-based aquaculture facilities; a former aquaculture plant is a large industrial parcel with established power and water service and existing industrial zoning — the brownfield/reuse conversion pattern also recorded at ca-oakland-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026 (a building that previously housed a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory supercomputing facility, cited for its 'substantial existing power infrastructure') and inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06 (the former Travel Tags site). EXISTING SERVICE IS THE ATTRACTOR, and it is why such sites surface repeatedly. NOT OBTAINED: the vote tally, the ordinance number, whether the measure was adopted as an emergency ordinance (cf. oh-mcdonald-village-dc-moratorium-2026 in this wave), the developer's identity, and the exact date of passage. expires_date IS COMPUTED as six months from an ASSUMED 2026-09-16 passage.","who_is_protected":"Residents of the Village of Pioneer, Williams County, Ohio","who_must_comply":"The developer proposing a data center at the former AquaBounty site, and the village in processing that plan during the six-month study period","citation":"Pioneer, Ohio — six-month moratorium on a data center proposed for the former AquaBounty site (2026)","source_url":"https://www.13abc.com/2026/09/17/pioneer-council-passes-moratorium-possible-data-center-former-aquabounty-site/","source_title":"Pioneer council passes moratorium on possible data center at former AquaBounty site — WTVG 13abc (Toledo)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Pioneer Village Council; village administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"The plan may not proceed during the six-month moratorium"},{"id":"vt-gov-scott-veto-large-dc-regulatory-framework-2026","title":"Vermont — Gov. Phil Scott VETOES a TRIPARTISAN Bill Creating a Regulatory Framework for Large Data Centers, Saying Vermont Already Has Sufficient Regulations; Months Later His Own Natural Resources Secretary Tells Congress She Supports Requiring Data Center Owners to Help Pay for the Water Infrastructure Impacts They Create (2026)","short_title":"Vermont — Gov. Scott veto of large data center regulatory framework (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Vermont","state_abbr":"VT","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"vetoed","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-09-19","summary_plain":"Vermont came close to having a statewide regulatory framework for large data centers and does not have one, because Gov. Phil Scott vetoed the bill. The measure was TRIPARTISAN and wide-ranging — it included far more than water regulation. Scott's stated reasons were that he believes VERMONT ALREADY HAS SUFFICIENT REGULATIONS in place to scrutinise a proposed large data center, and that the bill went too far in what it subjected those facilities to. As recently as the week before September 16, 2026 he was still saying Vermont does not need new state-level rules for data centers. What makes this worth recording is the contradiction that surfaced afterwards. Vermont's Secretary of Natural Resources, JULIE MOORE — Scott's own appointee — testified before a U.S. Congressional committee in support of a FEDERAL bill directing states to limit the costs consumers shoulder for the water data centers use. She told lawmakers she supports 'requiring owners and operators to help pay for the water infrastructure impacts they create,' as well as studying the potential impacts data centers could have on nearby water sources. A Vermont official testifying before Congress is itself described as a rarity. Dan Fingas, executive director of Vermont Conservation Voters — one of the organisations that lobbied for the vetoed bill — put it directly: 'I do think there's a contradiction. This testimony from Secretary Moore to Congress shows that they've already seen areas where Vermont is left unprotected — or, at least, needs more protection.' Moore pushed back, saying her testimony was unrelated to the reasons Scott rejected the bill. In the absence of a state law, THREE VERMONT CITIES AND TOWNS have passed regulations aimed at prohibiting data centers, at least temporarily. In Vernon, a company has eyed the former Vermont Yankee nuclear plant site for a data center project or something else.","summary_technical":"VERMONT — GUBERNATORIAL VETO of a TRIPARTISAN bill that would have created A NEW REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR LARGE DATA CENTERS in the state, including measures similar to those in federal legislation then before Congress. VETOED BY GOV. PHIL SCOTT (R) in 2026. STATED GROUNDS FOR THE VETO, as reported: (1) he believes VERMONT ALREADY HAS SUFFICIENT REGULATIONS IN PLACE TO SCRUTINISE A PROPOSED LARGE DATA CENTER; (2) the bill WENT TOO FAR by subjecting the facilities to [the specification is truncated in the retrieved text]. Scott has maintained the position since — as recently as the week before 2026-09-16 he continued to say he does not think Vermont needs new state-level regulations aimed at data centers. THE ENTRY IS RECORDED AS A NEGATIVE OUTCOME because the dataset's value depends on recording where protections were sought and NOT obtained; a state with no framework is materially different from a state that never considered one, and the bill's tripartisan character makes the veto the operative cause of its absence. Compare me-ld307-data-center-moratorium-2026-vetoed. THE INTERNAL CONTRADICTION IS THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT. JULIE MOORE, Vermont's SECRETARY OF NATURAL RESOURCES — an official in Scott's own administration — testified before a U.S. CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE in support of A FEDERAL BILL THAT WOULD DIRECT STATES TO LIMIT THE COSTS CONSUMERS SHOULDER FOR THE WATER USED BY DATA CENTERS. Quoted, she supports 'REQUIRING OWNERS AND OPERATORS TO HELP PAY FOR THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS THEY CREATE,' as well as STUDYING THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS data centers could have on nearby water sources. The testimony is described as a rarity for Vermont officials. DAN FINGAS, executive director of VERMONT CONSERVATION VOTERS (which lobbied for the vetoed bill): 'I do think there's a contradiction. This testimony from Secretary Moore to Congress shows that they've already seen areas where Vermont is left unprotected — or, at least, needs more protection.' MOORE'S REBUTTAL, recorded for fairness: she said in an interview that her testimony was UNRELATED to the reasons Scott rejected the bill. THAT IS A COHERENT POSITION — supporting a federal cost-allocation standard is not the same as supporting a state permitting framework — and this entry does not adjudicate between them. TWO SIGNIFICANT UNINDEXED LEADS RECORDED: (1) THE FEDERAL WATER-COST BILL Moore testified in support of is NOT NAMED in the source and is distinct from us-hr-9340-ratepayer-protection-act-2026, which concerns ELECTRICITY grid costs — a federal bill addressing DATA CENTER WATER costs would be the first of its kind in this dataset. (2) THREE VERMONT CITIES AND TOWNS have passed regulations aimed at prohibiting data centers at least temporarily (attributed to Seven Days reporting); NONE ARE NAMED and none are currently indexed. ALSO RECORDED: in VERNON, a company has eyed the FORMER VERMONT YANKEE site — the decommissioned nuclear plant — for a data center project 'or something else'; the existing-power-infrastructure reuse pattern seen at oh-pioneer-village-dc-moratorium-2026 (former AquaBounty site) and ca-oakland-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026 (former Lawrence Berkeley supercomputing building). POLITICAL CONTEXT: data centers have become a major national issue before the November midterms, with recent polling showing them, especially AI facilities, increasingly unpopular with voters; Vermont Conservation Voters launched a public campaign called 'DON'T DATA CENTER VERMONT.' THE BILL NUMBER WAS NOT OBTAINED — see notes.","who_is_protected":"No one, as a result of the veto; Vermont residents would have been the intended beneficiaries of the vetoed framework","who_must_comply":"Not applicable — the bill was vetoed and did not become law","citation":"Vermont H.727 (An act relating to sustainable data center deployment) — vetoed by Gov. Phil Scott, May 28, 2026","source_url":"https://governor.vermont.gov/press-release/action-taken-governor-phil-scott-legislation-may-28-2026","source_title":"Action Taken by Governor Phil Scott on Legislation — May 28, 2026 — Office of Governor Phil Scott (Official)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Not applicable; Vermont Agency of Natural Resources is the agency whose secretary testified before Congress","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not applicable"},{"id":"pa-west-mahanoy-township-curative-amendment-dc-solar-2026","title":"West Mahanoy Township, Pennsylvania — Supervisors Unanimously Declare Their OWN Zoning Ordinance INVALID as to Data Centers, Solar Farms, On-Site Power Generation and Accessory Uses, Invoking the Curative Amendment Process to Buy 180 Days During Which the Township Need Not Entertain Any Landowner's Proposal, the Solicitor Explaining 'We Can't Exclude These Types of Things… But You Can Control It' (September 2026)","short_title":"West Mahanoy Township PA curative amendment, data centers and solar (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"West Mahanoy Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Schuylkill County","city":"West Mahanoy Township","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-15","enacted_date":"2026-09-15","expires_date":"2027-03-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"West Mahanoy Township is pressing pause on potential data center developments for six months, and the way it did so is the interesting part. Supervisors voted UNANIMOUSLY on Tuesday, September 15, 2026 to approve a resolution invoking the PENNSYLVANIA CURATIVE AMENDMENT PROCESS for BOTH data centers AND SOLAR FARMS. The resolution declares the township's own law defective: 'The West Mahanoy Township Zoning Ordinance is hereby declared to be INVALID as it relates to the regulation of data centers, solar farms, on-site power generation, and accessory uses related thereto.' Having declared the defect, the township gets the remedy period: 'The township shall not be required to entertain or consider any landowner's curative amendment or proposals for a data center use or solar farm within 180 DAYS.' Solicitor Jim Amato explained why the township looked at its ordinances and moved: it had 'determined that we don't have the protections in place for data centers or solar farms.' And then the sentence that captures the whole Pennsylvania strategy: 'We can't exclude these types of things from co[ming]… But you can control it.' That is the trade the Municipalities Planning Code forces. A Pennsylvania municipality generally may not zone a lawful use out of existence entirely, so an ordinance silent on data centers is not a shield — it is an opening for a developer to bring a substantive validity challenge and have a court, rather than the township, decide what gets built. By conceding the defect first, the township keeps control of the cure. This dataset now records three Pennsylvania municipalities using the same manoeuvre — Falls Township at the moment of declaration, Montgomery Township through to completed regulations, and now West Mahanoy. West Mahanoy is the first to extend it beyond data centers to SOLAR FARMS and ON-SITE POWER GENERATION, which is a meaningful widening: on-site generation is what a large data center brings with it.","summary_technical":"West Mahanoy Township, Pa. (Schuylkill County; Shenandoah Heights) — RESOLUTION INVOKING THE CURATIVE AMENDMENT PROCESS, adopted UNANIMOUSLY by the Board of Supervisors on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2026, covering BOTH DATA CENTERS AND SOLAR FARMS. OPERATIVE DECLARATION, QUOTED FROM THE RESOLUTION: 'The West Mahanoy Township Zoning Ordinance is hereby declared to be INVALID as it relates to the regulation of DATA CENTERS, SOLAR FARMS, ON-SITE POWER GENERATION, AND ACCESSORY USES RELATED THERETO.' OPERATIVE EFFECT, QUOTED: 'The township shall not be required to ENTERTAIN OR CONSIDER any landowner's curative amendment or proposals for a data center use or solar farm WITHIN 180 DAYS.' As the board member Martin put it, 'Anything with data centers or solar farms is put on hold.' MECHANISM AND WHY IT IS USED: under the PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPALITIES PLANNING CODE a landowner may bring a SUBSTANTIVE VALIDITY CHALLENGE asserting that a zoning ordinance unlawfully excludes a legitimate use, and a successful challenger is ordinarily entitled to site-specific relief — the court, not the municipality, then effectively sets the terms. A MUNICIPALITY MAY PRE-EMPT THIS BY DECLARING ITS OWN ORDINANCE SUBSTANTIVELY INVALID AND CURING THE DEFECT ITSELF, which both forecloses the landowner-initiated challenge and secures a statutory period in which the municipality need not process proposals for the affected use. SOLICITOR JIM AMATO STATED THE LOGIC ON THE RECORD, and it is the clearest articulation of it in this dataset: the township had 'determined that WE DON'T HAVE THE PROTECTIONS IN PLACE for data centers or solar farms'; 'WE CAN'T EXCLUDE THESE TYPES OF THINGS FROM CO[MING]… BUT YOU CAN CONTROL IT.' THE PENNSYLVANIA CURATIVE-AMENDMENT COHORT IS NOW THREE AND SHOWS THE FULL LIFECYCLE: pa-falls-township-zoning-curative-amendment-dc-2026 (Bucks County, August 2026 — recorded AT THE MOMENT OF DECLARATION, outcome then unknown); pa-montgomery-township-dc-curative-regulations-2026 (declared invalid March 2026, ADOPTED CURATIVE REGULATIONS months later permitting data centers as a conditional use in the Limited Industrial District — the COMPLETED cycle); and WEST MAHANOY (declaration plus an express 180-day shield, September 2026). WEST MAHANOY IS THE FIRST TO EXTEND THE DEVICE BEYOND DATA CENTERS. Adding SOLAR FARMS and, critically, ON-SITE POWER GENERATION AND ACCESSORY USES is a substantive widening rather than housekeeping: on-site generation is the component large data centers increasingly bring with them (cf. ca-irwindale-dc-ban-2026, whose findings recite 'continuous electrical demand, often supported by diesel or gas-powered' backup), so a curative declaration limited to 'data centers' could leave the generation plant regulable only under whatever the existing ordinance says about power facilities. West Mahanoy closed that gap in the same instrument. THE 180-DAY PERIOD IS A SHIELD, NOT A MORATORIUM IN THE ORDINARY SENSE: it relieves the township of the DUTY to entertain proposals rather than prohibiting the use outright, which is a different and in Pennsylvania a more durable posture than an interim ordinance. expires_date IS COMPUTED as 180 days from adoption and is not stated. RESOLUTION NUMBER NOT OBTAINED; the board member quoted as 'Martin' is identified by surname only in the retrieved text.","who_is_protected":"West Mahanoy Township residents in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania","who_must_comply":"Landowners and developers proposing data centers, solar farms, on-site power generation or related accessory uses in West Mahanoy Township; the township need not entertain or consider such proposals for 180 days","citation":"West Mahanoy Township, Pa. — resolution invoking the curative amendment process and declaring the zoning ordinance invalid as to data centers, solar farms and on-site power generation, adopted September 15, 2026","source_url":"https://shensentinel.com/news/west-mahanoy-invokes-six-month-moratorium-on-data-centers-solar-farms-mulls-regulations/","source_title":"West Mahanoy invokes six month moratorium on data centers, solar farms, mulls regulations — The Shenandoah Sentinel","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"West Mahanoy Township Board of Supervisors; township solicitor and zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"The township is not required to entertain or consider any landowner's curative amendment or proposal for the affected uses during the 180-day period"},{"id":"me-dixfield-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Dixfield, Maine — CITIZENS THEMSELVES Enact a 180-Day Data Center Moratorium by SECRET BALLOT, 35-3, at an Hour-Long Special Town Meeting in the Public Library, Effective Immediately, With the Planning Board to Spend Six Months Researching Whether Data Centers Would Be Appropriate for the Town (September 2026)","short_title":"Dixfield ME 180-day data center moratorium, town meeting vote (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Dixfield, ME","state_abbr":"ME","county":"Oxford County","city":"Dixfield","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-14","enacted_date":"2026-09-14","expires_date":"2027-03-13","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Dixfield's 180-day data center moratorium was not adopted by a council or a board. IT WAS ADOPTED BY THE TOWN'S CITIZENS, voting directly. After some debate and many questions, residents voted DECISIVELY on September 14, 2026 to enact a 180-day moratorium on data centers while town officials gather information about them. THE SECRET BALLOT VOTE WAS 35-3, and the moratorium TOOK EFFECT IMMEDIATELY. The decision came during an HOUR-LONG SPECIAL TOWN MEETING at the Ludden Memorial Library. The planning board will use the next six months to research whether a data center would be appropriate for the town. Almost every other measure in this dataset is a legislative act by an elected body — a council ordinance, a county resolution, a board vote. The New England open town meeting is a different thing: the voters ARE the legislative body. That has a practical consequence worth noting. A moratorium adopted by a town meeting is not vulnerable to the argument that a council substituted its judgment for the electorate's, and it cannot be quietly repealed at a sparsely attended council session — undoing it requires another town meeting. It is the same durability logic that the San Gabriel Valley cities were reaching for when Monterey Park and Alhambra put their data center bans on the ballot rather than passing ordinances, except that in Maine it is simply how town government works. The reported margin, 35-3, also means the measure passed with 38 people voting.","summary_technical":"Dixfield, Me. (Oxford County) — 180-DAY MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTERS enacted BY DIRECT VOTE OF THE TOWN'S RESIDENTS at a SPECIAL TOWN MEETING on SEPTEMBER 14, 2026. VOTE: 35-3 BY SECRET BALLOT. EFFECT: IMMEDIATE. VENUE AND DURATION: an hour-long special town meeting at the LUDDEN MEMORIAL LIBRARY. PURPOSE: the PLANNING BOARD will use the next six months to research whether a data center 'would [be] appropriate for the town'; the moratorium runs 'while town officials gather information about them.' THE ADOPTING BODY IS THE DISTINGUISHING FEATURE AND IS RARE IN THIS DATASET. The overwhelming majority of indexed local measures are enactments by an elected body — city council ordinance, county board resolution, township supervisors' vote, planning board action (mn-bemidji-dc-moratorium-2026), or mayoral executive order (in-gary-mayoral-eo-dc-moratorium-2026). THE NEW ENGLAND OPEN TOWN MEETING IS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY ITSELF: under Maine municipal law the town meeting is the town's legislative authority, and a moratorium ordinance enacted there is an act of the electorate rather than of its representatives. TWO CONSEQUENCES. (1) DURABILITY: repeal requires another town meeting, not a council majority — the same entrenchment objective that Monterey Park and Alhambra pursued by placing data center bans on the ballot (recorded at ca-irwindale-dc-ban-2026, where the mayor confirmed Irwindale would NOT use a ballot initiative and its ordinance therefore remains repealable by simple council majority), except that in Maine it is the default mechanism rather than a deliberate choice. (2) LEGITIMACY: a challenge arguing that the enacting body misjudged local sentiment is unavailable where the electorate voted directly. MAINE STATUTORY CONTEXT: 30-A M.R.S. § 4356 authorises municipal moratorium ordinances, requires findings that existing plans or ordinances are inadequate to prevent serious public harm or that facilities are insufficient, limits a moratorium to 180 DAYS, and permits renewal for additional 180-day periods on findings that the problem persists and the municipality has made good-faith progress. THE 180-DAY TERM HERE MATCHES THAT STATUTORY PERIOD EXACTLY, which indicates the ordinance was drafted to § 4356 and means renewal is available on the requisite findings rather than being an extraordinary step. SCALE NOTE RECORDED FOR HONESTY: 35-3 means 38 VOTERS PARTICIPATED. The margin is decisive (92%) but the absolute turnout is small, which is characteristic of a special town meeting and is not a defect in the enactment. THE MORATORIUM'S OPERATIVE SCOPE — whether it bars applications, permits, construction or all three — IS NOT STATED IN THE RETRIEVED TEXT. ARTICLE OR ORDINANCE NUMBER NOT OBTAINED. expires_date IS COMPUTED as 180 days from the vote. MAINE CONTEXT: me-ld307-data-center-moratorium-2026-vetoed records a vetoed STATE-level data center moratorium, so Maine municipalities are acting in the absence of a state framework.","who_is_protected":"Residents of the Town of Dixfield, Oxford County, Maine","who_must_comply":"Anyone seeking to develop a data center in Dixfield during the 180-day moratorium","citation":"Dixfield, Me. — 180-day data center moratorium enacted by town meeting vote 35-3, September 14, 2026","source_url":"https://www.sunjournal.com/2026/09/15/dixfield-oks-180-day-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Dixfield OKs 180-day moratorium on data centers — Lewiston Sun Journal (Bruce Farrin, Sept. 15, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Dixfield; Dixfield Planning Board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"wa-port-angeles-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Port Angeles, Washington — City Council Holds the Statutorily Required Public Hearing and Leaves Its Six-Month Data Center Moratorium UNCHANGED, a Councilmember Arguing the Eventual Rules Should Stop Trying to Define a 'Data Center' and Instead Regulate the IMPACTS of Any Large Resource User (September 2026)","short_title":"Port Angeles WA six-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Port Angeles, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"Clallam County","city":"Port Angeles","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-09-19","summary_plain":"Port Angeles is keeping its SIX-MONTH data center moratorium — a temporary ban on ACCEPTING OR APPROVING new data-center projects — unchanged. The City Council held a public hearing on it on Tuesday night, September 15, 2026. Public testimony ran both ways: residents raised electricity, water use, noise and environmental impacts, while business and economic-development representatives cautioned against shutting the door on projects. The council left the moratorium in place. The most useful thing to come out of the hearing was a councilmember's reframing of what the permanent rules should do. Drew Schwab argued the city's eventual regulations may need to focus LESS ON DEFINING A 'DATA CENTER' AND MORE ON REGULATING THE IMPACTS OF LARGE RESOURCE USERS: 'As we move forward, I don't want to define data center. It doesn't matter if it's another industrial user. The elements that we don't want, these are the things we have identified that we do not care for, are not something we would allow to be able to be built in town.' That is a direct answer to a problem visible across this dataset. Definitional approaches are where data center ordinances leak. Poway is attempting to ban 'AI data centers' specifically, which invites an operator to recharacterise a facility as general-purpose colocation. Marysville, Kansas had to enumerate hyperscale, cloud, colocation, AI and cryptocurrency and then expressly exclude ordinary server rooms just to make its definition workable. Schwab's proposal sidesteps the whole problem: regulate megawatts drawn, gallons consumed and decibels emitted, and it stops mattering what the building is called. The practical difficulty, which the reporting does not address, is that impact-based thresholds sweep in existing industrial users a city may not intend to burden.","summary_technical":"Port Angeles, Wash. (Clallam County) — SIX-MONTH MORATORIUM on data centers, described as a TEMPORARY BAN ON ACCEPTING OR APPROVING NEW DATA-CENTER PROJECTS, LEFT UNCHANGED following a PUBLIC HEARING held by the City Council on TUESDAY NIGHT, SEPTEMBER 15, 2026. THE HEARING IS ITSELF THE PROCEDURAL POINT: under RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 a Washington city that adopts a moratorium or interim zoning control WITHOUT a prior public hearing must hold one WITHIN 60 DAYS of adoption and adopt findings of fact justifying the measure, and a moratorium may run up to SIX MONTHS (renewable for further six-month periods on further findings, or up to one year where a work plan is adopted). A six-month term plus a subsequent public hearing at which the council leaves the measure unchanged is exactly the shape of the § 35A.63.220 ratification step. THIS ENTRY DOES NOT ASSERT that the council made the statutory findings — the source does not say — but the sequence is consistent with it. TESTIMONY, BOTH DIRECTIONS: residents raised ELECTRICITY, WATER USE, NOISE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC-DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTATIVES cautioned against shutting the door on projects. THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTRIBUTION IS COUNCILMEMBER DREW SCHWAB'S REFRAMING, and it addresses the single most persistent drafting problem in this dataset. Quoted: 'As we move forward, I DON'T WANT TO DEFINE DATA CENTER. It doesn't matter if it's another industrial user. The elements that we don't want, these are the things we have identified that we do not care for, are not something we would allow to be able to be built in town.' Schwab's position is that the eventual regulations should FOCUS LESS ON DEFINING A 'DATA CENTER' AND MORE ON REGULATING THE IMPACTS OF LARGE RESOURCE USERS. THE DEFINITIONAL PROBLEM HE IS SOLVING IS REAL AND DOCUMENTED ACROSS THIS DATASET: ca-poway-ai-dc-ban-2026 prohibits 'AI data centers' on a WORKLOAD basis, which an operator can defeat by characterising a facility as general-purpose colocation, and the ordinance's definition of the term was not obtainable; ks-marysville-dc-moratorium-2026 needed an enumerated inclusion list (hyperscale, cloud, colocation, AI, cryptocurrency) PLUS an express exclusion for ordinary server rooms and incidental IT equipment to be administrable; oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026 records staff observing a data center could be admitted as a WAREHOUSE-type use under a code with no definition; ca-palm-springs-dc-moratorium-2026 and ga-forest-park-dc-moratorium-2026 record the same silence being exploited. AN IMPACT-THRESHOLD ORDINANCE — expressed in megawatts of demand, gallons of consumptive water use, and decibels at the property line — IS DEFINITION-PROOF, because it attaches to measurable effects rather than to a contestable label. It also aligns with the substantive standards already indexed: id-latah-county-dc-regulations-2026 (groundwater source prohibition plus annual electrical consumption and peak demand reporting) and co-aurora-evaporative-cooling-ban-ordinance-2026 (which regulates the COOLING TECHNOLOGY citywide and building-agnostically, and is the nearest existing example of Schwab's approach). THE COUNTERVAILING DIFFICULTY, NOT ADDRESSED IN THE SOURCE AND FLAGGED HERE AS ANALYSIS: impact thresholds set low enough to capture data centers will also capture existing manufacturing, cold storage and other legitimate industrial users, so such ordinances typically need carve-outs that reintroduce definitional questions by another route. NO DATES FOR THE MORATORIUM'S ADOPTION OR EXPIRY WERE OBTAINED — see notes.","who_is_protected":"Port Angeles residents in Clallam County, Washington","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking to have new data-center projects accepted or approved in Port Angeles during the moratorium","citation":"Port Angeles, Wash. — six-month moratorium on accepting or approving new data-center projects, left unchanged after a public hearing September 15, 2026","source_url":"https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/2026/09/03/port-angeles-city-council-puts-pause-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Port Angeles Keeps Data Center Moratorium Unchanged — My Clallam County / Radio Pacific Inc. (Sept. 17, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Port Angeles City Council; city community and economic development department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"New data-center projects may not be accepted or approved during the moratorium"},{"id":"fl-sanibel-alpr-data-sharing-ban-and-search-limits-2026","title":"Sanibel, Florida — City Council ENDS Sharing of Automated License Plate Reader Data With Other Agencies and Bars Receiving It From Other Jurisdictions' Cameras; Police Simultaneously Tighten Database Searches to Require an Offense Type, CASE NUMBER and WRITTEN EXPLANATION, and REMOVE Traffic Infractions as an Eligible Basis for a Search (September 2026)","short_title":"Sanibel FL ALPR data-sharing ban and search restrictions (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Sanibel, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Lee County","city":"Sanibel","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","data-retention","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-14","enacted_date":"2026-09-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-19","summary_plain":"The Sanibel Police Department can no longer SHARE data collected by automated license plate readers with other agencies, and can no longer RECEIVE information from cameras in other jurisdictions. City leaders made the decision at a council meeting on Monday, September 14, 2026, after an hour-long discussion in which members raised concerns about the use and sharing of camera data. Both halves of that matter. Most ALPR controversy concerns collection, but the practical privacy harm usually comes from AGGREGATION — a three-camera island system is a narrow net, while a three-camera system plugged into a statewide or national network is a query interface to everyone else's cameras. Sanibel cut both directions at once. The city has used automated license plate readers since 2008 and currently operates THREE FLOCK FALCON cameras. Residents had previously raised questions about who can access the data, how it is retained, and whether it can be shared. Councilmember Holly Smith framed the proportionality question directly: with three cameras here but multiple cameras everywhere else throughout the state, is this something the city really needs right now? Alongside the sharing decision, Sanibel police UPDATED THEIR OWN POLICIES for accessing and using license plate reader information. Officers are NOW REQUIRED to provide an OFFENSE TYPE, a CASE NUMBER and a WRITTEN EXPLANATION before searching the database. PREVIOUSLY ONLY AN OFFENSE TYPE WAS REQUIRED. And TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS HAVE BEEN REMOVED from the list of offense types eligible for searches. A case number ties a query to an actual investigation and a written explanation creates an auditable record, which together convert an essentially unlogged capability into one that can be reviewed after the fact. Police Chief William Dalton defended the technology's value: around 80% of the people arrested each year are from somewhere other than Sanibel, so people come onto the island, commit crimes and leave. Separately, a PROPOSED ORDINANCE would require council involvement in future surveillance technology decisions — a city representative said that if a new technology is going to be adopted by the city, that would be brought before the council. THAT ORDINANCE IS NOT YET ADOPTED. The council was not being asked to approve a new surveillance system, but to decide whether these rules should apply before any future systems or capabilities are added.","summary_technical":"Sanibel, Fla. (Lee County) — AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER RESTRICTIONS decided by the CITY COUNCIL at a meeting on MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2026, following an hour-long discussion. THREE DISTINCT ACTIONS, OF WHICH TWO ARE IN FORCE AND ONE IS NOT; THE DISTINCTION IS LOAD-BEARING. (1) IN FORCE — INTERAGENCY SHARING PROHIBITION, BIDIRECTIONAL: 'The Sanibel Police Department can NO LONGER SHARE data collected by automated license plate readers WITH OTHER AGENCIES OR RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM CAMERAS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS.' THE BIDIRECTIONALITY IS THE SUBSTANTIVE FEATURE. ALPR privacy harm scales with AGGREGATION rather than with local camera count: a three-camera municipal deployment federated into a regional or national network (Flock operates exactly such a sharing fabric) functions as a query interface to every participating agency’s reads, and conversely exports local reads to every participant. Cutting only outbound sharing would leave the city consuming a national dragnet; cutting only inbound would leave residents’ movements exported. Sanibel severed both. (2) IN FORCE — DEPARTMENTAL SEARCH-PREDICATE TIGHTENING: officers are NOW REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AN OFFENSE TYPE, A CASE NUMBER, AND A WRITTEN EXPLANATION before searching the database, where PREVIOUSLY ONLY AN OFFENSE TYPE WAS REQUIRED; and TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS HAVE BEEN REMOVED from the list of offense types eligible for searches. THE CASE-NUMBER REQUIREMENT IS THE OPERATIVE CONTROL: an offense-type dropdown is costless to satisfy and unfalsifiable after the fact, whereas a case number binds each query to an existing investigation and a written explanation creates a reviewable record, converting an effectively unaudited capability into an auditable one. Removing traffic infractions excludes the highest-volume, lowest-severity category and is the single largest reduction in lawful query surface. This is the departmental analogue of the lead-not-probable-cause principle recorded across the facial recognition policies indexed here (cf. litig-lipps-v-city-of-fargo-facial-recognition-2026, where the alleged absence of any policy, training or supervision is the basis of the municipal-liability claim). (3) NOT IN FORCE — PROPOSED SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY OVERSIGHT ORDINANCE: under it 'the city council would be DIRECTLY INVOLVED in decisions about surveillance technology moving forward'; city representative Eric Jac[kson] said that 'if a new technology is going to be adopted by the city… that would be something that’s brought before the council.' That is the CCOPS (Community Control Over Police Surveillance) pattern — council pre-approval for acquisition of surveillance technology — and it IS NOT YET ADOPTED. The source is explicit that the council 'is not currently being as[ked] to approve a new surveillance system but to determine whether these rules should apply BEFORE ANY FUTURE SYSTEMS OR CAPABILITIES ARE ADDED.' DEPLOYMENT FACTS: Sanibel has used ALPR SINCE 2008 and currently operates THREE FLOCK FALCON cameras. Residents had previously raised concerns about WHO CAN ACCESS THE DATA, HOW IT IS RETAINED, AND WHETHER IT CAN BE SHARED — the sharing question is now answered; RETENTION PERIOD IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE SOURCE and remains unknown. PROPORTIONALITY ARGUMENT ON THE RECORD, Councilmember HOLLY SMITH: 'With three cameras but multiple cameras everywhere else throughout the state… is this something that we really need right now?' LAW-ENFORCEMENT POSITION, Police Chief WILLIAM DALTON: 'Around 80% of the people we arrest every year are from somewhere other than Sanibel. So… fol[ks] are coming onto the island, committing crimes and leaving. So, it’s very effective in helping with that.' Recorded for balance; the 80% figure is his assertion and is not independently verified. FLORIDA CONTEXT: fl-fdot-alpr-permit-revocation-2026 records state-level ALPR permit action, and fl-freedom-from-surveillance-act and fl-sb-262-digital-bill-of-rights are the state privacy instruments. NO ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION NUMBER, AND NO VOTE TALLY, WERE OBTAINED.","who_is_protected":"Sanibel residents and visitors whose vehicles are captured by the city’s automated license plate readers; and, through the inbound-sharing prohibition, people recorded by cameras in other jurisdictions whose data the department would otherwise access","who_must_comply":"Sanibel Police Department, which may not share ALPR data with other agencies or receive it from other jurisdictions, and whose officers must supply an offense type, case number and written explanation before searching the database","citation":"Sanibel, Fla. — city council decision ending interagency ALPR data sharing and tightening database search requirements, September 14, 2026","source_url":"https://www.winknews.com/news/local/sanibel-leaders-end-sharing-data-from-license-plate-readers-with-other-agencies/","source_title":"Sanibel leaders end sharing data from license plate readers with other agencies — Gulf Coast News / WINK (Jack Guenther, Bernie Montás; updated Sept. 14, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Sanibel City Council; Sanibel Police Department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"ca-los-angeles-county-dc-prohibition-unincorporated-2026","title":"Los Angeles County — Regional Planning Director Amy Bodek Orders an IMMEDIATE Prohibition on Large-Scale AI Data Centers Across ALL Unincorporated Areas by Departmental Memorandum, as Interim Guidance While the County Codifies the Ban in Its Zoning Code; Supervisor Hilda Solis Cites San Gabriel Valley Residents and 'Catastrophic Impacts the Technology May Have on Humanity' (September 2026)","short_title":"Los Angeles County prohibition on data centers in unincorporated areas (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Los Angeles County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Los Angeles County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector","healthcare"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-17","enacted_date":"2026-09-17","last_verified_date":"2026-09-21","summary_plain":"Los Angeles County's planning director ordered an IMMEDIATE PROHIBITION on the development of large-scale data centers that power artificial intelligence across the county's UNINCORPORATED AREAS. Department of Regional Planning Director AMY BODEK issued the directive in a memorandum on Thursday, September 17, 2026, saying it is intended to serve as INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR PLANNING STAFF while the county moves toward codifying the prohibition in its zoning code. This is the largest jurisdiction to act in this dataset. Los Angeles County is the most populous county in the United States, and its unincorporated areas alone hold more people than many states. The path here is worth following because it is not a moratorium. Board Chair and First District Supervisor HILDA SOLIS introduced a motion in April 2026 addressing public health and environmental concerns about data centers, and THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVED IT UNANIMOUSLY. The county's report back on that motion identified ZONING CHANGES THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THESE FACILITIES — not pause them. The planning director's memorandum holds the line in the meantime; Solis says she intends to bring further actions before the Board to implement the Regional Planning and Public Health departments' recommendations and amend the zoning code. Solis gave two reasons. The first is local and specific: 'I introduced it in response to concerns raised by San Gabriel Valley residents who were understandably concerned about the effects of data centers in their communities, concerns that have since been reflected nationwide.' The second is not local at all: 'The need for such a ban has only been further underscored by alarming developments from the AI sector on CATASTROPHIC IMPACTS THE TECHNOLOGY MAY HAVE ON HUMANITY.' That is the second American local government in this dataset, after Gary, Indiana, to put AI existential risk on the record as a reason for a land-use restriction — and unlike Gary it is paired with an ordinary public-health and environmental record.","summary_technical":"LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Calif. — IMMEDIATE PROHIBITION ON LARGE-SCALE AI DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENT IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS, ordered by DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL PLANNING DIRECTOR AMY BODEK by MEMORANDUM on THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2026. THE INSTRUMENT IS ADMINISTRATIVE, NOT LEGISLATIVE, AND THAT IS THE FIRST THING TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT IT. This is a departmental directive expressly framed as INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR PLANNING STAFF, issued while the county 'moves toward codifying the prohibition' in the zoning code. It is not an interim urgency ordinance under Cal. Gov. Code § 65858 (no 45-day term, no four-fifths board vote reported), and it is not itself a zoning amendment. Its operative force therefore rests on the planning department's discretion over application processing rather than on an enacted prohibition, which makes it FAST AND IMMEDIATE BUT MORE EXPOSED than an ordinance to a challenge by an applicant arguing the department cannot refuse to process a use the code permits. NO EXPIRY IS STATED — unlike a § 65858 moratorium it does not self-terminate, but it is also expressly transitional. PROCEDURAL SPINE: (1) APRIL 2026 — Board Chair and First District Supervisor HILDA SOLIS introduced a motion addressing public health and environmental concerns surrounding data centers; THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVED IT UNANIMOUSLY. (2) The county's REPORT BACK on that motion IDENTIFIED ZONING CHANGES THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THESE FACILITIES. (3) SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 — the Bodek memorandum implements that conclusion immediately as staff guidance. (4) Solis states she 'intends to bring additional actions before the Board of Supervisors to implement recommendations from the departments of REGIONAL PLANNING AND PUBLIC HEALTH to amend the county's zoning code and prohibit data centers pow[ered by AI].' THE ENDPOINT IS A PROHIBITION, NOT A PAUSE, which distinguishes this from the entire moratorium cohort and places it with ca-irwindale-dc-ban-2026, monterey-park-ca-dc-ban-measure-ndc-2026 and ca-poway-ai-dc-ban-2026 — but at county scale. THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH IS UNUSUAL AND WORTH NOTING: almost every measure in this dataset is produced by planning staff alone, and a public-health department co-authoring data center siting recommendations is a materially different evidentiary posture for defending a health-based prohibition. TWO STATED RATIONALES, Solis quoted: (a) LOCAL — 'I introduced it in response to concerns raised by SAN GABRIEL VALLEY RESIDENTS who were understandably concerned about the effects of data centers in their communities, concerns that have since been reflected nationwide'; (b) EXISTENTIAL — 'The need for such a ban has only been further underscored by ALARMING DEVELOPMENTS FROM THE AI SECTOR ON CATASTROPHIC IMPACTS THE TECHNOLOGY MAY HAVE ON HUMANITY.' RATIONALE (b) IS THE SECOND INSTANCE IN THIS DATASET of a United States local government resting a land-use restriction partly on AI existential risk rather than local impact; the first is in-gary-mayoral-eo-dc-moratorium-2026. THE DIFFERENCE MATTERS LEGALLY: Gary's executive order rests on that rationale alone, which is why that entry flags ultra vires and pretext exposure. LOS ANGELES COUNTY PAIRS IT WITH A DOCUMENTED PUBLIC-HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD produced by two county departments, so the existential-risk language is supplementary rather than load-bearing and does not carry the same vulnerability. THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY ORIGIN TIES THIS TO AN ALREADY-DENSE CLUSTER: monterey-park-ca-dc-ban-measure-ndc-2026 (voters approved MEASURE NDC in June 2026 amending the land use element to prohibit all data centers unless repealed by future voters — the source calls it the first of its kind in California, preceded by a 45-day moratorium later extended while staff codified an outright ban), ca-irwindale-dc-ban-2026, ca-commerce-dc-urgency-moratorium-2026, plus unindexed El Monte and Alhambra. THE TRIGGERING PROJECT, recorded: SDCF MONTEREY PARK, LLC proposed demolishing vacant commercial buildings at 1977 SATURN ST. and constructing a 218,400-SQUARE-FOOT single-storey data center on 15.8 ACRES; residents raised air, land and water pollution concerns. ALSO RECORDED: the City Council of neighbouring INDUSTRY unanimously approved a zoning change in February allowing construction of a battery storage site (unindexed, and an enabling rather than protective action). THE APPLICABILITY THRESHOLD FOR 'LARGE-SCALE' IS NOT STATED IN THE SOURCE.","who_is_protected":"Residents of the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, California — the most populous county in the United States — particularly San Gabriel Valley communities","who_must_comply":"Developers of large-scale AI data centers in unincorporated Los Angeles County; county planning staff, who are directed not to advance such applications","citation":"Los Angeles County, Cal. — Department of Regional Planning memorandum prohibiting large-scale AI data center development in unincorporated areas, September 17, 2026, pending zoning code amendment","source_url":"https://mynewsla.com/life/2026/09/17/la-county-issues-temporary-ban-on-data-centers-across-unincorporated-areas/","source_title":"LA County Issues Temporary Ban on Data Centers Across Unincorporated Areas — MyNewsLA.com (Sept. 17, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning; Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors; Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (recommendations)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Large-scale AI data center development is prohibited in unincorporated areas under the interim guidance"},{"id":"ri-cumberland-dc-zoning-prohibition-ord-26-22-2026","title":"Cumberland, Rhode Island — Town Council Votes 6-1 on Ordinance 26-22 to List Data Centers as a PROHIBITED USE in the Zoning Ordinance, the Sponsor Citing That a Large Facility Can Use as Much Water in a Day as 16,000 Households — Close to the Number of Households in Cumberland — and That Virginia Electricity Prices Rose 267% in Five Years (September 2026)","short_title":"Cumberland RI data center zoning prohibition, Ordinance 26-22 (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cumberland, RI","state_abbr":"RI","county":"Providence County","city":"Cumberland","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-16","enacted_date":"2026-09-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"The Cumberland Town Council voted 6-1 on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 to amend the town's zoning ordinance so that DATA CENTERS ARE LISTED AS A PROHIBITED USE. This is a permanent prohibition written into the code, not a pause. Ordinance 26-22 was taken up for public hearing as old business and passed on a roll call vote; all seven council members were present. It had come out of the ordinance subcommittee's September 2 meeting with a favourable recommendation on a 2-1 vote. The sponsor, DISTRICT 4 COUNCILOR JODI SWEET, explained where the idea came from and it is an unusually candid account of how these ordinances propagate. She said it came to her AFTER WATCHING WHAT A NEIGHBOURING RHODE ISLAND TOWN WENT THROUGH when a data center sought to locate there. She then looked at what the state was doing and FOUND THAT MOST RELATED BILLS SAT IN COMMITTEE this legislative session — so the town acted because the state had not. Planning Director Amelia Morton and Town Director Romeo Mendes prepared a report with statistics attached to the ordinance. Sweet's figures, as she gave them: data centers have grown significantly larger since around 2023; a facility can use more energy in a day than an entire small city; ELECTRICITY PRICES IN VIRGINIA HAVE RISEN 267% OVER FIVE YEARS; and a large-scale data center can use as much water in a day as 16,000 HOUSEHOLDS — which she noted is CLOSE TO THE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN CUMBERLAND. She also cited Rhode Island receiving only 80% of normal rainfall from June 2025 to May 2026, and described an expanding data center in a Massachusetts city, currently 352,000 square feet and built next to a neighbourhood, where residents deal with noise and diesel fumes from 27 BACKUP GENERATORS. Sweet framed the ordinance as an attempt to ensure power companies, the state and tech corporations 'get themselves in order' before anyone tries to build in town — and added, candidly, that 'no law or ordinance is forever.' Four members of the public spoke, all in favour.","summary_technical":"Cumberland, R.I. (Providence County) — ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT listing DATA CENTERS AS A PROHIBITED USE, adopted by the TOWN COUNCIL 6-1 ON ROLL CALL on WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 as ORDINANCE 26-22. Taken up for public hearing as OLD BUSINESS; meeting called to order at 7:31 p.m. with ALL SEVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS RECORDED PRESENT. SUBCOMMITTEE HISTORY: reported out of the ordinance subcommittee's SEPTEMBER 2 meeting with favourable passage on a 2-1 vote. INSTRUMENT: this is a CODE-LEVEL PROHIBITION, not a moratorium — data centers are 'now listed as a prohibited use under Cumberland's zoning ordinance.' Cohort: ca-irwindale-dc-ban-2026, monterey-park-ca-dc-ban-measure-ndc-2026, nj-jersey-city-dc-industrial-ban-ord-26-057, fl-edgewater-ai-dc-ban-2026, ca-los-angeles-county-dc-prohibition-unincorporated-2026 (this wave). THE SPONSOR'S ACCOUNT OF ORIGIN IS THE MOST EXPLICIT DESCRIPTION OF LOCAL-MEASURE PROPAGATION IN THIS DATASET AND IS WORTH RECORDING AS SUCH. District 4 Councilor JODI SWEET said the idea came to her AFTER WATCHING A NEIGHBOURING RHODE ISLAND TOWN FACE A DATA CENTER PROPOSAL; she then examined state activity and FOUND MOST RELATED BILLS SAT IN COMMITTEE THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION. THAT IS THE MECHANISM THIS DATASET KEEPS RECORDING FROM THE OUTSIDE, stated from the inside: municipalities legislate because the state has not, and they learn the template from the neighbour that got the application first. Compare the same dynamic at ks-marysville-dc-moratorium-2026 and wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (both pre-emptive, no pending project). STAFF WORK: PLANNING DIRECTOR AMELIA MORTON and TOWN DIRECTOR ROMEO MENDES prepared a REPORT WITH STATISTICS ATTACHED TO THE ORDINANCE — i.e. the findings are part of the legislative record, which matters for defensibility. FIGURES CITED BY THE SPONSOR ON THE RECORD (her assertions, not independently verified): data centers have grown significantly larger since roughly 2023; a facility can use more energy per day than an entire small city; ELECTRICITY PRICES IN VIRGINIA ROSE 267% OVER FIVE YEARS; A LARGE-SCALE DATA CENTER CAN USE AS MUCH WATER PER DAY AS 16,000 HOUSEHOLDS, 'close to the number of households in Cumberland'; Rhode Island received ONLY 80% OF NORMAL RAINFALL from June 2025 to May 2026. THE WATER COMPARISON IS THE RHETORICALLY DECISIVE ONE AND IS STRUCTURALLY THE SAME MOVE made at fl-marion-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (Commissioner Bryant: a 49 MW facility equals 10,000-15,000 households) and ca-eureka-dc-interim-moratorium-and-20k-cap-direction-2026 (staff: 1 MW ≈ 500-1,000 homes) — expressing facility demand in household-equivalents, here applied to WATER rather than electricity and calibrated to the town's own size. SHE ALSO DESCRIBED an expanding data center in a Massachusetts city, currently 352,000 SQ FT, built next to a neighbourhood, with residents dealing with NOISE AND DIESEL FUMES FROM 27 BACKUP GENERATORS — the diesel-backup impact recited in the ca-irwindale-dc-ban-2026 findings, here as an observed case. SPONSOR'S STATED PURPOSE: to ensure power companies, the state and tech corporations 'GET THEMSELVES IN ORDER' before anyone tries to build such a facility in town. SHE EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGED THE PROHIBITION'S REVERSIBILITY: 'no law or ordinance is forever' — the same durability point recorded at ca-irwindale-dc-ban-2026, where the mayor confirmed no ballot initiative was planned, in contrast to Monterey Park's voter-enacted Measure NDC. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: four members of the public spoke, ALL IN FAVOUR, including a speaker living just over the town line who works in Cumberland and cited threats to electricity and water bills and to local natural resource areas. THE DISSENTING COUNCILOR IS NOT NAMED and the ordinance's operative definition of 'data center' WAS NOT OBTAINED.","who_is_protected":"Cumberland residents in Providence County, Rhode Island, and the town's water and electricity ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Anyone seeking to develop a data center in Cumberland; the use is prohibited under the zoning ordinance","citation":"Cumberland, R.I. — Ordinance 26-22 amending the zoning ordinance to list data centers as a prohibited use, adopted 6-1 on September 16, 2026","source_url":"https://upriseri.com/article/recap-cumberland-council-bans-data-centers-6-1/","source_title":"Cumberland Council Bans Data Centers in 6-1 Zoning Vote — Uprise RI (Adriana Vossari)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Cumberland Town Council; town planning department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data centers are a prohibited use under the Cumberland zoning ordinance"},{"id":"ca-arcata-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026","title":"Arcata, California — City Council Votes 5-0 for an Interim Urgency Ordinance Halting the Receipt, Processing OR Approval of Any Data Center Land-Use Application for 45 Days, Effective Immediately, Citing Land Availability, Resource Use and the Absence of a Regulatory Framework — the Second Humboldt County City to Act in Two Weeks (September 2026)","short_title":"Arcata CA 45-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Arcata, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Humboldt County","city":"Arcata","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-16","enacted_date":"2026-09-16","expires_date":"2026-10-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"The Arcata City Council voted UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0, on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 to adopt an INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE establishing a 45-day moratorium on RECEIVING, PROCESSING OR APPROVING any application for a data center land use. Councilmembers were told that if they approved it, IT WOULD IMMEDIATELY GO INTO EFFECT — and it did. The council cited concerns over LAND AVAILABILITY, RESOURCE USE, and the ABSENCE OF A REGULATORY framework. The council had revisited the conversation after staff presented a presentation explaining the moratorium and what it would entail for the city. Two things make this worth noting beyond being another 45-day pause. First, the three-verb formulation — receiving, processing OR approving — is the most complete operative scope available. A pause that only bars approval leaves an application on file accruing whatever rights the law gives it; barring receipt stops the clock before it starts. Second, ARCATA IS IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY, and so is Eureka, which adopted its own 45-day data center moratorium roughly two weeks earlier and has since directed staff to draft zoning capping data centers at 20,000 square feet. Eureka's planning staff put the local grid constraint on the record: one PG&E substation serving the city is already at capacity and another has about ten megawatts of headroom, against a typical modern data center ask of fifty to a hundred. Arcata sits on the same constrained corner of the PG&E system, roughly eight miles away. This is the fifth California city in about two weeks to adopt a 45-day pause — after Gilroy, Richmond, Eureka and Marina.","summary_technical":"Arcata, Calif. (Humboldt County) — INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE establishing a 45-DAY MORATORIUM, adopted UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 by the City Council on WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2026, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. OPERATIVE SCOPE, THREE VERBS: halts 'RECEIVING, PROCESSING, OR APPROVING ANY APPLICATION FOR A DATA CENTER LAND USE.' Barring RECEIPT is the strongest of the three and the one most often omitted — an application that cannot be filed cannot ripen, which forecloses the vested-rights exposure recorded at Rockford IL, Cle Elum WA, Salem, Lowell and, most acutely, inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06, where a filed application became a $150 million damages demand that forced the city to amend its ordinance. Compare oh-mcdonald-village-dc-moratorium-2026 ('accept, process or consider') and ks-marysville-dc-moratorium-2026 ('accepted, processed or approved'). STATED GROUNDS: LAND AVAILABILITY, RESOURCE USE, and THE ABSENCE OF A REGULATORY framework. Staff presented a presentation explaining the moratorium and its implications before the vote, and councilmembers were expressly informed that approval would mean IMMEDIATE effect. INSTRUMENT: the 'interim urgency ordinance' label plus the 45-day term and immediate effect identify CAL. GOV. CODE § 65858 — four-fifths vote required (5-0 satisfies it), 45 days initially, extendable once by 10 months 15 days and once more by 1 year, two years aggregate, each extension requiring notice, hearing and a written report on measures taken to alleviate the condition. THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY PAIRING IS THE ANALYTICALLY USEFUL PART. ca-eureka-dc-interim-moratorium-and-20k-cap-direction-2026 records EUREKA — roughly eight miles away in the same county and on the same constrained corner of the PG&E system — adopting its own 45-day moratorium about two weeks earlier and then directing staff to draft zoning admitting only data centers of 20,000 sq ft or less in industrial areas by conditional use permit. EUREKA'S PLANNING STAFF PUT THE BINDING CONSTRAINT ON THE RECORD: PG&E advised that ONE SUBSTATION SERVING EUREKA IS ALREADY AT CAPACITY and another has ABOUT 10 MW REMAINING, against a typical 2026 data center ask of 50-100 MW and 1,000+ MW for the largest AI campuses. THE SOURCE FOR ARCATA DOES NOT REPEAT THAT ANALYSIS and this entry does not attribute it to Arcata — but the shared grid geography is why 'land availability' and 'resource use' appear as Arcata's stated grounds, and the two entries should be read together. CALIFORNIA § 65858 COHORT, NOW FIVE IN ROUGHLY TWO WEEKS: ca-gilroy-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026 (2026-09-14, unanimous), ca-richmond-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026 (2026-09-15), ca-marina-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026 (2026-09-15, unanimous), ca-eureka-... (~2026-09-02), and ARCATA (2026-09-16, 5-0) — plus ca-palm-springs-dc-moratorium-2026 and ca-commerce-dc-urgency-moratorium-2026 earlier. THE OPERATIVE QUESTION FOR ALL OF THEM IS THE SAME: § 65858 pauses expire in 45 days unless extended, so the meaningful test is which councils return to extend. expires_date 2026-10-31 IS COMPUTED as 45 days from adoption and is NOT stated in the source. ORDINANCE NUMBER NOT OBTAINED. WHETHER THE COUNCIL MADE THE § 65858 FINDINGS IS NOT REPORTED.","who_is_protected":"Arcata residents in Humboldt County, California","who_must_comply":"Anyone seeking to file, advance or obtain approval of a data center land-use application in Arcata during the 45-day moratorium","citation":"Arcata, Cal. — interim urgency ordinance establishing a 45-day data center moratorium, adopted 5-0 September 16, 2026","source_url":"https://www.times-standard.com/2026/09/17/arcata-city-council-oks-45-day-moratorium-for-data-centers/","source_title":"Arcata City Council OKs 45-day moratorium for data centers — Times-Standard (Maranda Vargas, Sept. 17, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Arcata City Council; city community development department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No data center land-use application may be received, processed or approved during the moratorium"},{"id":"ma-greenfield-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Greenfield, Massachusetts — City Council Unanimously Adopts a One-Year Data Center Moratorium With a BUILT-IN 180-DAY EXTENSION Available If the Planning Board Cannot Finish Drafting in Time, Adopted Days After Gov. Healey's Executive Order Barring Data Centers Without Local Approval (September 2026)","short_title":"Greenfield MA one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Greenfield, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Franklin County","city":"Greenfield","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-16","enacted_date":"2026-09-16","expires_date":"2027-09-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Greenfield's City Council voted UNANIMOUSLY on a roll call on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 to adopt a ONE-YEAR moratorium on data centers, while the Planning Board works on zoning codes and regulations. The interesting part is what the councilors argued about before voting. They agreed the moratorium was a good idea but pressed on the logistics: what happens if, in a year, the Planning Board has NOT finished drafting language — or brings forward language the council does not accept? THE MORATORIUM ANSWERS THE FIRST HALF OF THAT QUESTION IN ITS OWN TEXT. It includes language providing that IF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO PUT FORTH RECOMMENDATIONS IN THAT TIME FRAME, THE CITY COUNCIL CAN EXTEND THE MORATORIUM BY 180 DAYS. Very few measures in this dataset build the extension into the original instrument; most require a fresh enactment, which is precisely the moment a pause tends to lapse by inattention. Precinct 1 Councilor Katherine Golub asked whether the council could simply vote against extending and adopt its own language instead, and City Clerk Kathy Scott said that if the council votes down any proposal, it m[ust follow a further process]. The council concluded that rather than work through hypotheticals about next year, it should focus on the proposal in front of it. Context matters here: earlier this month Governor Maura Healey signed an executive order banning data centers that are not approved locally. Greenfield is exercising exactly the local authority that order preserves — and a municipality that has paused its own approvals has, in effect, withheld the local consent the state order now requires.","summary_technical":"Greenfield, Mass. (Franklin County) — ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTERS adopted UNANIMOUSLY ON ROLL CALL by the City Council on WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2026. PURPOSE: to give the PLANNING BOARD time to work on zoning codes and regulations related to data centers. THE DISTINGUISHING FEATURE IS A SELF-CONTAINED EXTENSION CLAUSE: the moratorium 'includes language that states IF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO PUT FORTH RECOMMENDATIONS IN THAT TIME FRAME, CITY COUNCIL CAN EXTEND THE MORATORIUM BY 180 DAYS.' MOST INDEXED MORATORIA REQUIRE A FRESH ENACTMENT TO EXTEND, which is the failure point where pauses lapse through inattention rather than decision. Building the extension into the original instrument converts extension from a new legislative act into an exercise of a reserved power. Compare co-loveland-dc-moratorium-2026, which solves the adjacent problem from the other direction — a self-TERMINATING ceiling that ends the pause early if replacement regulations are adopted sooner. Greenfield guards against the drafting running long; Loveland guards against it running short. Read together they are the two halves of a well-drafted moratorium term. THE COUNCIL DEBATE IS RECORDED BECAUSE IT IDENTIFIES THE UNSOLVED HALF: councilors questioned not only what happens if the Planning Board fails to finish, but what happens if it 'brings forth language that' the council does not want. PRECINCT 1 COUNCILOR KATHERINE GOLUB asked whether the council could simply vote against extending the moratorium and adopt its own language; CITY CLERK KATHY SCOTT replied that if the council votes down any proposal, it m[ust — the sentence is truncated in the retrieved text]. THE ANSWER IS THEREFORE NOT CAPTURED, and this entry does not supply one. Under the Massachusetts Zoning Act (G.L. c. 40A, § 5) a zoning amendment ordinarily requires a planning board hearing and report before the legislative body may adopt it, with a time limit after which the body may act without the report — which is the likely subject of the clerk's answer, but THAT IS INFERENCE AND IS NOT ASSERTED. The council resolved to focus on the proposal before it rather than hypotheticals. STATE CONTEXT, AND IT IS SUBSTANTIAL: ma-eo-658-responsible-data-center-development-2026 records Gov. MAURA HEALEY's Executive Order No. 658 of 2026-09-08, 'Establishing Requirements for Responsible Data Center Development and Operations in Massachusetts,' accompanied by a release titled 'Governor Healey: No Data Centers Without Local Approval.' GREENFIELD ADOPTED ITS MORATORIUM EIGHT DAYS LATER. THE INTERACTION IS WORTH STATING PRECISELY: the executive order conditions data center development on local approval; a municipality that has suspended its own approval process has, for the duration, withheld the consent the state instrument requires. The moratorium and the order are therefore mutually reinforcing rather than redundant — the order makes the local pause dispositive statewide rather than merely local. expires_date IS COMPUTED as one year from adoption and is NOT stated in the source; note that the built-in extension makes 2027-09-16 a presumptive rather than final endpoint. NO ORDINANCE NUMBER, NO VOTE COUNT BEYOND 'UNANIMOUSLY', AND NO OPERATIVE SCOPE (whether applications, permits or construction are barred) WERE OBTAINED.","who_is_protected":"Greenfield residents in Franklin County, Massachusetts","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Greenfield during the moratorium","citation":"Greenfield, Mass. — one-year data center moratorium adopted unanimously September 16, 2026, extendable by 180 days","source_url":"https://www.recorder.com/greenfield-city-council-data-center-moratorium-2026","source_title":"Greenfield City Council adopts one-year moratorium on data centers — Greenfield Recorder; corroborated by Franklin County Now, 'Greenfield City Council approves one-year moratorium on data centers' (Sept. 18, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Greenfield City Council; Greenfield Planning Board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"us-ai-data-center-moratorium-act-s2414-hr9442-2026","title":"United States — AI Data Center Moratorium Act (S. 2414 / H.R. 9442, 119th Congress): A Proposed TEMPORARY FEDERAL PROHIBITION on the Construction of New Data Centers Lasting UNTIL CONGRESS ITSELF PASSES Comprehensive Legislation Addressing the Economic, Environmental and Safety Impacts of Artificial Intelligence (2026)","short_title":"AI Data Center Moratorium Act (S. 2414 / H.R. 9442, proposed)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","national-security","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"The AI Data Center Moratorium Act (S. 2414 in the Senate, H.R. 9442 in the House) would create a TEMPORARY PROHIBITION ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DATA CENTERS — a federal moratorium — lasting 'UNTIL CONGRESS PASSES COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS THE ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.' Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts is a cosponsor. It was introduced roughly three weeks before New York Governor Kathy Hochul's Executive Order 62 of July 14, 2026, which made New York the first state to pause data centers. This is the opposite pole of the federal debate from everything else in this dataset, and the contrast is worth stating plainly. The Ratepayer Protection Act — the one data center bill that has actually moved, passing the House 417-3 before a single senator blocked it — does not prohibit anything; it amends PURPA to require state regulators merely to CONSIDER making large users bear infrastructure costs. The AI Data Center Moratorium Act would prohibit construction outright. Meanwhile House Speaker Mike Johnson has said he opposes any moratorium on U.S. AI development on the ground that slowing it would give China a competitive advantage, and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna has taken the same position. A bill of this kind is therefore very unlikely to advance in the current Congress, and no action beyond introduction is recorded here. It is indexed because the dataset's purpose includes recording what protections were PROPOSED, not only those enacted — and because the trigger condition is unusual enough to be worth preserving. THE MORATORIUM DOES NOT RUN FOR A FIXED TERM. It ends when Congress legislates comprehensively on AI, which means the bill delegates its own expiry to a future act of Congress rather than to a calendar. That is a self-terminating structure of the kind recorded at Loveland, Colorado, but with the termination condition set at the federal legislative level.","summary_technical":"UNITED STATES — AI DATA CENTER MORATORIUM ACT, S. 2414 and H.R. 9442, 119th Congress. STATUS: INTRODUCED ONLY. NO COMMITTEE ACTION, FLOOR ACTION OR COSPONSOR COUNT IS RECORDED IN THE LOCATED SOURCE, and none is asserted. OPERATIVE PROPOSAL, QUOTED: the bills would create a 'TEMPORARY PROHIBITION ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DATA CENTERS… UNTIL CONGRESS PASSES COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS THE ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.' THE TERMINATION CONDITION IS THE STRUCTURALLY INTERESTING FEATURE: the moratorium has NO FIXED DURATION and instead expires upon a future legislative act of Congress. Every other moratorium in this dataset either runs a fixed term (45 days to two years) or self-terminates on adoption of replacement regulations BY THE SAME BODY (co-loveland-dc-moratorium-2026, ma-greenfield-dc-moratorium-2026's converse extension clause). Here the enacting body and the body whose future action lifts the pause are the same institution, which means the bill would bind Congress's own agenda: the moratorium persists precisely so long as Congress fails to legislate. IDENTIFIED SPONSOR: REP. JIM McGOVERN (D-Mass.) as a COSPONSOR. THE LEAD SPONSORS OF S. 2414 AND H.R. 9442 ARE NOT NAMED IN THE SOURCE. TIMING: introduced approximately THREE WEEKS BEFORE Gov. Kathy Hochul's EXECUTIVE ORDER 62 of JULY 14, 2026 (ny-hochul-eo-statewide-dc-moratorium-2026), which made New York the first state to adopt a statewide data center pause — placing introduction in late June 2026; introduced_date 2026-06-23 IS COMPUTED FROM THAT RELATIVE REFERENCE AND IS AN ESTIMATE. THIS BILL IS THE POLAR OPPOSITE OF THE FEDERAL MEASURE THAT HAS ACTUALLY MOVED, AND THE CONTRAST IS THE POINT OF INDEXING IT. us-hr-9340-ratepayer-protection-act-2026 passed the House 417-3 and PROHIBITS NOTHING: it amends PURPA to add a NON-BINDING reference standard requiring state regulators to 'CONSIDER' cost allocation and to hold hearings. It nonetheless died in the Senate on 2026-09-17 when Sen. Martin Heinrich objected to Sen. Jon Husted's unanimous-consent request. A BILL THAT COMPELS NOTHING COULD NOT CLEAR THE SENATE; A BILL THAT WOULD HALT CONSTRUCTION NATIONWIDE IS CORRESPONDINGLY IMPLAUSIBLE IN THIS CONGRESS. POLITICAL POSTURE AGAINST IT, both dispositioned in this dataset's triage ledger: HOUSE SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON has said he OPPOSES a moratorium on U.S. AI development, arguing that slowing it would give CHINA a competitive advantage with national security implications and that AI companies can regulate themselves; REP. ANNA PAULINA LUNA has affirmed the same position. Separately, REP. TOM BARRETT (R-Mich.) has introduced legislation to BAR FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN LOCAL DATA CENTER SITING DECISIONS — a third federal posture, preserving local control against Washington in either direction (unindexed lead). THE FEDERAL PICTURE THIS DATASET NOW RECORDS IS THEREFORE FOUR-WAY: a non-binding cost-allocation standard that passed the House and stalled; a construction moratorium that has not moved; leadership opposition to any moratorium on competitiveness grounds; and a bill to insulate local siting decisions from federal preemption. NOT OBTAINED: the bill texts, the lead sponsors, the committees of referral, the cosponsor counts, any definition of 'data center' or exemption for facilities already under construction, and whether the prohibition would reach only new construction or also expansion.","who_is_protected":"Prospectively, communities nationwide facing new data center construction; no one at present, as the bills are not enacted","who_must_comply":"If enacted, parties constructing new data centers in the United States","citation":"AI Data Center Moratorium Act, S. 2414 / H.R. 9442, 119th Cong. (2026) (proposed)","source_url":"https://recorder.com/2026/09/15/pushback-data-centers-whos-really-in-the-drivers-seat/","source_title":"Pushback: Data centers: Who's really in the driver's seat? — Greenfield Recorder (Sept. 15, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Not established; the bills are not enacted and the enforcing agency is not identified in the located source","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"or-portland-dc-nda-resolution-2026","title":"Portland, Oregon — City Council Votes UNANIMOUSLY on a Resolution URGING City Administrators Not to Sign Non-Disclosure Agreements With Prospective Data Center Developers and to Explore a Moratorium, a Sponsor Calling It 'A First Step' About Transparency and How Decisions Get Made — as Polling Finds Two-Thirds of Oregon Voters Want a Pause (September 2026)","short_title":"Portland OR data center NDA resolution (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Portland, OR","state_abbr":"OR","county":"Multnomah County","city":"Portland","topics":["data-centers","transparency","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-09-16","enacted_date":"2026-09-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"The Portland City Council voted UNANIMOUSLY on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 to URGE city administrators not to sign non-disclosure agreements with prospective data center developers, and to EXPLORE a moratorium on data centers. Oregon's largest city is the latest in a series of Oregon jurisdictions taking steps to rein in the industry, with local governments raising concerns about power consumption, land use, SECRECY and other environmental impacts. BE PRECISE ABOUT WHAT THIS DOES. It is a RESOLUTION and it URGES — it does not prohibit. Salem, acting two days earlier, went further and actually PROHIBITED NDAs related to data center developments while requiring that council be notified of all NDAs. Portland's measure asks administrators to decline them and directs exploration of a pause. A sponsor said as much: Councilmember Tiffany Koyama Lane called it 'a first step… and it's an immediate step that we can take today.' Her framing of why NDAs matter is the clearest statement of the transparency problem in this dataset: 'This resolution at its core is about responsible, good governance, PROTECTING HOW DECISIONS GET MADE IN OUR CITY. It's about transparency, and it's also about building and public trust.' That is the right diagnosis. A non-disclosure agreement signed by city staff early in a data center negotiation determines what a council and the public can know about power draw, water use, tax treatment and employment commitments at the moment those terms are still negotiable — by the time the agreement surfaces, the decisions are effectively made. Regulating NDAs is therefore a control on the PROCESS that precedes every land-use control this dataset otherwise records. Context: a new poll finds TWO-THIRDS OF OREGON VOTERS WANT A MORATORIUM on new data centers, and data centers have become an issue in the governor's race between Gov. Tina Kotek and her Republican challenger.","summary_technical":"Portland, Ore. (Multnomah County) — RESOLUTION adopted UNANIMOUSLY by the City Council on WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2026, (a) URGING city administrators NOT TO SIGN NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS with prospective data center developers and (b) directing the city to EXPLORE A MORATORIUM on data centers. THE INSTRUMENT IS HORTATORY AND THAT IS THE CENTRAL QUALIFICATION ON THIS ENTRY. The verb reported is 'URGE'; the measure is a RESOLUTION, not an ordinance; and nothing in the located source indicates it binds staff or creates any consequence for signing an NDA. `strength` is recorded as LIMITED for that reason. COMPARE THE OREGON PAIR DIRECTLY, because they arrived within forty-eight hours of each other and are NOT equivalent: or-salem-dc-moratorium-process-2026 records SALEM'S council on 2026-09-14 directing staff to require notification of ALL NDAs and SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITING NDAs related to data center developments — a prohibition. PORTLAND URGES; SALEM PROHIBITS. A reader comparing the two should not treat Oregon as having a uniform rule. WHY NDA REGULATION IS A PROTECTION AT ALL, which is the analytically useful part: a non-disclosure agreement executed by municipal staff at the outset of a data center negotiation governs what the governing body and the public may learn about peak electrical demand, water consumption, tax abatement, ratepayer cost allocation and employment commitments DURING THE PERIOD WHEN THOSE TERMS REMAIN NEGOTIABLE. By the time an NDA lapses or a project is announced, the material decisions are effectively settled and the land-use process that follows is constrained by commitments the public never saw. NDA CONTROLS THEREFORE OPERATE UPSTREAM OF EVERY ZONING, MORATORIUM AND SETBACK INSTRUMENT IN THIS DATASET. The indexed cohort is small: or-salem-dc-moratorium-process-2026, tn-gallatin-dc-application-pause-2026, and this entry; an unindexed Piqua OH NDA matter is queued. SPONSOR'S STATEMENT, Councilmember TIFFANY KOYAMA LANE: 'This resolution at its core is about responsible, good governance, protecting how decisions get made in our city. It's about transparency, and it's also about building and public trust'; and 'This resolution is a first step… and it's an immediate step that we can take today.' THE SECOND QUOTATION IS AN EXPRESS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE MEASURE'S LIMITED REACH and is recorded as such. OREGON CONTEXT: the source states Portland is 'the latest in a series of Oregon jurisdictions to take steps to rein in the data center industry,' citing local concerns about POWER CONSUMPTION, LAND USE, SECRECY and other environmental impacts. Indexed Oregon measures: or-woodburn-dc-moratorium-2026 (120-day pause on water-capacity grounds), or-salem-dc-moratorium-process-2026, plus Gov. Kotek's Data Center Advisory Committee (deferred in the ledger; its final recommendations were deferred past the November election) and Eugene, where 72 people signed up for public comment but the council has not acted. POLITICAL CONTEXT RECORDED: a NEW POLL FINDS TWO-THIRDS OF OREGON VOTERS WANT A MORATORIUM on new data centers, and the issue features in the contest between GOV. TINA KOTEK and her Republican challenger. THE POLL'S SPONSOR, SAMPLE AND DATES ARE NOT GIVEN. NOT OBTAINED: the resolution number, the second sponsor's name, the vote count beyond 'unanimously', whether the 'explore a moratorium' direction carries a reporting deadline, and whether the NDA language reaches agreements already in force.","who_is_protected":"Portland residents in Multnomah County, Oregon, and members of the public and City Council who would otherwise be excluded from data center negotiations by non-disclosure agreements","who_must_comply":"Portland city administrators, who are urged — not required — to decline non-disclosure agreements with prospective data center developers","citation":"Portland, Or. — council resolution urging city administrators not to sign data center non-disclosure agreements and to explore a moratorium, adopted unanimously September 16, 2026","source_url":"https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2026/09/portland-council-votes-to-discourage-data-center-ndas-pursue-moratorium.html","source_title":"Portland council votes to discourage data center NDAs, pursue moratorium — The Oregonian/OregonLive (Mike Rogoway)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Portland City Council; city administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None stated; the resolution urges rather than prohibits"},{"id":"nj-quijano-ai-dc-delay-and-commission-bill-2026","title":"New Jersey — Assemblywoman Annette Quijano Introduces a Bill That Would Delay Not Only APPROVALS, CONSTRUCTION AND EXPANSION of Large AI Data Centers but Also SUBSIDIES AND TAX INCENTIVES, and Create a 12-Person Commission to Report Within Two Years (September 2026)","short_title":"New Jersey Quijano AI data center delay and study commission bill (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Jersey","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Assemblywoman Annette Quijano introduced a bill in Trenton the week of September 14, 2026 that would DELAY approvals, construction, expansion, SUBSIDIES AND TAX INCENTIVES for large AI data centers, and create a 12-PERSON COMMISSION to study the potential impact on New Jersey and report its findings WITHIN TWO YEARS, possibly leading to new regulations. The feature that distinguishes this from almost every other pause in this dataset is that it reaches the MONEY. Nearly all indexed moratoria suspend land-use processes — applications, permits, rezonings, construction. A developer facing one of those waits. A developer facing a suspension of SUBSIDIES AND TAX INCENTIVES loses the economics that made the site attractive in the first place, and this dataset elsewhere records the other half of that equation: an Indianapolis commission approving a $240 million tax break for a single data center operator, and Illinois pausing its state data center incentives. Suspending the inducement is a materially different lever from suspending the permit. The political framing came from former state legislator John Wisniewski, who put the bill in context against Gov. Sherrill's position: 'It's a good starting point for a discussion because data centers are an enormous strain on resources unlike anything else municipalities have had to face in the recent past.' And, pointedly: 'The governor is trying her best to do what is appropriate without totally eliminating the possibility of data centers, and I get that, but I think PUBLIC OPINION IS EXCEEDING WHERE SHE IS AT… it will be interesting to see what the governor does in response to Assemblywoman Quijano's bill.' He described the underlying tension as two competing priorities — growing the economy while protecting the people who live there. THIS IS A BILL AS INTRODUCED. It has no number recorded here, no committee action, and no vote. It is not law.","summary_technical":"NEW JERSEY — BILL INTRODUCED IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY the week of 2026-09-14 by ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANNETTE QUIJANO (D). STATUS: INTRODUCED ONLY. No bill number, committee referral, cosponsors or action is reported in the located source. PROPOSED OPERATIVE CONTENT, TWO PARTS: (1) A DELAY OF 'APPROVALS, CONSTRUCTION, EXPANSION, SUBSIDIES AND TAX INCENTIVES FOR LARGE AI DATA CENTERS'; (2) CREATION OF A 12-PERSON COMMISSION to study the potential impact on New Jersey and REPORT ITS FINDINGS WITHIN TWO YEARS, 'possibly leading to new regulations.' THE FISCAL REACH IS THE ANALYTICALLY SIGNIFICANT FEATURE AND IS RARE IN THIS DATASET. The indexed moratorium cohort — running from 45-day interim urgency ordinances (ca-gilroy, ca-richmond, ca-marina, ca-arcata, ca-eureka) through 12- and 18-month county pauses (ne-gage-county, wi-sauk-county, fl-marion-county) to two-year terms (il-lawrence-county) — suspends LAND-USE PROCESS: the acceptance, processing, approval or construction of projects. A land-use pause delays a developer. A SUSPENSION OF SUBSIDIES AND TAX INCENTIVES REMOVES THE INDUCEMENT, which is a different economic instrument entirely and one that does not depend on zoning authority. THIS DATASET RECORDS BOTH SIDES OF THAT LEVER ELSEWHERE: the Indianapolis Metropolitan Development Commission approved a $240 MILLION TAX BREAK for Sabey Data Centers (dispositioned in the triage ledger as an enabling subsidy); ILLINOIS HAS PAUSED ITS STATE DATA CENTER INCENTIVES (recorded as a lead from the Troy IL reporting); and an Ohio measure asks whether the state should ban property tax incentives for data centers (deferred). A statutory pause on incentives sits squarely in that emerging category. THE TWO-YEAR COMMISSION REPORTING WINDOW IS LONG relative to the study periods attached to the local moratoria indexed here, which typically run six to eighteen months, and the source does not say whether the delay runs for the full commission period or terminates earlier. THAT IS AN IMPORTANT UNKNOWN: a delay coextensive with a two-year study would be among the longest indexed anywhere. NEW JERSEY CONTEXT, ALREADY INDEXED: nj-new-jersey-s731-a796-data-center-ratepayer-protection-and-grid-dem-2026 (ratepayer protection and grid demand), nj-jersey-city-dc-industrial-ban-ord-26-057 (municipal prohibition), litig-nj-developer-suits-municipal-dc-bans-2026 (developer suits against municipal bans), legiscan-active-nj-s3379 and legiscan-active-nj-a4096. NEW JERSEY IS THEREFORE A STATE WHERE MUNICIPAL BANS ARE ALREADY BEING LITIGATED BY DEVELOPERS, which is relevant to this bill: a STATE-level delay is not vulnerable to the municipal-capacity problem that defeated inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06, where a suburb with $1 million of liability coverage could not afford to defend its ordinance against a $150 million damages demand. COMMENTARY RECORDED: former state legislator JOHN WISNIEWSKI, quoted — 'It's a good starting point for a discussion because data centers are an enormous strain on resources unlike anything else municipalities have had to face in the recent past'; and on the Governor, 'The governor is trying her best to do what is appropriate without totally eliminating the possibility of data centers, and I get that, but I think PUBLIC OPINION IS EXCEEDING WHERE SHE IS AT… it will be interesting to see what the governor does in response.' He framed the matter as two competing priorities: growing the economy while protecting residents. NOT OBTAINED: the bill number, the text, the definition of 'large AI data center', the length of the delay, the commission's composition and appointing authorities, committee referral, and any cosponsors.","who_is_protected":"New Jersey residents and ratepayers, prospectively; no one at present, as the bill is not enacted","who_must_comply":"If enacted, developers of large AI data centers in New Jersey seeking approvals, construction or expansion, and state bodies awarding subsidies or tax incentives to them","citation":"New Jersey — bill introduced by Assemblywoman Annette Quijano delaying approvals, construction, expansion, subsidies and tax incentives for large AI data centers and creating a 12-person study commission (2026) (proposed)","source_url":"https://nj1015.com/new-bill-introduced-in-trenton-to-delay-approvals-of-ai-data-centers-in-new-jersey/","source_title":"New Bill Introduced In Trenton To Delay Approvals Of AI Data Centers In New Jersey — New Jersey 101.5","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"Not established; the bill is not enacted","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"oh-house-bill-prohibit-dc-property-tax-exemptions-2026","title":"Ohio — House Members Largely Representing Urban Areas Introduce a Bill to PROHIBIT PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR DATA CENTERS, Attacking the Incentive Rather Than the Land Use, in a State Where at Least 138 Municipalities and Townships Already Have Active Moratoriums (September 2026)","short_title":"Ohio bill to prohibit data center property tax exemptions (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Ohio","state_abbr":"OH","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Earlier in September 2026, a group of Ohio House members LARGELY REPRESENTING URBAN AREAS introduced a bill to PROHIBIT PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR DATA CENTERS. This attacks the incentive rather than the land use, and it is one of a small but growing set of measures in this dataset that do so — alongside New Jersey Assemblywoman Quijano's bill suspending subsidies and tax incentives, and Illinois's pause on its state data center incentives. The contrast with the rest of the dataset matters. Almost every other measure here is a zoning instrument: a moratorium, a setback, a conditional use permit, a prohibition. Those tell a developer where it may build. A property tax exemption tells a developer whether building there is worth it at all. Removing the exemption does not forbid anything — it simply stops the public from paying for the project. The commentary that surfaced this bill frames the evaluation usefully, asking of any such policy: does it work, does it help, and who does it help. On 'does it work', it notes that OLDER LITERATURE on economic development incentives suggests only about 2 to 25 PERCENT of projects make their location decisions based on incentives, while NEWER STUDIES FOCUSED SPECIFICALLY ON DATA CENTER INCENTIVES reach different conclusions. Property tax exemptions are a significant tool with a large impact on LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUDGETS, which is why urban legislators — whose jurisdictions bear school and municipal revenue losses — are the ones sponsoring this. The Ohio context is the most striking in the country: AT LEAST 138 OHIO MUNICIPALITIES AND TOWNSHIPS HAVE ACTIVE DATA CENTER MORATORIUMS as of September 17, 2026, with 23 communities having effectively banned data centers and at least 23 more across seven counties considering it. A state bill removing the tax exemption would operate across all of them at once.","summary_technical":"OHIO — BILL INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES earlier in September 2026 by 'a group of Ohio House members LARGELY REPRESENTING URBAN AREAS OF THE STATE' to PROHIBIT PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR DATA CENTERS. STATUS: INTRODUCED ONLY. No bill number, sponsor names, committee referral or action is reported in the located source. THE INSTRUMENT CLASS IS THE POINT. This dataset is overwhelmingly composed of LAND-USE instruments — moratoria on accepting, processing or approving applications; conditional use requirements; district confinement; setbacks; outright prohibitions. Those determine WHERE a facility may be built. A PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION DETERMINES WHETHER IT PENCILS. Repealing the exemption forbids nothing and requires no zoning authority; it withdraws a public subsidy. THE FISCAL-LEVER COHORT IS SMALL AND NEWLY VISIBLE: nj-quijano-ai-dc-delay-and-commission-bill-2026 (delaying subsidies and tax incentives alongside approvals), the Illinois pause on state data center incentives (recorded as a lead from Troy IL reporting), and on the other side of the ledger the Indianapolis Metropolitan Development Commission's approval of a $240 MILLION TAX BREAK for Sabey Data Centers (dispositioned as an enabling subsidy). WHY URBAN LEGISLATORS: property tax exemptions are described as 'a significant tool that can have a big impact on LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUDGETS.' Ohio property tax abatements for data centers shift the burden of school district and municipal revenue foregone, and the sponsoring bloc's composition tracks that incidence. THE SOURCE IS A POLICY COMMENTARY and applies a three-part test — 'does it work, does it help, and who does it help' — reporting on the first that OLDER LITERATURE on economic development incentives finds only ABOUT 2 TO 25 PERCENT of economic development projects make location decisions based on incentives, while NEWER STUDIES FOCUSED SPECIFICALLY ON DATA CENTER INCENTIVES reach different conclusions (the retrieved text is truncated before the newer studies' finding is stated, and it is NOT inferred here). THAT EMPIRICAL QUESTION IS THE CRUX: if incentives do not move siting decisions, repeal costs nothing in investment and recovers revenue; if data center siting is unusually incentive-sensitive, repeal is a de facto exclusion achieved without zoning. THE ENTRY DOES NOT RESOLVE IT. OHIO CONTEXT, AND IT IS THE MOST EXTENSIVE LOCAL RESPONSE RECORDED ANYWHERE IN THIS DATASET: separate reporting establishes that AT LEAST 138 OHIO MUNICIPALITIES AND TOWNSHIPS HAD ACTIVE DATA CENTER MORATORIUMS AS OF 2026-09-17, that 23 COMMUNITIES HAVE EFFECTIVELY BANNED DATA CENTERS, and that AT LEAST 23 MORE ACROSS SEVEN COUNTIES are considering similar proposals — with the true count likely higher because many villages and small townships do not publish ordinances or minutes online. THIS DATASET INDEXES ONLY A HANDFUL OF THOSE (oh-lima-dc-moratorium-2026, oh-canton-dc-zoning-chapter-2026, oh-twinsburg-dc-moratorium-2026, oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026, oh-columbus-dc-regulations-proposed-2026, jackson-township-oh-dc-moratorium-2026, oh-mcdonald-village-dc-moratorium-2026 and oh-pioneer-village-dc-moratorium-2026 from this sweep), SO OHIO COVERAGE HERE IS KNOWN TO BE A SMALL FRACTION OF THE ACTUAL PICTURE. A statewide repeal of the property tax exemption would operate across all 138 at once, which is the argument for a state fiscal instrument over municipal zoning: uniform reach without 138 separate enactments. NOT OBTAINED: the bill number, the sponsors by name, the bill text, whether the prohibition is prospective or would reach existing abatements, any megawatt or investment threshold, and committee referral.","who_is_protected":"Ohio local governments and school districts bearing revenue foregone through data center property tax exemptions; Ohio taxpayers","who_must_comply":"If enacted, data center owners in Ohio seeking or holding property tax exemptions, and the authorities that grant them","citation":"Ohio — House bill to prohibit property tax exemptions for data centers (2026) (proposed)","source_url":"https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2026/09/should-the-state-of-ohio-ban-property-tax-incentives-for-data-centers/","source_title":"Should the state of Ohio ban property tax incentives for data centers? — Ohio Capital Journal (commentary)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"Not established; the bill is not enacted","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"va-eo-22-2026-dc-accountability-ai-task-force","title":"Virginia — Executive Order 22 (2026), Signed September 18, 2026: BANS Executive-Branch Nondisclosure Agreements on Proposed Data Center Projects and BARS Data Centers of 25 MW or Greater From State Site-Readiness and Expedited-Permitting Programs, Designates the Eastern Virginia Groundwater Management Area a Cooling Water Scarcity Area, and Creates a Rapid-Response AI Task Force — But the Widely Reported 'By-Right Ban' and '25 MW Local Approval' Are PROPOSED 2027 LEGISLATION, Not Provisions of This Order","short_title":"Virginia EO 22 (2026) — data center accountability + AI task force","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["data-centers","transparency","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-18","enacted_date":"2026-09-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-19","summary_plain":"Virginia's governor signed an executive order on September 18, 2026 that does two separate things: it starts implementing a new Virginia Data Center Accountability Framework, and it creates a rapid-response AI Task Force. Most of the data center half is instruction — agencies are told to study, draft, consult and report back within 120, 180 and 240 days. TWO provisions bite immediately. First, no executive branch agency may enter into, enforce, or require a nondisclosure agreement that keeps the public from learning material information about a proposed commercial data center, its public incentives, its expected resource demands, or its community impacts; existing NDAs are honored, but new ones (absent extraordinary circumstances such as national security) violate the order. Second, effective on issuance, the Virginia Economic Development Partnership may no longer give a new data center project with anticipated peak demand of 25 MW or more any assistance through the Virginia Business Ready Sites Program, any expedited permitting program, or any similar discretionary state site-readiness or expedited-review program. The order also DESIGNATES the Eastern Virginia Groundwater Management Area a cooling water scarcity area and tells DEQ to expedite rules for noise and for cooling water scarcity. READ THE PRESS COVERAGE CAREFULLY: national and local outlets reported that Virginia was 'eliminating by-right approval' and 'requiring local approval of any data center using more than 25 megawatts.' Those are items in the framework the governor will ask the 2027 General Assembly to pass. THEY ARE NOT IN THIS ORDER. A governor cannot rewrite local land use law by executive order, and this one does not try to. What the order's own 25 MW threshold governs is eligibility for STATE economic-development assistance, not local approval.","summary_technical":"Va. Exec. Order No. 22 (Sept. 18, 2026), issued under Article V of the Constitution of Virginia and Va. Code §§ 2.2-103 and 2.2-110. PART I implements the Virginia Data Center Accountability Framework, organized around five pillars (transparent community engagement; environmental protection; affordability; clean energy and grid reliability; workforce). The Office of the Chief Energy Officer is designated implementation lead. Immediately operative provisions: (I)(B)(2) prohibits executive branch agencies, departments, boards, commissions, authorities and employees under the Governor's supervision from entering into, enforcing, or requiring any NDA preventing public disclosure of material information about a proposed commercial data center development, its public incentives, anticipated resource demands, or potential community impacts, with existing contractual commitments honored and an extraordinary-circumstances/national-security carve-out; (I)(B)(4) provides that 'Effective upon issuance of this Executive Order, VEDP shall not provide assistance through the Virginia Business Ready Sites Program, any expedited permitting program, or any similar discretionary state economic development, site-readiness, or expedited review program for a new data center project with an anticipated peak electrical demand of 25 MW or greater'; and (I)(C)(3) states that 'The Eastern Virginia Groundwater Management Area shall be designated as a cooling water scarcity area.' Deliverable deadlines: 120 days — Office of the Chief Energy Officer publishes a Data Center Planning and Community Engagement Toolkit; 180 days — DEQ accelerated timeline/workplan for noise rulemaking, DEQ backup-generation cumulative impact findings, DEQ cooling-water-scarcity workplan, Chief Energy Officer methane findings, Virginia Works workforce data-collection criteria; 240 days — Virginia Energy siting and regional-opportunity recommendations; end of CY2027 — proposed VA-LEAD (Virginia Local Energy and Accountable Data Centers) tiered designation criteria and implementation plan. PART II creates a rapid-response AI Task Force co-led by the Chief Transformation Officer, Counsel to the Governor and Secretary of Administration, supported by a newly established AI Policy Planning Unit in the Office of the Chief Transformation Officer, charged with workforce-displacement, data-privacy and cybersecurity risk (including AI agents/bots against state systems and critical infrastructure), identifying existing Virginia enforcement and regulatory authority applicable to AI harms, multistate and international partnership, and direct coordination with named frontier developers (Anthropic, OpenAI, xAI, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft). The Task Force reports continuously until terminated at the Governor's direction. The order RESCINDS Youngkin Exec. Order No. 30 (Jan. 18, 2024) and Executive Directive No. 5 (Sept. 20, 2023), while preserving policies, standards and guidelines already published under EO 30 'unless or until replaced through a future executive or agency action.' Effective upon signing; remains in force unless amended or rescinded.","who_is_protected":"Virginia residents and localities hosting or considering data center development — specifically their access to material project information that NDAs previously suppressed — and Virginia ratepayers; separately, Virginians exposed to AI workforce-displacement, data-privacy and cybersecurity risk, on whose behalf the Task Force is directed to act.","who_must_comply":"All Virginia executive branch agencies, departments, boards, commissions, authorities and employees under the Governor's supervision (NDA prohibition); the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (site-readiness and expedited-review exclusion); DEQ, Virginia Energy, the Office of the Chief Energy Officer, the Secretary of Labor, Virginia Works and the Department of Forestry (deliverables). Data center developers are reached INDIRECTLY — through loss of state assistance and through disclosure — not by any direct duty imposed on them by this order.","citation":"Va. Exec. Order No. 22 (Sept. 18, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.governor.virginia.gov/media/governorvirginiagov/governor-of-virginia/pdf/eo/eo-22-establishing-va-data-center-accountability-and-ai-initiatives.pdf","source_title":"Executive Order 22 (2026) — Establishing New Nation-Leading Standards and Initiatives to Implement the Virginia Data Center Accountability Framework and Responding to Unprecedented Risk From Artificial Intelligence","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of the Chief Energy Officer (framework implementation lead, reporting continuously to the Office of the Governor); the Office of the Chief Transformation Officer and its AI Policy Planning Unit (AI Task Force coordination)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None stated. This is an internal executive-branch directive: its force runs against state agencies, and against developers only through withheld discretionary state assistance and the loss of NDA protection."},{"id":"nv-eo-2026-005-responsible-dc-standard","title":"Nevada — Executive Order 2026-005, Announced September 18, 2026: Establishes the 'Nevada Standard for Responsible Data Center Development,' Conditioning GOED Partial Tax Abatements on Full Payment of the Local School Support Tax, a Combined Sales-and-Use Rate of No Less Than 4.6% That May Not Be Abated, and a Binding 'Nevada Community Support Commitment' Covering Water, Ratepayer Costs and Grid Emergencies","short_title":"Nevada EO 2026-005 — responsible data center standard","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Nevada","state_abbr":"NV","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-18","enacted_date":"2026-09-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-19","summary_plain":"Nevada's governor signed an executive order creating what his office calls the Nevada Standard for Responsible Data Center Development. It works through the state's tax-abatement gate rather than through zoning or permitting: a data center developer that wants a partial tax abatement from the Governor's Office of Economic Development must now pay the Local School Support Tax IN FULL — that portion may not be abated in any amount — and must sign a binding Nevada Community Support Commitment before its application can go to the GOED Board at all. The commitment covers siting, neighboring communities, workforce, community benefits and transparency, and requires the developer to meet local water standards, to cover the cost of serving its own facility rather than passing that cost to other ratepayers, and to avoid straining the electrical grid during emergencies. The order sets a floor: a combined sales and use tax rate of not less than 4.6 percent, made up of the Sales and Use Tax Act and the Local School Support Tax, neither abatable. It also directs the state to produce a Responsible Speed to Power Plan identifying the generation and transmission needed to serve anticipated large-load demand through 2036. WHAT IT DOES NOT DO: it does not restrict, cap, or ban data center construction anywhere in Nevada. A developer willing to forgo a state tax abatement is not reached by this order at all. Its background matters for reading its strength — a 2015 abatement statute had obliged GOED to grant abatements to data centers meeting employment, wage and investment thresholds, with no energy or water protections and no discretion to refuse; the 2025 Legislature restored the Board's authority to deny, reduce or condition an award, and this order exercises that recovered discretion.","summary_technical":"Nev. Exec. Order No. 2026-005 (Sept. 18, 2026), establishing the Nevada Standard for Responsible Data Center Development. Operative mechanism: eligibility conditions on partial tax abatement applications before the Board of Economic Development. (1) Applicants must pay the Local School Support Tax in full; the order sets a combined sales and use tax rate of not less than 4.6%, comprising the Sales and Use Tax Act and the Local School Support Tax, 'neither of which may be abated in any amount, for applications brought before the Board.' (2) Applicants must execute a binding Nevada Community Support Commitment before the application may be placed before the Board, addressing the project's effects on utilities and surrounding communities and covering siting, neighboring communities, workforce, community benefits and transparency. (3) Substantive commitments required: compliance with local water standards; coverage of the full cost of serving the facility without passing those costs to ratepayers; and avoidance of grid strain during emergency conditions. Implementation directives: the GOED executive director shall publish the standard form of the commitment on or before November 6, 2026, in consultation with the State Engineer, the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, state agencies, local governments and school districts; the executive director must notify applicants of incomplete applications within 30 days and place complete applications on the Board's next lawful agenda; and the Director of the Office of Energy shall deliver a Responsible Speed to Power Plan to the Governor by December 31, 2026, in consultation with affected utilities and the GOED executive director, identifying facilities needed to serve anticipated large-load demand through 2036. Statutory context: the 2015 data center abatement program required GOED to grant abatements to applicants meeting employment, wage and investment thresholds without energy or water conditions and without discretion to deny; 2025 legislation restored the Board's authority to deny an application, approve a lesser amount, or impose conditions — the authority this order directs the Board to exercise.","who_is_protected":"Nevada public schools funded by the Local School Support Tax; Nevada utility ratepayers who would otherwise absorb the cost of serving large data center loads; water users in the basins where these facilities site; and electric customers during grid emergencies.","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking a partial tax abatement through the Governor's Office of Economic Development — and only those developers. The Governor's Office of Economic Development, its executive director and the Board of Economic Development (application processing and conditions); the Director of the Office of Energy (Responsible Speed to Power Plan). A data center that does not seek a state abatement is outside the order's reach.","citation":"Nev. Exec. Order No. 2026-005 (Sept. 18, 2026) — Nevada Standard for Responsible Data Center Development","source_url":"https://www.fox5vegas.com/2026/09/18/lombardo-signs-executive-order-setting-standards-data-center-development/","source_title":"Lombardo signs executive order setting standards for data center development — FOX5 Las Vegas","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Governor's Office of Economic Development (GOED) and its Board of Economic Development, with consultation roles for the Nevada State Engineer, the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, local governments and school districts","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated as a penalty regime. The sanction is structural: an application that lacks full Local School Support Tax payment or an executed Nevada Community Support Commitment cannot be placed before the Board of Economic Development."},{"id":"ca-eo-n-9-26-ai-independent-oversight-kill-switch","title":"California — Executive Order N-9-26, Signed September 18, 2026: Orders the Government Operations Agency to ACCELERATE Implementation of SB 813 and AB 1405 and to Convene National Experts Who Must Deliver Recommendations Within Two Months on Onsite Independent Verification Inside Frontier AI Labs, Verified Safety Frameworks, a Frontier-Model 'Kill Switch,' and Loss-of-Control Incident Reporting","short_title":"California EO N-9-26 — accelerated AI oversight and kill-switch study","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["transparency","public-sector","automated-decisions","national-security"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-09-18","enacted_date":"2026-09-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-19","summary_plain":"California's governor signed an executive order on September 18, 2026 directing the Government Operations Agency to speed up how fast two already-enacted AI laws take effect — SB 813, which creates the framework for independent verification organizations that assess AI systems, and AB 1405, which creates the state registry and independence standards for AI auditors — and to convene national experts who have two months to recommend how to strengthen California's AI safety and security law. The order names four proposals the experts are asked to consider: putting a designated independent verification organization ONSITE inside frontier AI labs to run regular audits and evaluations; requiring that frontier companies' safety frameworks, transparency reports and risk assessments be VERIFIED against standards an independent verification organization deems adequate, rather than self-attested; advancing a 'kill switch' for frontier models whose effectiveness is itself verified on an ongoing basis by an independent verifier; and updating the definition of a critical safety incident to include LOSS-OF-CONTROL incidents. UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS ORDER IS. It imposes no new duty on any AI company today. It is an acceleration-and-recommendation instrument: it moves two existing statutes' timelines and it commissions a plan. The kill switch that led the headlines is a proposal the expert group is asked to consider, not a requirement now in force. The order's own framing is that the federal government has failed to act and that California will not wait — the substantive obligations, if they come, arrive through the recommendations and any legislation that follows.","summary_technical":"Cal. Exec. Order No. N-9-26 (Sept. 18, 2026). Directs the Government Operations Agency to (1) accelerate implementation timelines for SB 813 (framework for independent verification organizations to assess AI systems and models for compliance with state law) and AB 1405 (state registry of AI auditors with independence, transparency and integrity standards); and (2) in consultation with the Governor's Office of Emergency Services, convene national experts to develop recommendations within two months for strengthening state AI safety and security law. Proposals the order directs the expert group to consider, in the order's own language: 'Require frontier AI companies to embed a designated independent verification organization onsite in their labs to conduct regular audits and evaluations'; 'Require that the AI safety frameworks, transparency reports, and risk assessments … are verified pursuant to standards deemed adequate by an independent verification organization'; 'Advance the creation of a \"kill switch\" for frontier models, with the efficacy of the switch verified on an ongoing basis by an independent verification organization'; and 'Update definitions of critical safety incidents to include loss-of-control incidents.' The order cites no independent statutory authority for itself beyond the Governor's executive power, operating instead on the implementation of legislation already signed. No compliance obligation, deadline, or penalty attaches to any private party under the order as issued.","who_is_protected":"Californians exposed to frontier AI model risk — the order's stated concern is catastrophic and loss-of-control incidents — and, indirectly, users of AI systems that SB 813 and AB 1405 subject to independent verification once those statutes are in force.","who_must_comply":"The California Government Operations Agency (acceleration of SB 813 and AB 1405 implementation; convening the expert group) and the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (consultation). NO obligation is imposed on frontier AI developers or any other private party by this order; obligations on those companies exist, if at all, under SB 813 and AB 1405 themselves or under whatever legislation follows the recommendations.","citation":"Cal. Exec. Order No. N-9-26 (Sept. 18, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/09/18/governor-newsom-issues-executive-order-to-accelerate-independent-oversight-and-advance-the-creation-of-an-ai-kill-switch/","source_title":"Governor Newsom issues executive order to accelerate independent oversight and advance the creation of an AI kill switch — Office of Governor Gavin Newsom","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Government Operations Agency, in consultation with the Governor's Office of Emergency Services","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None. The order creates no enforceable duty on any private party."},{"id":"ca-calexico-dc-permanent-ban-2026","title":"Calexico, California — City Council Votes 3-0 on September 16, 2026 to Adopt an Ordinance Making Data Centers a PROHIBITED Land Use Citywide, Adding Article XII to Chapter 17.11 of the Municipal Code With Purpose, Definition, Prohibition, Exemption and Enforcement Sections, Effective 30 Days After Adoption — the First Permanent Ban in Imperial County","short_title":"Calexico, CA — permanent citywide data center ban (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Calexico, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Imperial County","city":"Calexico","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-10-16","enacted_date":"2026-09-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-19","summary_plain":"Calexico has made data centers a prohibited land use across the entire city — not a pause, a permanent prohibition. The council adopted the ordinance 3-0 on September 16, 2026 at its second reading, and it takes effect 30 days later. The new Article XII of Chapter 17.11 of the municipal code is built out of five sections: purpose, definition, prohibition, exemption and enforcement. The prohibition section states that data centers are not a permitted land use within the city, and the definition reaches facilities housing networked computer systems for data storage, processing or distribution together with their supporting infrastructure. There is an exemption section, but its contents are not stated in the available reporting and should not be assumed. The city got here in stages: on June 3, 2026 the council directed staff to bring back a possible moratorium; on July 1, 2026 staff recommended an interim urgency ordinance under California Government Code section 65858, the state's emergency land-use pause authority, which bought time to write permanent rules; those rules are this ban. Calexico is the first city in Imperial County to prohibit data centers permanently.","summary_technical":"Ordinance adding Article XII to Chapter 17.11 of the Calexico Municipal Code, comprising § 17.11.1210 (Purpose), § 17.11.1220 (Definition), § 17.11.1230 (Prohibition), § 17.11.1240 (Exemption) and § 17.11.1250 (Enforcement). Operative provision: 'Data centers are not a permitted land use within the city.' The definition covers facilities housing networked computer systems for data storage, processing or distribution, including supporting infrastructure. Procedural history: June 3, 2026 — council direction to staff to return with an item on a potential data center moratorium; July 1, 2026 — staff recommendation to adopt an interim urgency ordinance pursuant to Cal. Gov't Code § 65858, establishing a temporary moratorium while long-term land use regulations were evaluated; September 2, 2026 — first reading; September 16, 2026 — second reading and adoption, 3-0, with Mayor Pro Tem Calderon and Council Member Marquez absent. Effective 30 days after adoption (on or about October 16, 2026), the standard California general-law city ordinance effective date.","who_is_protected":"Calexico residents, and the city's land, water and electricity supply, insofar as the prohibition removes data centers as a permissible use anywhere within city limits.","who_must_comply":"Any person or entity seeking to establish a data center within the City of Calexico; city planning and code enforcement staff administering Chapter 17.11.","citation":"Calexico, Cal., Ordinance adding Calexico Mun. Code ch. 17.11, art. XII (adopted Sept. 16, 2026, effective 30 days thereafter)","source_url":"https://calexicochronicle.com/2026/09/18/calexico-enacts-permanent-data-center-ban/","source_title":"Calexico Enacts Permanent Data Center Ban — Calexico Chronicle","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Calexico — code enforcement under Calexico Mun. Code § 17.11.1250","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"An enforcement section (§ 17.11.1250) exists; its terms are not stated in the available reporting and are deliberately not inferred here."},{"id":"nc-chatham-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Chatham County, North Carolina — One-Year Countywide Moratorium on New Data Center Development, Adopted February 2026 After a Developer Proposed a 750 MW Project at the Moncure Megasite — PARTIALLY DEFEATED IN COURT September 18, 2026, When a Superior Court Judge Held the Developer's Rights Had Vested Before the Moratorium Took Effect","short_title":"Chatham County, NC — one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Chatham County, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Chatham County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-02-01","enacted_date":"2026-02-01","expires_date":"2027-02-01","last_verified_date":"2026-10-08","summary_plain":"Chatham County, North Carolina adopted a one-year moratorium on new data center development in February 2026, blocking new projects countywide while the county worked on rules. It was prompted by a developer's proposal for a 750-megawatt data center at the county's Moncure megasite, a project reported to be tied to cryptocurrency mining operations. On September 18, 2026 a Superior Court judge held that the moratorium could not be applied to that developer, because its rights had already vested before the moratorium took effect — the court treated an October 2025 meeting with county Planning Department staff as the equivalent of having obtained a permit. The moratorium itself was not struck down and still applies to everyone else; what the county lost is the one project the moratorium was adopted to stop. The entry for the case is litig-eco-tip-west-v-chatham-county-nc-2026.","summary_technical":"Chatham County, N.C. Board of Commissioners moratorium on new data center development, adopted February 2026 for a one-year term, countywide in scope. Trigger: a proposed 750 MW, multi-building data center at the Moncure megasite, reported as serving cryptocurrency mining operations, on which the developer had incurred approximately $11 million in expenditures. Judicial limitation: in Eco TIP West LLC v. Chatham County, Superior Court Judge John Morris (visiting from Rockingham County) granted the developer summary judgment on September 18, 2026 following an August 31, 2026 hearing, holding that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that the developer's rights had vested under North Carolina's vested-rights statute before the February moratorium took effect, with an October 2025 meeting with Planning Department staff treated as the functional equivalent of permit issuance. The court awarded attorney's fees to the developer and reserved damages. The order exempts that project; it does not invalidate the ordinance generally.","who_is_protected":"Chatham County residents and county land-use processes, during the one-year period in which the county develops permanent data center regulations — except as to the Moncure megasite project, which the September 18, 2026 order exempts.","who_must_comply":"Applicants seeking approval for new data center development in unincorporated Chatham County during the moratorium term; the Chatham County Planning Department in administering it.","citation":"Chatham County, N.C. — one-year data center development moratorium (adopted Feb. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.chathamcountync.gov/government/departments-programs-i-z/planning/special-topics/data-centers","source_title":"Data Center Moratorium — Chatham County, NC (Planning, Special Topics)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Chatham County Planning Department / Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the available reporting. A development moratorium operates by withholding approvals rather than by penalty."},{"id":"litig-eco-tip-west-v-chatham-county-nc-2026","title":"Eco TIP West LLC v. Chatham County (N.C. Super. Ct. 2026) — Judge Grants the Developer SUMMARY JUDGMENT Against a One-Year Data Center Moratorium, Holding That an October 2025 Meeting With County Planning Staff Was the Equivalent of a Permit and Vested the Developer's Right to Build a 750 MW Project Before the February 2026 Moratorium Took Effect; Attorney's Fees Awarded, Damages Reserved","short_title":"Eco TIP West LLC v. Chatham County (N.C. Super. Ct. 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Chatham County, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Chatham County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-09-19","summary_plain":"A developer sued Chatham County, North Carolina over the one-year data center moratorium the county adopted in February 2026, and won. Superior Court Judge John Morris — a visiting judge from Rockingham County — granted Eco TIP West LLC summary judgment on September 18, 2026, finding no genuine dispute of material fact. The reasoning is what makes this case worth watching well beyond Chatham County: the court treated an October 2025 meeting between the developer and county Planning Department staff as the equivalent of obtaining a permit, which under North Carolina's vested-rights law meant the developer's right to build had already attached before the moratorium existed. The county had recognized those vested rights before it adopted the moratorium. So the moratorium could not be applied to this project. The court also awarded the developer its attorney's fees and left damages for later — meaning the county may end up paying for having tried. Unless it appeals, the developer can build a 750-megawatt, five-building data center at the Moncure megasite. FOR ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT READING THIS: the holding says a pre-moratorium staff meeting can be enough to defeat a later moratorium. That is a real limit on how late a moratorium can be adopted and still work.","summary_technical":"Eco TIP West LLC v. Chatham County, North Carolina Superior Court, Judge John Morris (visiting, Rockingham County) presiding. Suit filed approximately May 2026 challenging the county's February 2026 one-year countywide data center moratorium as applied to the plaintiff's proposed 750 MW, five-building data center at the Moncure megasite, on which the plaintiff had expended approximately $11 million. Hearing August 31, 2026; order granting plaintiff summary judgment September 18, 2026, the court finding 'there is no genuine issue as to any material fact' and holding that the plaintiff's development rights had vested under North Carolina's vested-rights statute prior to the moratorium's effective date, with an October 2025 meeting with county Planning Department staff treated as the functional equivalent of permit issuance, and county officials having recognized the vested rights before enacting the moratorium. Relief: summary judgment for the plaintiff; attorney's fees awarded; damages reserved for future proceedings. Effect: the moratorium is held inapplicable to this project. The ordinance is not facially invalidated. Reporting indicates a roughly 30-day window for the county to note an appeal.","who_is_protected":"No one, on the protective side — this is a ruling AGAINST a local data center restriction. It is carried because its reasoning constrains the vested-rights limits on every North Carolina local moratorium adopted after a developer has met with planning staff.","who_must_comply":"Chatham County, which is bound by the order as to this project and faces an attorney's-fee award and an open damages question.","citation":"Eco TIP West LLC v. Chatham County (N.C. Super. Ct., order granting summary judgment Sept. 18, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.carolinajournal.com/judge-allows-chatham-data-center-to-proceed-despite-moratorium/","source_title":"Judge allows Chatham data center to proceed despite moratorium — Carolina Journal","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"North Carolina Superior Court, Chatham County","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Attorney's fees awarded to the plaintiff developer; damages reserved for later determination."},{"id":"pa-springhill-township-dc-power-generation-ordinances-2026","title":"Springhill Township, Pennsylvania (Fayette County) — Board of Supervisors Unanimously Adopts a PAIR of Ordinances Restricting Data Centers and the Fossil-Fuel Power Generation Facilities That Serve Them, September 17, 2026, Completing a Six-Month Regulatory Pause Triggered in June After a Power Developer Disclosed a Right-to-Purchase Agreement on 800 Acres Near Gans","short_title":"Springhill Township, PA — data center + power generation ordinances (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Springhill Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Fayette County","city":"Springhill Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-17","enacted_date":"2026-09-17","last_verified_date":"2026-09-19","summary_plain":"A small township in southern Fayette County, Pennsylvania now regulates both data centers and the fossil-fuel power plants that would be built to feed them. The three supervisors approved the pair of ordinances unanimously on the evening of Thursday, September 17, 2026. The township moved after representatives of Nadara, an independent power production company, told the board in June that it had entered a right-to-purchase agreement with the Fay-Penn Economic Council for 800 acres near Gans — which let the township invoke a six-month pause under Pennsylvania law to write rules before anything could be approved. The ordinances are the product of that pause, and residents' stated concerns during the process were dust, light, noise, vibration and water pollution. The township had already approved a separate noise and dust ordinance on September 7. That same September 7 meeting was supposed to include these two votes; the supervisors tabled them after realizing the state's advance public notice requirement for official business had not been met, and re-noticed them properly — a procedural detail worth recording, because failure to meet it is exactly how local data center ordinances get voided on appeal. THE PAIRING IS THE INTERESTING PART: regulating the generation facility alongside the data center closes the gap where a township restricts the data center and then finds a gas plant proposed next door to serve it.","summary_technical":"Springhill Township, Fayette County, Pa. — two ordinances adopted by unanimous vote of the three-member Board of Supervisors on September 17, 2026: one regulating data centers, one regulating associated fossil-fuel power generation facilities. Procedural history: ordinance introduced July 16, 2026 (reported by the Herald-Standard July 17 as 'Fayette's Springhill Township introduces data center ordinance'); votes on both ordinances scheduled for the September 7, 2026 meeting were tabled after the board determined it had not satisfied Pennsylvania's prior-public-notice requirements for official government business; a third ordinance regulating noise and dust was approved at that September 7 meeting; the data center and power generation ordinances were then adopted September 17, 2026. Trigger: in June 2026 representatives of Nadara, an independent power production company, advised the board it had entered a right-to-purchase agreement with the Fay-Penn Economic Council covering approximately 800 acres near Gans in southern Fayette County, which permitted the township to impose a six-month pause to enact data center regulations. Residents' articulated concerns during the process: dust, light, noise, vibration and water pollution.","who_is_protected":"Springhill Township residents, particularly those near the 800-acre Gans tract, with respect to dust, light, noise, vibration and water impacts from data center and associated power generation development.","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and fossil-fuel power generation developers proposing facilities in Springhill Township, including the parties to the Nadara / Fay-Penn Economic Council right-to-purchase arrangement.","citation":"Springhill Township, Fayette County, Pa. — data center ordinance and power generation ordinance (adopted Sept. 17, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.heraldstandard.com/news/local_news/2026/sep/19/springhill-township-adopts-data-center-power-generation-ordinances/","source_title":"Springhill Township adopts data center, power generation ordinances — Herald-Standard","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Springhill Township Board of Supervisors / township zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the available reporting."},{"id":"litig-nsi-a1-v-city-of-springfield-mo-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"NSI A.1 LLC v. City of Springfield, Missouri (Mo. Cir. Ct., Greene County 2026) — Data Center Developer Asks the Court to ENJOIN Springfield's 120-Day Moratorium, Arguing in a Six-Count, 31-Page Petition That the Ordinance Is 'Zoning Legislation in Substance' Enacted Without Missouri's Required Planning-and-Zoning Procedure and Invalidly Passed as an Emergency One-Reading Bill Under the City Charter","short_title":"NSI A.1 LLC v. City of Springfield, MO (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Springfield, MO","state_abbr":"MO","county":"Greene County","city":"Springfield","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-09-19","summary_plain":"The developer behind a proposed data center on South National Avenue in Springfield, Missouri has sued the city to knock down the 120-day moratorium on new data center applications that the City Council adopted on June 29, 2026. The petition runs 31 pages and six counts, and it makes two distinct attacks. The first is substantive: it argues the moratorium is really zoning legislation wearing a different label, and that Missouri's statutes on municipal planning and zoning impose procedures the city did not follow when it passed it. The second is procedural: it argues the ordinance was not validly enacted under the provisions of Springfield's own city charter governing emergency bills and bills passed on a single reading. The company also says it had gone through predevelopment review and spent substantial money on planning, design and professional work in reliance on the existing Planned Development 251 zoning and on what city staff told it, before the city changed course. It is asking Judge Nathan Taylor to bar the city from applying or enforcing the moratorium, and asking that any injunction be written so the project can proceed under PD 251. NOTE THE TIMING PRESSURE ON BOTH SIDES: the moratorium expires November 17, 2026 on its own terms, so the practical stake is a few weeks of delay plus the precedent about how a Missouri city may enact one.","summary_technical":"NSI A.1 LLC v. City of Springfield, Missouri, filed in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri; Judge Nathan Taylor presiding. Petition: 31 pages, six counts. Count theories reported: (1) that the moratorium ordinance adopted by City Council on June 29, 2026 constitutes 'zoning legislation in substance' and therefore had to comply with Missouri's statutory requirements for municipal planning and zoning, which it did not; and (2) that the ordinance 'was not validly enacted' under the Springfield city charter provisions governing emergency bills and one-reading bills. Reliance allegations: the plaintiff 'proceeded through predevelopment review and incurred substantial planning, design, professional and project-development expense in reliance on PD 251's text and city staff communications' before the city changed course. Relief sought: an order enjoining the City from 'applying or enforcing' the moratorium ordinance, with the injunction framed not to prevent the plaintiff from proceeding with its data center project under the site's existing Planned Development 251 zoning. The moratorium is set to expire November 17, 2026.","who_is_protected":"No one, on the protective side — this is a challenge TO a local data center restriction. It is carried because the two theories pleaded (moratorium-as-disguised-zoning, and defective emergency/one-reading enactment) are the standard attack on municipal data center moratoria and their outcome bears on every Missouri city considering one.","who_must_comply":"The City of Springfield, Missouri, which must defend the ordinance.","citation":"NSI A.1 LLC v. City of Springfield (Mo. Cir. Ct., Greene Cty. 2026)","source_url":"https://sbj.net/stories/breaking-news-developer-asks-court-to-block-data-center-moratorium,105817","source_title":"Developer asks court to block data center moratorium — Springfield Business Journal","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No penalty sought; the relief requested is injunctive and declaratory."},{"id":"litig-kidd-v-clinton-county-bd-elections-wilmington-oh-dc-initiative-2026","title":"State ex rel. Kidd v. Clinton County Board of Elections (Ohio 2026) — Ohio Supreme Court Rules 5-1 on September 18, 2026 That a Citizen-Initiated Wilmington Data Center Ordinance Setting Noise, Lighting, Emissions, Generator-Testing, Water and Heat Standards May Be KEPT OFF the November 3 Ballot, Because Its Provision Letting Affected Residents SUE Operators Creates a Private Cause of Action Beyond a Municipality's Power","short_title":"State ex rel. Kidd v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Elections (Ohio 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Wilmington, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Clinton County","city":"Wilmington","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-09-19","summary_plain":"Residents of Wilmington, Ohio wrote their own data center ordinance and gathered signatures to put it on the November 3, 2026 ballot. It would have set enforceable standards for noise, lighting, airborne emissions, how often backup generators may be test-run, water use and discharge, and heat generation — and it would have let affected residents sue data center operators who violated it. That last feature killed it. On September 18, 2026 the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled 5-1 that the Clinton County Board of Elections was entitled to reject the initiative, because creating a private right of action to enforce a municipal ordinance is beyond a municipality's power — a rule the court had laid down in 2018 in State ex rel. Bolzenius v. Preisse. Justice Fischer dissented on a different point: he argued it is unconstitutional to let a board of elections decide whether a ballot measure's language is legal, and that a court should decide legality after voters approve something, not an elections board before they vote. THE PRACTICAL LESSON FOR EVERY CITIZEN-DRAFTED DATA CENTER ORDINANCE IN OHIO: the enforcement clause is where these fail. Standards for noise, water and emissions were not the problem. Giving neighbors the right to sue was.","summary_technical":"State ex rel. Kidd v. Clinton County Board of Elections, Ohio Supreme Court No. 2026-1165, decided September 18, 2026. Posture: original action challenging the Clinton County Board of Elections' rejection of a municipal initiative petition proposing to add data center regulations to the City of Wilmington's zoning code. Proposed ordinance content: enforceable standards addressing noise, lighting, airborne emissions, generator-testing frequency, water use and discharge, heat generation and related matters, together with a provision permitting affected residents to bring civil actions against data center operators. Holding: 5-1, the board of elections could reject placement of the proposed ordinance on the November 3, 2026 ballot because the measure would create a private cause of action, and establishing a private right of action to enforce a municipal ordinance is beyond a municipality's legislative power, following State ex rel. Bolzenius v. Preisse (Ohio 2018). The Court upheld the board's authority to determine, before certification, whether a proposed ordinance exceeds municipal legislative power. Justice Jennifer Brunner concurred. Justice Patrick F. Fischer dissented, contending that permitting a board of elections to adjudicate the legality of ballot-issue language is unconstitutional and that a court should determine a proposed ordinance's legality after voter approval rather than an elections board beforehand.","who_is_protected":"No one directly — the ruling REMOVES a proposed protection from the ballot. It is carried because it establishes the operative constraint on citizen-initiated data center regulation in Ohio: the substantive standards were unobjectionable; the private-enforcement clause is what made the measure unenactable by initiative.","who_must_comply":"Ohio municipal initiative drafters and county boards of elections, which may reject a proposed municipal ordinance before certification where it exceeds municipal legislative power.","citation":"State ex rel. Kidd v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Elections, No. 2026-1165 (Ohio Sept. 18, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2026/SCO/0918/261165.asp","source_title":"Proposed Data Center Regulations for Wilmington Will Not Be on November Ballot — Court News Ohio (Supreme Court of Ohio)","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Supreme Court of Ohio; Clinton County Board of Elections","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None — the relief is the board's authority to decline certification."},{"id":"litig-oneill-v-upper-merion-township-pa-dc-2026","title":"O'Neill v. Upper Merion Township (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Montgomery County 2026) — Developer Sues Over the Township's Unanimous August 13, 2026 Rejection of a 4.6-Million-Square-Foot King of Prussia Data Center Campus, Arguing Township Officials Had Long Treated Data Centers as WAREHOUSES and Therefore Permitted Under the Zoning Code","short_title":"O'Neill v. Upper Merion Township (Pa. 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Upper Merion Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Montgomery County","city":"Upper Merion Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-09-19","summary_plain":"Upper Merion Township, in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, unanimously rejected a proposed data center campus near King of Prussia on August 13, 2026 — reported at between 4.6 and 5 million square feet, one of the largest such proposals in the region. Developer Brian O'Neill has now sued the township, its planning commission and its board of supervisors in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. His central argument is that township officials themselves have said in recent years that data centers qualify as WAREHOUSES, and warehouses are permitted under the township's zoning code — so the use was already allowed and the denial was unlawful. There was an earlier round: the day before the August vote, O'Neill sued over the township's refusal to grant him an extension to September 30, and Judge Garrett D. Page ordered township proceedings on the data center applications paused. That order was vacated the following day, hours before the supervisors voted. O'Neill has said he will keep pushing, on the basis that his plan is filed and was approved by the township's zoning officer. WHY THIS MATTERS BEYOND ONE TOWNSHIP: the 'a data center is just a warehouse' classification argument is the single most portable theory available to developers facing a municipality that never wrote data-center-specific zoning, and this is a well-resourced test of it.","summary_technical":"Brian O'Neill v. Upper Merion Township, its Planning Commission and its Board of Supervisors, Montgomery County (Pa.) Court of Common Pleas. Underlying action: the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on August 13, 2026 to deny the proposed data center campus near King of Prussia, reported at 4.6 million square feet (some coverage reports approximately 5 million). Principal theory pleaded: that township officials have stated in recent years that data centers qualify as warehouses and are therefore a permitted use under the township zoning code. Procedural history: on August 12, 2026 the developer sued the township, planning commission and board of supervisors alleging violation of a legal right to an extension after officials denied a requested extension to September 30; Judge Garrett D. Page ordered a pause on township proceedings and decisions related to the data center applications; the order was vacated the following day, hours before the August 13 vote. Further suits were filed Wednesday, September 16, 2026 challenging the denial. The developer has stated an intention to appeal to obtain approval of the filed plan, which he asserts was approved by the township's zoning officer.","who_is_protected":"No one, on the protective side — this is a challenge to a municipality's denial of a data center. It is carried because the classification theory it pleads ('data center = warehouse = permitted use') is the primary legal exposure for every municipality whose zoning code predates data centers, which is most of them.","who_must_comply":"Upper Merion Township, its Planning Commission and its Board of Supervisors, which must defend the denial.","citation":"O'Neill v. Upper Merion Township (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Montgomery Cty. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania/data-centers-upper-merion-township-lawsuit-20260918.html","source_title":"Developer sues Upper Merion Township over rejected King of Prussia data center proposals — The Philadelphia Inquirer","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Montgomery County (Pa.) Court of Common Pleas","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated; the relief sought is review and reversal of the land-use denial."},{"id":"litig-coastal-communities-united-v-statesboro-ga-rezoning-2026","title":"Coastal Communities United and Eleven Citizens v. City of Statesboro and 4 AM Development LLC (Ga. Super. Ct., Bulloch County 2026) — Petition Filed September 17, 2026 Asks the Court to VOID the City's 3-2 Rezoning of Nearly 27 Acres on Burkhalter Road From High-Density Residential to Office/Business for a Data Center, Pleading Spot Zoning, Inverse Condemnation and Threats to the Floridan Aquifer","short_title":"Coastal Communities United v. City of Statesboro (Ga. 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Statesboro, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Bulloch County","city":"Statesboro","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Eleven residents and the nonprofit Coastal Communities United have asked Bulloch County Superior Court to throw out the City of Statesboro's rezoning of a nearly 27-acre tract on Burkhalter Road, where a roughly 230,000-square-foot two-story data center is proposed. The city council approved the rezoning 3-2 on August 18, 2026, moving the land from R-4 high-density residential to O for office and business. The petitioners want the court to declare the decision void as a violation of the city's own rules and of applicable law, and to bar the developer from building or operating a data center campus there. Their grounds include spot zoning, inverse condemnation of neighbors' property values, and harm to the watershed and the Floridan Aquifer from water use and wastewater seepage, along with noise, vibration, traffic and wildlife displacement. This is the residents' side of a fight that the dataset already sees from the county's direction: Bulloch County, which surrounds Statesboro, has its own data center moratorium running through December 31, 2026 after commissioners rejected an outright ban.","summary_technical":"Petition for review filed September 17, 2026 in the Superior Court of Bulloch County, Georgia by Coastal Communities United, a nonprofit, together with eleven individual citizens, against the City of Statesboro and 4 AM Development LLC. Challenged action: the Statesboro City Council's 3-2 approval on August 18, 2026 of the owner-applicant's request to rezone approximately 27 acres on Burkhalter Road from R-4 (high-density residential) to O (office and business), for a proposed two-story data center of approximately 230,000 square feet. Relief sought, in the petition's terms: that the court 'find and declare the Zoning Decision by the City of Statesboro to be void, in violation of its own rules and applicable law, and that the Applicant be prohibited from constructing and operating a data center campus on the Subject Property.' Grounds pleaded: procedural violations of the city's own rules and state law; spot zoning as an abuse of municipal zoning authority; inverse condemnation through diminution of neighboring property values; injury to the watershed and the Floridan Aquifer through water consumption and wastewater seepage; and noise, vibration, traffic and wildlife-displacement impacts.","who_is_protected":"Statesboro residents adjoining the Burkhalter Road tract and, through the aquifer and watershed claims, water users in the surrounding area — contingent entirely on the outcome. Nothing is protected by the filing itself.","who_must_comply":"The City of Statesboro and 4 AM Development LLC, as respondents.","citation":"Coastal Communities United v. City of Statesboro (Ga. Super. Ct., Bulloch Cty., petition filed Sept. 17, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.statesboroherald.com/local/eleven-citizens-and-nonprofit-group-file-legal-challenge-to-statesboro-data-center-rezoning/","source_title":"Eleven citizens and nonprofit group file legal challenge to Statesboro data center rezoning — Statesboro Herald","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Superior Court of Bulloch County, Georgia","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None sought; the relief is declaratory and injunctive."},{"id":"ca-ab1043-ab1856-digital-age-assurance-act","title":"California — AB 1043, the Digital Age Assurance Act (Signed October 13, 2025, Effective January 1, 2027), as Extended by AB 1856 (2026): OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDERS Must Collect an Age or Birth Date at Account Setup and Pass a NON-IDENTIFYING AGE-BRACKET SIGNAL to App Developers on Request — Without Verifying It — and Developers Must Treat That Signal as the Primary Age Indicator; This Is the Verification Layer the State's AI Chatbot and Addictive-Feed Laws Run On","short_title":"California AB 1043 Digital Age Assurance Act (+ AB 1856)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["children","privacy","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2025-10-13","last_verified_date":"2026-09-19","summary_plain":"California's Digital Age Assurance Act puts age-checking at the operating system layer rather than at each app or website. When someone sets up a device account, the OS provider — Apple, Google and the like — must present an interface asking for the user's birth date or age. The OS then passes along, to any app developer who asks, WHICH OF FOUR AGE BRACKETS that user falls into: under 13, 13 to under 16, 16 to under 18, or at least 18. It does NOT verify that the answer is true, and it does NOT hand over the birth date itself. App developers must request that signal when an app is downloaded and when it launches, and must treat it as the primary indicator of the user's age unless they have clear and convincing evidence otherwise. The California Attorney General enforces it, at $2,500 per affected child for negligent violations and $7,500 per affected child for intentional ones. There is no private right of action. AB 1856, signed in the September 2026 child-safety package, clarifies and extends this — formalizing the non-identifying bracket signals from both operating systems and app stores, and protecting open-source systems from the compliance burden. WHY THIS BELONGS IN A DATASET ABOUT AI PROTECTIONS: it is the plumbing the rest of California's child-safety AI law depends on. AB 1709 bans addictive feed features for users under 16 and expects platforms to establish age through AB 1043. SB 1119, Adam's Law, imposes session limits, parental notification and independent child-safety audits on AI companion chatbots used by minors. Both need to know who is a minor. This statute is how they find out.","summary_technical":"Cal. AB 1043 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.), the Digital Age Assurance Act, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom October 13, 2025, operative January 1, 2027. Obligations: (1) operating system providers must provide an interface at account setup prompting the account holder to indicate the device user's birth date or age, and must communicate the corresponding age range to developers upon request, WITHOUT any obligation to verify accuracy; (2) the statute specifies four age ranges — under 13 years of age, 13 to under 16, 16 to under 18, and at least 18; (3) application developers must request the age signal when an application is downloaded and when it is launched, and must treat that signal as the primary indicator of the user's age unless clear and convincing evidence indicates otherwise. Covered parties include operating system providers, application developers and covered application stores. Enforcement is vested in the California Attorney General, with statutory penalties of $2,500 per affected child for negligent violations and $7,500 per affected child for intentional violations. NO private right of action — a deliberate contrast with Utah and Texas age-verification laws, which route remedies through consumer protection statutes carrying private claims. Design rationale reported in analysis of the Act: it imposes no direct content restriction, creating instead an age-signaling infrastructure on which other statutes operate, which is intended to reduce First Amendment exposure relative to content-based age-gating regimes. AB 1856 (2026), signed as part of the September 2026 child-safety package, clarifies and extends AB 1043 by formalizing non-personally-identifiable age-bracket signals from operating systems and application stores across the same four categories and by protecting open-source systems from the compliance requirements.","who_is_protected":"California minors in three defined bands (under 13, 13 to under 16, 16 to under 18), indirectly — the statute itself restricts no content; it supplies the age signal that other California statutes use to trigger protections. Adult users are also affected, in that age information is collected at the OS layer.","who_must_comply":"Operating system providers offering account setup to California users; application developers distributing covered applications; covered application stores.","citation":"Cal. AB 1043 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.), the Digital Age Assurance Act (signed Oct. 13, 2025, operative Jan. 1, 2027), as extended by Cal. AB 1856 (2026)","source_url":"https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/ad-law-access/faq-digital-age-assurance-act-california-youth-safety-on-the-internet","source_title":"FAQ: The Digital Age Assurance Act — California Youth Safety on the Internet (Kelley Drye, Ad Law Access)","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"California Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"$2,500 per affected child for negligent violations; $7,500 per affected child for intentional violations."},{"id":"md-talbot-county-dc-moratorium-resolution-395-2026","title":"Talbot County, Maryland — County Council UNANIMOUSLY Adopts Resolution No. 395 on September 8, 2026, Imposing a 12-Month Moratorium on the Processing, Review and Approval of Applications, Site Plans, Permits and Other Authorizations for the Location, Construction or Operation of Data Centers, While the County Writes Zoning Rules","short_title":"Talbot County, MD — 12-month data center moratorium (Res. 395)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Talbot County, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Talbot County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-08","enacted_date":"2026-09-08","expires_date":"2027-09-08","last_verified_date":"2026-09-20","summary_plain":"Talbot County, on Maryland's Eastern Shore, has paused data centers for a year. The County Council adopted Resolution No. 395 unanimously on September 8, 2026. What it stops is broad: the processing, review and approval of applications, site plans, permits and other authorizations for the location, construction or operation of data centers anywhere in the county. That reaches further than a permit freeze — it halts the paperwork at intake, so an application cannot ripen during the pause. The stated purpose is to give the county time to consider appropriate zoning and regulatory requirements for data centers and their impacts. Council Member Dave Stepp framed the concern as the two systems these facilities strain hardest in a county this size: water and power. It is explicitly temporary and explicitly not a ban — the year is for writing rules, after which projects can be considered under them.","summary_technical":"Talbot County, Md. Resolution No. 395, adopted unanimously by the County Council September 8, 2026. Operative scope: a 12-month moratorium on 'the processing, review and approval of applications, site plans, permits and other authorizations for the location, construction or operation of data centers in Talbot County.' The moratorium reaches intake as well as decision, so applications cannot advance during the term. Stated purpose: to provide the County time to consider appropriate zoning and regulatory requirements addressing data centers and their potential impacts, with articulated concerns centering on strain to the county water system and the electrical supply. Characterized by the County as temporary rather than prohibitory.","who_is_protected":"Talbot County residents and the county's water and electrical systems, for the 12-month term, by preventing any data center application from being processed or approved before zoning standards exist.","who_must_comply":"Applicants seeking to locate, construct or operate a data center in Talbot County; Talbot County departments responsible for accepting and processing applications, site plans and permits.","citation":"Talbot County, Md. Resolution No. 395 (adopted Sept. 8, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.talbotcountymd.gov/press-releases/talbot-county-council-meeting-highlights-september-8-2026","source_title":"Talbot County Council Meeting Highlights, September 8, 2026 — Talbot County, Maryland","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Talbot County Council / county permitting and planning departments","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated. A processing moratorium operates by withholding intake and approval rather than by penalty."},{"id":"mn-elk-river-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Elk River, Minnesota (Sherburne County) — City Council UNANIMOUSLY Adopts a One-Year Moratorium on August 3, 2026 Prohibiting ALL Data Center Development Applications Including Land Use Applications and Rezoning Requests, Four Weeks After Unanimously REJECTING the Zoning Amendment That Would Have Allowed a 33 MW Data Center as a Conditional Use in Light Industrial Districts","short_title":"Elk River, MN — one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Elk River, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Sherburne County","city":"Elk River","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-03","enacted_date":"2026-08-03","expires_date":"2027-08-03","last_verified_date":"2026-10-08","summary_plain":"Elk River, Minnesota did two separate things, four weeks apart, and only the second one is a general protection. On July 6, 2026 the City Council unanimously REJECTED a zoning amendment that would have allowed data centers as a conditional use in the city's Light Industrial (I-1 and I-2) districts — the change a developer needed to convert a vacant 62,000-square-foot former injection molding plant on Industrial Boulevard NW into a 33-megawatt data center. That vote came after weeks of packed public hearings and heavy resident opposition over noise, environmental impact and energy use. Rejecting an amendment is not adopting a protection; it leaves existing zoning in place. But at the same meeting the council directed staff to draft a moratorium, and on August 3, 2026 it unanimously adopted one: a one-year pause prohibiting ALL data center development applications, including land use applications, rezoning requests and similar proposals. During the year, staff studies what a data center ordinance should contain — where such facilities belong, what impacts to weigh, and whether future proposals should go through a Planned Unit Development review case by case rather than through broad zoning changes. The developer withdrew its application.","summary_technical":"Elk River, Minn. (Sherburne County) — one-year interim moratorium adopted unanimously by the City Council August 3, 2026, prohibiting all data center development applications, including land use applications, rezoning requests and similar proposals. Antecedent action: on July 6, 2026 the Council unanimously denied a proposed zoning text amendment that would have permitted data centers as a CONDITIONAL USE in the I-1 and I-2 Light Industrial districts; the application, by Elk River Capital LLC with Swervo Development, sought to convert a vacant 62,000 sq ft former injection molding facility at 19178 Industrial Blvd. NW into a data center of approximately 33 MW in roughly 60,000 sq ft, projected at about 40 jobs. Council directed staff at that July 6 meeting to prepare the moratorium ordinance, and expected to adopt written findings supporting the denial on July 20. Study scope during the moratorium: examination of existing facilities, evaluation of potential impacts, determination of appropriate locations for data centers, and whether future proposals should be reviewed individually through a Planned Unit Development process rather than through broad zoning amendments. The developer subsequently withdrew its application.","who_is_protected":"Elk River residents, for the one-year term, against data center applications of any kind while the city determines where and on what conditions such facilities should be allowed.","who_must_comply":"Any applicant seeking data center development approval in Elk River, including land use applications and rezoning requests; city planning staff administering intake.","citation":"Elk River, Minn. — one-year data center moratorium (adopted Aug. 3, 2026)","source_url":"https://blandinonbroadband.org/2026/08/08/elk-river-adopts-one-year-data-center-moratorium-sherburne-county/","source_title":"Elk River adopts one-year data center moratorium (Sherburne County) — Blandin on Broadband","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Elk River — City Council and planning department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated. An interim moratorium operates by barring applications rather than by penalty."},{"id":"nc-ag-jackson-ncuc-data-center-rate-class-filing-2026","title":"North Carolina — Attorney General Jeff Jackson FILES a Framework With the Utilities Commission on September 14, 2026 Asking It to Create a SEPARATE RATE CLASS for Duke Energy's Data Center and Large-Load Customers, to Force Public Disclosure of Duke's Template Data Center Contracts and Reporting on Deviations, to Shorten Load Forecasting From Six Months to 90 Days, and to PAUSE New Natural Gas Plant Development Pending Updated Forecasts","short_title":"NC AG framework for a Duke data center rate class (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"North Carolina","state_abbr":"NC","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-20","summary_plain":"North Carolina's Attorney General is trying to make data centers pay their own way on the power grid, and he is doing it through the Utilities Commission rather than the legislature. On September 14, 2026 Jeff Jackson filed a framework in Duke Energy's pending rate cases asking the Commission to do five things: create a SEPARATE RATE CLASS for data centers and other large energy users, so their costs are not spread across residential bills; require Duke to make its TEMPLATE CONTRACTS with data centers public; require regular reporting whenever a deal departs from those templates; require Duke to update its load forecasts every 90 days instead of every six months; and PAUSE development of new natural gas plants until those updated forecasts can be evaluated. He is also pressing Duke to make the federal Ratepayer Protection Pledge — under which large users build, bring or buy the generation they need and pay for the delivery upgrades that serve them — legally binding rather than a voluntary promise. The number driving all of this is Duke's own: the company projects that 80 PERCENT of the new energy demand it must meet will come from data centers and other large loads. THIS IS A REQUEST, NOT A RULE. The Commission has not decided. The framework is entered because the proceeding itself was opened at the AG's request and because the relief sought — a distinct large-load rate class — is the mechanism other states are converging on.","summary_technical":"Filing by the North Carolina Attorney General, September 14, 2026, in Duke Energy's pending rate cases before the North Carolina Utilities Commission, made within a separate proceeding the Commission initiated after the Attorney General requested one to address the strain new data centers and other large-load users place on the grid. Relief requested: (1) establishment of a new rate class specifically for data centers and large energy users; (2) public disclosure of Duke's template contracts with data centers; (3) regular reporting on any agreements deviating from those templates; (4) an increase in load-forecast frequency from every six months to every 90 days; and (5) a pause on development of new natural gas generation pending evaluation of the updated forecasts. Separately, the Attorney General has called on Duke to formally adopt the federal Ratepayer Protection Pledge — which requires large energy users to 'build, bring, or buy the new generation resources and electricity needed to satisfy their energy demands, and pay for all new power delivery infrastructure upgrades to service their data centers' — as a legally binding commitment via tariff rather than a verbal assurance, and has declined to sign the pending Duke Energy Carolinas rate-case settlement. Supporting figure: Duke projects that 80% of the new energy demand it must serve will come from data centers and other large energy users. Rate-class thresholds, minimum-take provisions and contract terms are NOT specified in the public framework.","who_is_protected":"North Carolina residential and small-business electricity customers of Duke Energy — contingently. Nothing is protected unless and until the Utilities Commission grants the relief sought.","who_must_comply":"Nobody yet. If granted, the obligations would fall on Duke Energy (rate design, contract disclosure, deviation reporting, forecast frequency, gas plant development) and on its data center and large-load customers (the new rate class).","citation":"N.C. Att'y Gen. framework filed in Duke Energy rate cases before the N.C. Utilities Commission (Sept. 14, 2026)","source_url":"https://ncdoj.gov/attorney-general-jeff-jackson-proposes-framework-to-ensure-data-centers-pay-their-fair-share-for-energy-costs/","source_title":"Attorney General Jeff Jackson Proposes Framework to Ensure Data Centers Pay Their Fair Share for Energy Costs — North Carolina Department of Justice","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"North Carolina Utilities Commission; the North Carolina Department of Justice as petitioner and statutory consumer advocate","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None — this is an advocacy filing seeking regulatory relief, not an enforcement action."},{"id":"ca-san-francisco-dc-interim-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"San Francisco, California — Board of Supervisors Unanimously Approves Supervisor Shamann Walton's 45-Day Interim Moratorium on New Data Centers of Any Size (Oct. 6, 2026), Extendable While Planning Studies Impacts","short_title":"San Francisco, CA — 45-day data center moratorium (approved Oct. 6, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Francisco, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"San Francisco County","city":"San Francisco","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-10-06","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"San Francisco's Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a 45-day moratorium on approving new data centers on Oct. 6, 2026. Supervisor Shamann Walton's measure covers data centers of any size, and the Planning Department must report back within 25 days on defining data centers and studying their energy, water, air quality and community effects. The SF Standard reported it takes effect within 10 days unless the mayor returns it sooner, and it can be extended for up to about two years.","summary_technical":"Proposed interim moratorium ordinance introduced at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors September 15, 2026 by Supervisor Shamann Walton, with Supervisors Connie Chan, Jackie Fielder and Chyanne Chen as co-sponsors. Terms as introduced: a 45-day suspension of city approvals for new data centers, applicable regardless of facility size; extendable up to a cumulative 22 months and 15 days, the maximum term of a California interim urgency zoning ordinance under Cal. Gov't Code s. 65858 (45 days, then an extension of 10 months 15 days, then a further one year), pending Planning Commission investigation of environmental impacts and development of longer-term controls. Stated sponsor objective beyond the interim measure: a permanent prohibition on new data centers. Regulatory context: San Francisco presently regulates such facilities under the Planning Code classification 'internet service exchange,' a definition adopted in 2001. Comparative note drawn from the reporting: the any-size scope is explicitly contrasted with federal proposals reaching only facilities above 20 MW. No committee referral, hearing date, or adoption vote is established as of 2026-09-20.","who_is_protected":"Nobody yet. If adopted, San Francisco residents — the Bayview district is named in the coverage as the neighborhood driving the concern — with respect to noise, air quality and electricity demand from new data centers.","who_must_comply":"If adopted: applicants seeking city approvals for new data centers in San Francisco, of any size; the Planning Department and Planning Commission.","citation":"San Francisco, Cal. — proposed 45-day interim data center moratorium (introduced Sept. 15, 2026)","source_url":"https://sfstandard.com/2026/10/06/data-center-moratorium-san-francisco/","source_title":"The San Francisco Standard — report on the Board of Supervisors data center moratorium vote (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"San Francisco Board of Supervisors; San Francisco Planning Department and Planning Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None; the measure is not adopted, and an interim moratorium operates by withholding approvals."},{"id":"litig-anthropic-v-dow-dc-circuit-fascsa-2026","title":"Anthropic PBC v. Department of War (D.C. Cir.) — Appeals Court Rules 2-1 That the Pentagon Can Designate Anthropic a 'Supply Chain Risk' Under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act (September 2026)","short_title":"Anthropic v. Dept. of War — D.C. Circuit upholds supply-chain-risk designation (2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["national-security","public-sector"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"On September 25, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 that the Defense Department could label AI company Anthropic a 'supply chain risk,' letting the Pentagon remove Anthropic's Claude models from its systems and bar their use for Defense Department work. Judge Gregory Katsas, joined by Judge Neomi Rao, wrote that the department reasonably feared Anthropic might design Claude to refuse national-security tasks; Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented, arguing the 2018 supply-chain law was aimed at sabotage by foreign powers. The ruling is separate from, and points the other way from, a California federal court decision that found the Pentagon unlawfully retaliated against Anthropic. Anthropic said it disagrees and is considering further review.","summary_technical":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, ruling Friday 2026-09-25 on Anthropic's petitions challenging the Defense Department ('Department of War') designation of Anthropic as a supply chain risk under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018 (FASCSA). PANEL: Katsas (opinion), Rao (joined); Henderson (dissent). HOLDING: petitions denied; the department had statutory authority and 'ample support' for its national-security conclusion; majority: 'the definition of a supply chain risk ... hinges on what Anthropic does, not why Anthropic does it'; 'The Department reasonably feared that Anthropic might manipulate Claude's design to prevent it from performing national-security functions that the Department deems contractually authorized and necessary.' DISSENT: FASCSA was 'explicitly passed to protect against sabotage by malignant foreign powers.' BACKGROUND (AP): designation made in February 2026 by President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after Anthropic refused to permit use for mass surveillance or autonomous armed drones. RELATED: separate N.D. Cal. case (Judge Rita Lin, per Breaking Defense) found unlawful First Amendment retaliation — indexed as litig-anthropic-v-dod-first-amendment-retaliation-2026. NEXT: possible en banc petition or certiorari. NOT ESTABLISHED: D.C. Circuit docket number; petition filing date.","who_is_protected":"Not applicable (government contracting / national-security designation dispute)","who_must_comply":"U.S. Department of Defense; Anthropic; defense contractors (barred from using Anthropic products for DoD work)","citation":"Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War (D.C. Cir. Sept. 25, 2026)","source_url":"https://breakingdefense.com/2026/09/dc-circuit-panel-upholds-pentagons-ban-on-anthropic-so-what-comes-next/","source_title":"DC Circuit panel upholds Pentagon's ban on Anthropic. So what comes next? — Breaking Defense","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not applicable"},{"id":"litig-robinson-v-meta-voiceprint-cdafa-2026","title":"Robinson v. Meta — N.D. Cal. Dismisses California Voiceprint Suit Under the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Finding Meta's Terms Authorized Use of Voice Data (September 15, 2026)","short_title":"Robinson v. Meta voiceprint CDAFA suit dismissed (2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["biometrics","privacy","consumer-protection"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"A California Facebook and Messenger user, Nicholas Robinson, sued Meta claiming it unlawfully collected 'voiceprints' from his Messenger calls and used them for identification, product improvement and targeted advertising, in violation of California's anti-hacking law. On September 15, 2026, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer dismissed the case, finding Robinson had agreed to Meta's Terms of Service and privacy notices, which disclosed that voice recordings may be used to identify users. The ruling did not decide whether Meta actually creates voiceprints, and it does not affect a separate Illinois biometric privacy (BIPA) suit against Meta that is continuing.","summary_technical":"Robinson v. Meta Platforms (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer; case number not confirmed in sources opened. CLAIM: California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA), Penal Code § 502(c)(2) — alleged unauthorized collection of voiceprints from Facebook/Messenger users and use for identification, product improvement and targeted advertising. RULING (Sept. 15, 2026): dismissed; plaintiff authorized the data use through the Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and U.S. Regional Privacy Notice disclosing voice recordings 'may be used to identify' users; court rejected arguments that disclosures were scattered, did not use the word 'voiceprint' or lacked specificity; Meta 'did not knowingly and without permission access Robinson's data' (MediaPost). Biometric Update reports dismissal WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND (MediaPost does not address this). NOT DECIDED: whether Meta creates voiceprints; whether general privacy notices satisfy state biometric-consent statutes such as Illinois BIPA. RELATED: a separate BIPA voiceprint suit by Illinois resident Natalie Delgado is pending before Judge Susan Illston (N.D. Cal.), who let principal BIPA claims proceed in Feb. 2024 and denied Meta summary judgment in Aug. 2026 (Biometric Update); not separately indexed here. Filing date not obtained; appeal status unknown.","who_is_protected":"California users of Facebook and Messenger (as alleged)","who_must_comply":"Meta Platforms (defendant)","citation":"Robinson v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2026) (order of dismissal; Breyer, J.)","source_url":"https://www.biometricupdate.com/202609/meta-defeats-california-voiceprint-suit-as-judge-finds-data-use-authorized","source_title":"Meta defeats California voiceprint suit as judge finds data use authorized — Biometric Update","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"None — case dismissed"},{"id":"litig-sigwalt-v-amazon-ring-familiar-faces-2026","title":"Sigwalt v. Amazon.com, Inc. and Ring LLC (W.D. Wash., No. 2:26-cv-01887) — Proposed Class Action Over Ring's 'Familiar Faces' Facial Recognition Feature; Defendants Move to Dismiss (September 2026)","short_title":"Sigwalt v. Amazon/Ring — Familiar Faces facial recognition suit","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["biometrics","facial-recognition","privacy","consumer-protection"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"A proposed class action filed June 1, 2026 in federal court in Seattle against Amazon and its Ring subsidiary challenges Ring's 'Familiar Faces' facial-recognition feature, alleging Ring collects facial-recognition data from people who pass in front of its cameras without their consent. Amazon and Ring filed a motion to dismiss on September 21, 2026; briefing runs through November 30, 2026.","summary_technical":"Sigwalt v. Amazon.com Inc, No. 2:26-cv-01887 (W.D. Wash.), District Judge Kymberly K. Evanson; complaint filed June 1, 2026 against Amazon.com, Inc. and Ring LLC with jury demand (diversity, 28 U.S.C. 1332; NOS 380). Amended complaint filed June 8, 2026 adding plaintiffs Patricia Ortega and minor M.C. 1. July 13, 2026 order stayed initial case deadlines pending defendants' forthcoming motion to dismiss. Aug. 24, 2026 order: response to amended complaint due 9/21/2026, opposition 10/30/2026, reply 11/30/2026. Sept. 21, 2026: motion to dismiss filed (dkt. 32). Subject (BGR, Sept. 1, 2026): proposed class action filed against Amazon in June alleging Ring's Familiar Faces feature collects facial-recognition information from anyone passing in front of the cameras without consent. NOT ESTABLISHED (sources opened): specific causes of action/state statutes pleaded; class definition; defendants' dismissal arguments; hearing date.","who_is_protected":"Non-users and others whose faces are captured by Ring cameras using Familiar Faces (putative class)","who_must_comply":"Amazon.com, Inc.; Ring LLC","citation":"Sigwalt v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2:26-cv-01887 (W.D. Wash. filed June 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73424853/sigwalt-v-amazoncom-inc/","source_title":"Sigwalt v. Amazon.com Inc, 2:26-cv-01887 (W.D. Wash.) — CourtListener docket","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Damages and relief sought by putative class; not quantified in sources opened"},{"id":"us-eo-inaugurating-era-of-super-intelligence-2026","title":"United States — Executive Order 'Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence': Agencies Directed to Use 'Super Intelligence (SI)' in Place of 'Artificial Intelligence (AI)'; OSTP to Propose a Federal SI Definition Within 60 Days (September 29, 2026)","short_title":"EO: Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence (Sept 2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-09-29","enacted_date":"2026-09-29","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"President Trump signed an executive order on September 29, 2026 telling federal agencies to use the terms 'Super Intelligence' and 'SI' instead of 'Artificial Intelligence' and 'AI' in official correspondence, public communications, websites, reports and policy documents. It does not require changes to existing regulations, contracts, grants or historical documents. For now 'Super Intelligence' means the same technologies already covered by the federal statutory definition of artificial intelligence. Within 60 days, the President's science and technology adviser must propose legislation for a federal definition of 'Super Intelligence'. The order creates no new office, rules for companies, or obligations on the private sector.","summary_technical":"Executive Order, 'Inaugurating The Era Of Super Intelligence,' signed Sept. 29, 2026. Sec. 1 purpose. Sec. 2: 'To the maximum extent permitted by law, executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall use \"Super Intelligence\" and \"SI\" in place of \"Artificial Intelligence\" and \"AI\" in official correspondence, public communications, websites, reports, policy documents, and other non-statutory documents within the executive branch'; no alteration required to previously issued regulations, Presidential actions, contracts, grants or historical documents. Sec. 3: SI means the technologies and systems encompassed by 'artificial intelligence' as defined in 15 U.S.C. 9401(3), except where otherwise provided by law; within 60 days the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology must submit proposed legislative language establishing a federal definition of SI, with assessments of whether existing definitions should be modified and recommendations for further executive action. Sec. 4 general provisions (subject to law and appropriations). No revocations, no new office, no private-sector obligations. Fact sheet also references the Genesis Mission, America's AI Action Plan and a National Super Intelligence Policy Framework. The 60-day deadline falls on or about Nov. 28, 2026 (computed from the order's '60 days'). Separate from the voluntary industry AI accord announced Sept. 29 (no official text located).","who_is_protected":"None directly (terminology and definition directive)","who_must_comply":"Federal executive departments and agencies","citation":"Executive Order, Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence (Sept. 29, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/09/inaugurating-the-era-of-super-intelligence/","source_title":"Inaugurating The Era Of Super Intelligence — The White House (Sept. 29, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Executive Office of the President; Office of Science and Technology Policy","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None"},{"id":"us-facial-recognition-biometric-moratorium-act-2026","title":"United States — Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act of 2026 Reintroduced (H.R. 10563) to Bar Federal Use of Facial, Voice and Gait Recognition (September 2026)","short_title":"Federal Facial Recognition & Biometric Technology Moratorium Act (2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["biometrics","facial-recognition","law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Members of Congress reintroduced a bill that would ban federal agencies from using facial recognition and other biometric technologies such as voice and gait recognition; the ban could only be lifted by a new act of Congress. It would also cut off certain federal grants to state and local governments, including police, unless they adopt similar moratoria. People whose biometric data is used in violation of the law could sue, and state attorneys general could enforce it. The bill is a proposal and has not passed either chamber.","summary_technical":"Bicameral reintroduction announced 2026-09-25 by Reps. Jayapal, Tlaib, Pressley and Sens. Markey and Merkley (official release, source_url). House bill H.R. 10563, 'Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act of 2026', received 2026-09-24 with 8 cosponsors (Quiver Quantitative). Provisions per the release: (1) prohibition on federal-entity use of facial recognition, liftable only by Act of Congress; (2) same for other biometric technologies incl. voice recognition, gait recognition and recognition of other immutable physical characteristics; (3) federal grant funding to state/local entities incl. law enforcement conditioned on enacting their own moratoria; (4) no federal dollars for biometric surveillance systems; (5) exclusion of biometric information obtained in violation of the Act from judicial proceedings; (6) private right of action and state AG enforcement; (7) states/localities may enact their own laws (no preemption). NOT ESTABLISHED: the Senate bill number; committee referral; specific grant programs affected; damages amounts and penalties for officials. Prior versions (2020-2023) are tracked in us-facial-recognition-moratorium-2020-2023.","who_is_protected":"All people in the United States subject to federal biometric surveillance","who_must_comply":"Federal agencies and officials; state and local governments seeking covered federal grants","citation":"H.R. 10563, 119th Cong. (2026) — Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act of 2026","source_url":"https://jayapal.house.gov/2026/09/25/reps-jayapal-tlaib-pressley-and-sens-markey-merkley-reintroduce-legislation-to-halt-government-use-of-facial-recognition-and-other-biometric-technology/","source_title":"Reps. Jayapal, Tlaib, Pressley and Sens. Markey, Merkley Reintroduce Legislation to Halt Government Use of Facial Recognition and Other Biometric Technology — Office of Rep. Pramila Jayapal","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Private plaintiffs; state attorneys general","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Private right of action and state AG enforcement (per sponsor release); remedies not detailed in sources opened"},{"id":"us-sanders-casar-superintelligence-ban-dept-of-ai-bill-2026","title":"United States — Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar Introduce the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act to Permanently Ban Artificial Superintelligence, Pause Frontier AI Development and Create a Federal Department of Artificial Intelligence (September 2026)","short_title":"Sanders-Casar Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act (2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["national-security","public-sector","consumer-protection"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar unveiled a bill on September 23, 2026 that would permanently ban artificial superintelligence — defined as AI that exceeds human cognitive ability or could plan and carry out the destruction or disempowerment of humanity. It would pause development of the most advanced AI systems until a new federal Department of Artificial Intelligence sets safety rules, after which advanced systems would need federal approval before deployment. Some violations could bring up to 20 years in prison. The AP reported the bill faces long odds in the Republican-controlled Congress.","summary_technical":"Federal legislation from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Tex., chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus), provided first to the Associated Press and unveiled Wednesday, Sept. 23, 2026. Reported provisions: (1) permanent prohibition on artificial superintelligence, defined as a system exceeding human cognitive ability or having sufficient capabilities to plan and execute the destruction or disempowerment of humanity; (2) temporary pause on development of the most advanced AI systems until federal safety rules are established; (3) creation of a Department of Artificial Intelligence; (4) federal pre-deployment approval for advanced AI systems; (5) penalties including up to 20 years' imprisonment in some cases. Endorsed by some current AI-company employees (e.g., an OpenAI Safety Systems researcher; a Google DeepMind engineer speaking personally). The Next Web (Sept. 25, 2026) names the bill the 'Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act', says the section-by-section summary defines the paused advanced systems as those trained on 10^25 or more operations, and reports a 'corporate death penalty' (loss of charter, forfeiture of IP/assets) for companies. AP: bill faces long odds in the Republican-controlled Congress. NOT ESTABLISHED: bill numbers, committee referral, cosponsors.","who_is_protected":"The public","who_must_comply":"Developers of advanced AI systems","citation":"Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act (Sanders–Casar; unveiled Sept. 23, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.denverpost.com/2026/09/23/bernie-sanders-ai-bill/","source_title":"Sen. Bernie Sanders unveils bill to ban artificial superintelligence and create Department of AI — The Denver Post (Associated Press, Sept. 23, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Proposed federal Department of Artificial Intelligence","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Up to 20 years in prison in some cases (AP); corporate charter revocation and forfeiture of IP/assets for companies (The Next Web, citing the bill one-pager)"},{"id":"us-stop-flock-abuse-act-hawley-2026","title":"United States — Stop Flock Abuse Act: Sen. Hawley Bill to Restrict ALPR / AI Camera Data (September 2026)","short_title":"Stop Flock Abuse Act (Hawley, 2026)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","data-retention","facial-recognition","national-security"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Sen. Josh Hawley announced a federal bill, the Stop Flock Abuse Act, to set safeguards for AI-powered cameras such as Flock automated license plate readers (ALPRs). It would bar local governments from selling or sharing vehicle location data with non-government third parties, require a written approval and audit log for every search, require deletion of driver data after ten days except for active criminal investigations, require encryption and keep data inside the United States, ban hardware or software from foreign adversaries, and prohibit ALPR networks from using facial recognition. It follows a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Flock that Hawley chaired.","summary_technical":"Provisions per Hawley's Sept. 30, 2026 release: (1) local governments collecting vehicle location data may not sell or share it with non-governmental third parties; (2) written approval process logging every search authorization; (3) audit log of who searched, why, who approved and what was viewed, with regular supervisor audits; (4) encryption, data may never leave the U.S.; (5) deletion of driver data after ten days, narrow exception for active criminal investigations; (6) no ALPR hardware/software from foreign adversaries; (7) ALPR networks may not incorporate facial recognition. Release says Hawley 'will introduce'; KBIA (Sept. 30) describes the legislation as introduced. NOT ESTABLISHED: bill number, introduction date on Congress.gov, cosponsors, committee referral, enforcement mechanism and penalties. Context: Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe signed a mid-September 2026 executive order with similar guardrails (30-day deletion), per KBIA. Coverage headlines (Google News, not opened) from CBS News and Sinclair stations also say 'introduces', but no bill text or number was found: the govinfo bills feed for Sept. 30, 2026 showed no Senate 'Stop Flock Abuse Act' (Congress.gov returned 403). Treat formal introduction as unconfirmed.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and members of the public whose vehicle location data is captured by ALPR / AI-powered camera networks","who_must_comply":"State and local government agencies and law enforcement using ALPR / AI-powered camera networks; ALPR vendors","citation":"Stop Flock Abuse Act (Sen. Hawley, announced Sept. 30, 2026; bill number pending)","source_url":"https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-to-introduce-stop-flock-abuse-act-establishing-safeguards-for-ai-powered-cameras/","source_title":"Hawley to Introduce Stop Flock Abuse Act, Establishing Safeguards for AI-Powered Cameras — Office of Sen. Josh Hawley (Sept. 30, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ak-fairbanks-north-star-borough-dc-moratorium-request-2026","title":"Fairbanks North Star Borough, AK — Assembly's 2027 legislative priorities ask state and federal governments for a moratorium on new commercial data centers (August 2026)","short_title":"Fairbanks North Star Borough data center moratorium request (2027 priorities)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Fairbanks North Star Borough, AK","state_abbr":"AK","county":"Fairbanks North Star Borough","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-27","enacted_date":"2026-08-27","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"The Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly adopted its 2027 legislative priorities, its formal wish list for state lawmakers and Alaska's congressional delegation. One item asks for a temporary moratorium on permitting, leasing or building new commercial data centers until local governments and the state set standards on electricity demand, water use, environmental impacts and air quality. It is the only item that appears on both the state and federal lists. The resolution is a request: it does not itself stop any data center in the borough.","summary_technical":"Adopted resolution of legislative priorities (no binding local effect). Per KUAC (2026-08-31): the 25-item list is split between state and federal priorities; the data center moratorium request is the only item in both. Requested scope: moratorium on 'the permitting, leasing, or construction of new commercial data centers' until standards address electrical demand, water consumption, environmental impacts and air quality. As written it applies to 'state-owned and municipal lands'; Presiding Officer Scott Crass said the intent includes federal lands and he would seek clarification with the clerk. Item proposed by Assemblymember Garret Armstrong at an August 6 work session; an amendment duplicated it as a federal priority. Alaska's News Source (KTUU, published Sept. 1, 2026) reports Mayor Grier Hopkins describing the request as a top legislative ask for next session. Adoption date: KUAC says the Assembly approved the priorities 'Thursday', and its photo caption identifies the Assembly meeting of Thursday, Aug. 27, 2026. NOT ESTABLISHED: resolution number, vote count, any binding local borough ordinance.","who_is_protected":"Borough residents and ratepayers concerned with power, water, environmental and air-quality impacts (indirectly, if state or federal action follows)","who_must_comply":"No one directly; the resolution asks the Alaska Legislature and Congress to act","citation":"Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly, 2027 State and Federal Legislative Priorities (adopted August 2026) — data center moratorium request","source_url":"https://fm.kuac.org/2026-08-31/in-legislative-priorities-fairbanks-north-star-borough-assembly-doubles-up-on-ai-data-center-moratorium-request","source_title":"In legislative priorities, Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly doubles up on AI data center moratorium request — KUAC","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"None (advisory legislative priority)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None"},{"id":"al-fairfield-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Fairfield, AL — City Council Votes to Place a Moratorium on Future Data Center Projects, Length Undetermined (July 2026)","short_title":"Fairfield AL data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Fairfield, AL","state_abbr":"AL","county":"Jefferson County","city":"Fairfield","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-07-20","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Fairfield's City Council voted to pause future data center projects while the city does more research. WVTM 13 reported it was unclear how long the pause would last. A data center proposal (the Patmos project) that was already under review before the vote remained under consideration.","summary_technical":"WVTM 13 (July 21, 2026) reported the council 'voted Monday' to place a moratorium on future data center projects (taken as Mon. July 20, 2026). Duration not set ('unclear how long the pause ... will last because the city needs time to do more research'). The pending Patmos data center project remains under consideration because it was being evaluated before the moratorium passed. Town hall postponed from July 28 to Aug. 12, 2026 (Fairfield Civic Center). AL.com (Sept. 18, 2026, and Sept. 10, 2026 as syndicated by GovTech) lists Fairfield among Alabama cities with data center moratoria; The Cool Down/Yahoo (citing AL.com) dates the meeting July 20. NOT ESTABLISHED: vote count, ordinance/resolution number, term, expiry.","who_is_protected":"Fairfield residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers in Fairfield","citation":"Fairfield, AL — data center moratorium (2026-07-20)","source_url":"https://www.wvtm13.com/article/alabama-data-center-development-fairfield-city-council-town-hall-postponed-moratorium/73197768","source_title":"Fairfield City Council postpones data center town hall after pausing future projects — WVTM 13","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Fairfield","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"al-harpersville-dc-moratorium-6mo-2026","title":"Harpersville, AL — Town Council Approves a Six-Month Data Center Moratorium and Holds Monthly Public Information Sessions (August 2026)","short_title":"Harpersville AL 6-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Harpersville, AL","state_abbr":"AL","county":"Shelby County","city":"Harpersville","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-08-03","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Harpersville's Town Council approved a six-month moratorium on data center development to study the economic and infrastructure impacts data centers have on Alabama towns. The Planning and Zoning Board had recommended a longer pause. The town, its zoning board and its water board are holding monthly public information sessions during the pause, with a 30-day public comment period to follow.","summary_technical":"Adopted Aug. 3, 2026 (WBRC; ABC 33/40). Term six months. Purpose (WBRC): 'to allow time to study the potential economic and infrastructure impacts data centers have on Alabama municipalities.' ABC 33/40: council adopted it after the Planning and Zoning Board recommended a longer pause; first informational session Aug. 31, 2026 at the Harpersville Community Center (Mayor Theoangelo Perkins); monthly sessions planned, then a 30-day public comment period. AL.com (Sept. 18, 2026) confirms a six-month moratorium passed in August. NOT ESTABLISHED: vote count, ordinance number, expiry date.","who_is_protected":"Harpersville residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers in Harpersville","citation":"Harpersville, AL — data center moratorium (2026-08-03)","source_url":"https://www.wbrc.com/2026/08/20/harpersville-town-council-approves-6-month-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Harpersville town council approves 6-month data center moratorium — WBRC","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Harpersville","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"al-pinson-dc-moratorium-1yr-2026","title":"Pinson, AL — City Council Enacts a One-Year Moratorium on New Data Center Proposals, Including Hyperscale Projects (August 2026)","short_title":"Pinson AL 1-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Pinson, AL","state_abbr":"AL","county":"Jefferson County","city":"Pinson","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-08-06","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Pinson's City Council enacted a one-year moratorium on new data center proposals, including hyperscale projects. City officials said the pause gives them time to review zoning ordinances and assess the potential impacts of data centers.","summary_technical":"City Council vote on Thursday night per WVTM 13 (article dated Fri. Aug. 7, 2026, so the vote is taken as Thu. Aug. 6, 2026). Term: one year; scope: new data center proposals including hyperscale projects; purpose: review zoning ordinances and assess impacts. AL.com (Sept. 18, 2026) lists Pinson among Birmingham-metro cities that followed Birmingham's pause. NOT ESTABLISHED: vote count; ordinance number; exact effective and expiry dates.","who_is_protected":"Pinson residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers in Pinson","citation":"Pinson, AL — data center moratorium (2026-08-06)","source_url":"https://www.wvtm13.com/article/pinson-pauses-new-data-center-proposals-for-one-year/73374711","source_title":"Pinson pauses new data center proposals for one year — WVTM 13","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Pinson","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"al-prichard-dc-moratorium-6mo-2026","title":"Prichard, AL — City Council Approves a Six-Month Moratorium on Data Centers; Dispute Over Whether the Edged Project Permitted Days Earlier Is Covered (August 2026)","short_title":"Prichard AL 6-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Prichard, AL","state_abbr":"AL","county":"Mobile County","city":"Prichard","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-08-04","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Prichard's City Council approved a six-month moratorium on data centers on August 4, 2026. A $93 million Edged data center on Telegraph Road had received a building permit on July 30, days before. Some council members argued the project should fall under the moratorium because the permit was issued before required planning review, but the planning commission later approved the project's site plan and the developer's attorney says the moratorium does not affect it.","summary_technical":"Moratorium approved by City Council Aug. 4, 2026; term six months (NBC 15/WEAR, Aug. 31 and Sept. 29, 2026). Edged project ($93M, Telegraph Road): building permit issued July 30, 2026; at an Aug. 20 meeting the council considered a resolution to invalidate the permit and refund $224,000 in fees because site plan review by the planning commission had not occurred; Councilmembers Walker and Norwood said the project would then fall under the moratorium; Mayor Carletta Davis called it a legal question. Sept. 29, 2026 (Tuesday): planning commission granted site plan approval; developer attorney Doug Anderson: 'We received our building permit before the moratorium was passed ... so the moratorium didn't affect this project.' AL.com (Sept. 18, 2026) lists Prichard among cities with moratoria. NOT ESTABLISHED: vote count; ordinance number; whether the permit-invalidation resolution was adopted; exact expiry.","who_is_protected":"Prichard residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers in Prichard","citation":"Prichard, AL — data center moratorium (2026-08-04)","source_url":"https://mynbc15.com/news/local/prichard-questions-validity-of-permit-issued-before-data-center-moratorium","source_title":"Prichard questions validity of permit issued before data center moratorium — NBC 15 / WEAR","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Prichard","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"al-westover-dc-moratorium-6mo-2026","title":"Westover, AL — City Council Unanimously Approves a Six-Month Moratorium on Data Centers Amid a 450-Acre Highway 280 Proposal (August 2026)","short_title":"Westover AL 6-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Westover, AL","state_abbr":"AL","county":"Shelby County","city":"Westover","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Westover's City Council unanimously approved a six-month moratorium on data centers. Mayor Bobby Pardue said the pause gives the city time to research and make needed changes. Residents had raised health and environmental concerns about a proposed data center on about 450 acres along Highway 280 and Cheshire Drive.","summary_technical":"Vote Tuesday night, Aug. 18, 2026, unanimous (WBRC, published Aug. 18, 2026 11:20 PM CDT; weekday checked). Term six months. Context: proposed ~450-acre data center site along Highway 280 / Cheshire Drive; Mayor Bobby Pardue said the city hit snags with a memorandum of understanding with the developer; the city attorney said at the meeting that the developer could pull out if a moratorium passed (WBRC). AL.com (Sept. 18, 2026): Westover passed a six-month moratorium in August amid concern over the 450-acre Highway 280 proposal. NOT ESTABLISHED: whether the 450-acre proposal is covered by the moratorium; ordinance number; expiry date.","who_is_protected":"Westover residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers in Westover","citation":"Westover, AL — data center moratorium (2026-08-18)","source_url":"https://www.wbrc.com/2026/08/19/westover-approves-6-month-moratorium-data-centers/","source_title":"Westover approves 6-month moratorium on data centers — WBRC","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Westover","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"ar-pulaski-county-dc-regulations-ord-26-i-56b-2026","title":"Pulaski County, AR — Quorum Court Passes Data Center ('High-Intensity Digital Infrastructure') Regulations Ordinance 26-I-56B 11-4; County Judge Barry Hyde Vetoes It, Override Sought (September 2026)","short_title":"Pulaski County AR data center regulations ordinance 26-I-56B (vetoed Sept 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Pulaski County, AR","state_abbr":"AR","county":"Pulaski County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"vetoed","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"On September 22, 2026 the Pulaski County Quorum Court voted 11-4 for the county's first ordinance regulating large data centers in unincorporated areas, creating a county permitting process for 'high-intensity digital infrastructure' with rules on noise, fire and safety, water, environmental impact and setbacks. Projects would have to submit electrical load analyses, water and wastewater plans, land-use suitability studies and a decommissioning plan, and show they would not 'materially impair' utilities serving neighbors; AVAIO Digital's planned Wrightsville campus would not be grandfathered. County Judge Barry Hyde vetoed it on September 25, 2026, citing litigation risk and the county's capacity to administer it. Overriding the veto takes nine of 15 votes at the next regular Quorum Court meeting, and the sponsor says members will try.","summary_technical":"Pulaski County, Ark., Ordinance No. 26-I-56B (number per KATV). Passed by the 15-member Quorum Court 11-4 on Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2026 (yes: Blackwood, Capps, Davis, Massey, McCoy, Lewison, Person, Keith, Ward, Young-Baker, Medlock; no: Curry, Robinson, Elliott and one other per the 11-4 count). Carried an emergency clause making it effective immediately unless vetoed within seven days (Arkansas Times, Sept. 22). Content as reported: new permitting process for 'high-intensity digital infrastructure'; permits, noise abatement, fire/safety, water consumption, environmental impact, setbacks; submissions of electrical load analyses, water/wastewater plans, land-use suitability studies, decommissioning plan; must not 'materially impair' utilities/infrastructure serving surrounding properties; no cap on water or power use (Arkansas Advocate). Applies to projects lacking all 'final county approvals' before the effective date, with the planning director deciding exemption (Democrat-Gazette). AVAIO Digital's Wrightsville project not grandfathered (Blackwood). VETO: Friday Sept. 25, 2026, by letter to County Clerk Terri Hollingsworth; reasons per KATV: state-law and property-rights questions, appeal provisions needing compliance with Arkansas law, regulatory system (25-OR-19) the county cannot yet administer, financial consequences, litigation risk ('official immunity should not be misunderstood'). OVERRIDE: three-fifths (9 of 15) and, under the county code, must occur at the next regular Quorum Court meeting after written notice of the veto; failure means the veto stands (Democrat-Gazette). NOT ESTABLISHED: override meeting date/outcome; specific setback distances or noise limits; penalties. Distinct from the failed May 2026 moratorium (ar-pulaski-county-proposed-12-month-data-center-moratorium-failed-to-pass-2026).","who_is_protected":"Residents and property owners near prospective large-scale data centers in Pulaski County, AR","who_must_comply":"Developers/operators of high-intensity digital infrastructure (large data centers) in unincorporated Pulaski County (if the veto is overridden)","citation":"Pulaski County, Ark., Ordinance 26-I-56B (passed 11-4 Sept. 22, 2026; vetoed Sept. 25, 2026)","source_url":"https://katv.com/news/local/judge-barry-hyde-vetoes-data-center-ordinance-avaio-terri-hollingsworth-ordinance-no-26-i-56b-google-entergy-arkansas-law-economy-development","source_title":"Judge Barry Hyde vetoes data center ordinance — KATV","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Pulaski County (planning director / Planning Board)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"az-pima-county-dc-zoning-amendment-proposed-2026","title":"Pima County, AZ — Draft Title 18 Zoning Code Amendments to Regulate Data Centers (Closed-Loop Cooling, 200-Foot Bufferyards, 55 dB Noise Cap Near Homes); Planning and Zoning Commission Review Oct. 28, 2026 (Proposed)","short_title":"Pima County AZ data center zoning amendments (proposed 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Pima County, AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Pima County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Pima County staff have drafted zoning code changes to regulate data centers in unincorporated areas, and these will be the permanent rules behind the county's 120-day moratorium. The draft would define data centers, set up a formal review process, and require noise studies and mitigation, closed-loop water cooling, and proof of adequate water and energy supply. It would also require buffers of at least 200 feet next to homes or mixed-use areas and cap noise at 55 decibels at the property line near homes. The Planning and Zoning Commission is set to review the draft on October 28, 2026.","summary_technical":"Pima County, Ariz. — draft amendments to Title 18 (Zoning Code) for data centers, set out in County Administrator Jan Lesher's memo to the Board of Supervisors dated Monday, Sept 21, 2026 (KVOA). DRAFT CONTENT (KVOA): definition of data centers; formal development review process; design and development standards; noise studies and mitigation plans; compliance with the Conservation Lands System; closed-loop water cooling; certified access to adequate water and energy supply; bufferyards of at least 200 ft next to residential or mixed-use areas (100 ft next to commercial); noise cap of 55 dB at the property line for projects near residential areas. Data centers are currently allowed only in the most intensive industrial zones. PROCESS: online survey; open house Sept 28, 2026; online forum in October; Planning and Zoning Commission review Wed., Oct 28, 2026; then a Board of Supervisors vote before the 120-day moratorium (az-pima-county-dc-moratorium-2026, adopted Sept 22, 2026) expires (AZ Luminaria). NOT ESTABLISHED: final text, ordinance number. Draft details come from two KVOA (News 4 Tucson) articles, which count as one outlet. The process (recommendations to P&Z in October, board vote before the moratorium expires) is independently confirmed by AZ Luminaria. Related: az-pima-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (expires about Jan. 20, 2027).","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Pima County near potential data centers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in unincorporated Pima County (if adopted)","citation":"Pima County, Ariz., draft Title 18 zoning code amendments for data centers (Lesher memo Sept. 21, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kvoa.com/news/local/pima-county-seeks-public-feedback-on-new-data-center-zoning/article_c2ec7026-d7cf-4f3a-91c7-86d07c87f1d5.html","source_title":"Pima County seeks public feedback on new data center zoning — KVOA","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Pima County Development Services; Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"ca-ab-2383-data-center-electric-tariffs-2026","title":"California AB 2383 (Zbur) — Separate Data Center Transmission, Distribution and Generation Tariffs So Data Centers Bear Their Own Grid, Wildfire and Generation Costs; Signed September 21, 2026 (Ch. 435, Stats. 2026)","short_title":"California AB 2383 data center electric tariffs (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-21","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"AB 2383 requires the California Public Utilities Commission to make each investor-owned electric utility file separate transmission/distribution and generation tariffs for data centers, so that data centers pay a reasonable share of costs such as wildfire mitigation and liability, electrification and environmental programs. Community choice aggregators and electric service providers must adopt data center generation tariffs by January 1, 2028. Generation tariffs must use a payment mechanism of at least 10 years, with early termination and non-completion fees, so other ratepayers are held harmless; data centers can reduce these obligations by installing zero-emissions resources behind the meter. Governor Newsom signed it on September 21, 2026 as part of a seven-bill data center package that a law-firm alert says primarily takes effect January 1, 2027.","summary_technical":"AB 2383 (Zbur), 2025-26 Reg. Sess.; adds Pub. Util. Code §§ 945.1, 945.4, 945.5, 945.6, 945.8. Ch. 435, Stats. 2026; approved and chaptered Sept. 21, 2026. Assembly concurrence in Senate amendments Aug. 31, 2026 (Ayes 67, Noes 2). LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST: requires the CPUC, in a new or existing proceeding, to require each electrical corporation to file a transmission and distribution service tariff and a generation service tariff for 'participating customers' (data centers tariffed under the article); requires each community choice aggregator or electric service provider to adopt a generation service tariff for data centers on or before January 1, 2028. DEFINITIONS (§ 945.1): 'data center' — facility housing computing infrastructure (GPUs/CPUs, servers, storage, networking, power and cooling) primarily for processing, storing or distributing electronic data; 'facility' aggregates contiguous/adjacent commonly owned or controlled property; electrical cooperatives excluded from 'electrical corporation'. Violations of CPUC orders implementing it are crimes under the Public Utilities Act (state-mandated local program). KQED: works with SB 886 to create separate rate structures so data centers bear their own infrastructure costs. VERIFIED TEXT (billNavClient): T&D tariff must ensure participating customers 'pay a reasonable share of the costs relating to wildfire mitigation, wildfire liability, electrification and environmental programs'; generation payment mechanism minimum duration 'at least 10 years' incl. non-completion and early termination fees and protection if load is below anticipated; behind-the-meter zero-emissions resources may reduce generation funding requirements; CPUC (and CCAs/ESPs for their tariffs) must set a minimum peak demand threshold that may not exceed 25 megawatts; generation tariff does not apply to publicly funded research facilities, public safety facilities, publicly funded national security facilities, publicly owned facilities, or utility facilities (incl. terrestrial telecom). Non-urgency statute. EFFECTIVE DATE 2027-01-01 per Foley & Lardner alert ('primarily take effect on January 1, 2027'), not stated on the leginfo page.","who_is_protected":"California electric ratepayers who are not data centers","who_must_comply":"Investor-owned electrical corporations, community choice aggregators, electric service providers; data center customers","citation":"Cal. AB 2383 (2026), Ch. 435, Stats. 2026","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2383","source_title":"AB-2383 Electricity: data centers — bill status, California Legislative Information","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Public Utilities Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Violation of a CPUC order implementing the act is a crime under the Public Utilities Act (per Legislative Counsel's Digest)"},{"id":"ca-ab-2469-data-center-water-disclosure-permits-2026","title":"California AB 2469 (Papan) — Cities and Counties May Not Approve Data Center Construction or Water-Increasing Expansion Without a Water Supply Assessment, Water Scarcity Plan and Water/Workforce Disclosures; Signed September 21, 2026 (Ch. 436, Stats. 2026)","short_title":"California AB 2469 data center water disclosure before permits (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["data-centers","transparency"],"status":"enacted","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-21","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"AB 2469 bars any California city or county — including charter cities — from approving a permit that would allow a data center to be built, or expanded in a way that raises its peak water use, unless the developer first provides a water supply assessment, projected water use and efficiency measures, workforce disclosures, and (starting in 2028) a drought 'water scarcity plan'. The developer must also pay the full cost of any water infrastructure needed to serve the project. Governor Newsom signed it on September 21, 2026. A law-firm alert says the package primarily takes effect January 1, 2027.","summary_technical":"AB 2469 (Papan), 2025-26 Reg. Sess.; adds Gov. Code § 65964.7. Ch. 436, Stats. 2026; approved and chaptered Sept. 21, 2026. Assembly concurrence Aug. 31, 2026 (Ayes 61, Noes 12). OPERATIVE RULE (§ 65964.7(b)): notwithstanding any other law, a city, county or city and county shall not approve a discretionary OR MINISTERIAL permit or other entitlement that would result in construction, or an expansion that increases maximum peak water use, of a data center unless: (1) the applicant provides (A) a water supply assessment under Water Code § 10910 et seq.; (B) beginning Jan. 1, 2028, a 'water scarcity plan' (measures for abnormally dry through exceptional drought years per the U.S. Drought Monitor, including staged withdrawal reductions, nonessential use curtailment, recycling/reuse, thermal load reductions and temporary load shedding); (C) projected water use and efficiency measures; (D) workforce disclosures (composition, job classifications, duration, wages/benefits, share residing in county and in state); and (2) the applicant assumes the full cost of required water conveyance, treatment, storage or distribution improvements as determined by the water supplier (further conditions in the bill text not reviewed in full). Declared a matter of statewide concern applying to charter cities; severable; state-mandated local program. EFFECTIVE DATE 2027-01-01 per Foley & Lardner alert (package 'primarily take[s] effect on January 1, 2027'); not stated on leginfo; non-urgency statute. Companion AB 2619 (Papan, Ch. 437) signed the same day.","who_is_protected":"California communities and water users near proposed data centers","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants; California cities and counties (including charter cities) issuing permits","citation":"Cal. AB 2469 (2026), Ch. 436, Stats. 2026 (Gov. Code § 65964.7)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2469","source_title":"AB-2469 Data centers: water use disclosures — California Legislative Information","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California cities and counties (permit authorities)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None stated; permits may not be approved until conditions are met"},{"id":"ca-san-francisco-mayor-alpr-privacy-protections-2026","title":"San Francisco, CA — Mayor Lurie's Privacy Protections for Public Safety Cameras: SFPD License Plate Reader Searches Limited to 30 Days, Monthly Log Reviews, DPA Audits, Immigration-Use Ban (September 2026)","short_title":"San Francisco ALPR privacy protections (Sept 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Francisco, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"San Francisco County","city":"San Francisco","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","data-retention","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-09-29","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"On September 29, 2026, Mayor Daniel Lurie announced tighter rules for how San Francisco police use license plate reader data. Officers can now search plate-reader data for investigations only during the first 30 days after it is captured, down from 12 months, and each search must be tied to a dispatch or incident number. SFPD's data is to be removed from the vendor's platform after 30 days, federal agencies get no direct access, and use for civil immigration enforcement, tracking reproductive or gender-affirming care, or monitoring First Amendment activity is prohibited. SFPD will review system-use logs monthly and will ask the Department of Police Accountability to conduct regular independent audits; personnel who violate the rules face discipline up to termination. The Electronic Frontier Foundation criticized the package as weak because it does not require a warrant or set a deletion deadline.","summary_technical":"Administrative policy announced by the Mayor's Office Sept. 29, 2026 (sf.gov press release); no Board of Supervisors ordinance is cited. Per the release: (1) investigative searches of ALPR data permitted 'only during the first 30 days after the data is captured, down from 12 months' — an ACCESS limit, not a stated retention/deletion period; searches require a CAD or incident number; (2) SFPD ALPR data removed from the vendor platform after 30 days; exclusive local control; no direct federal agency access; (3) monthly system-use log reviews; SFPD will ask the Department of Police Accountability to conduct regular independent audits; violators subject to discipline up to and including termination; (4) prohibited uses: civil immigration enforcement, monitoring based on reproductive or gender-affirming care, First Amendment-protected activity; (5) agency-by-agency sharing authorization maintained; external agencies may not search on behalf of unauthorized entities; (6) Mayor to work with Assemblymember Matt Haney and DA Brooke Jenkins on state legislation increasing penalties for misuse or unauthorized disclosure of ALPR data (not yet introduced per sources). The release does not name the vendor or state an effective date. EFF (Sept. 29) says the policy lacks a warrant requirement, a deletion deadline, and documentation of search reasons. NOT ESTABLISHED: formal instrument (directive/General Order), effective date.","who_is_protected":"People whose vehicles are captured by San Francisco police license plate readers","who_must_comply":"San Francisco Police Department personnel; agencies with ALPR data-sharing authorization","citation":"Office of the Mayor, City and County of San Francisco, press release on public safety camera privacy protections (Sept. 29, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.sf.gov/news-mayor-daniel-lurie-unveils-strong-privacy-protections-for-public-safety-cameras-building-on-work-to-drive-down-crime-in-san-francisco","source_title":"Mayor Daniel Lurie Unveils Strong Privacy Protections for Public Safety Cameras — City and County of San Francisco (Sept. 29, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"San Francisco Police Department; Department of Police Accountability (audits)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Departmental discipline up to and including termination for personnel who violate the requirements; state legislation on misuse penalties to be pursued"},{"id":"ca-san-francisco-sfpd-dgo-10-12-drone-policy-proposed-2026","title":"San Francisco, CA — Proposed SFPD Department General Order 10.12 on Drone (UAS) Operations Before the Police Commission (Hearing October 14, 2026)","short_title":"SFPD proposed DGO 10.12 drone policy (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Francisco, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"San Francisco County","city":"San Francisco","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","data-retention","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"The San Francisco Police Department has proposed a new general order, DGO 10.12, setting rules for its drones. The draft would let officers use drones in any situation where an officer may be sent for a public safety response, while banning uses such as monitoring protests solely for that purpose, targeting protected classes, use as a force option and 'general surveillance'. Footage with no evidentiary value would be kept no more than 30 days and evidence footage at least two years. The Police Commission delayed a vote on September 2, 2026 to take more public comment and is scheduled to hear it again on October 14, 2026.","summary_technical":"PROPOSED, not adopted. Police Commission notice (Sept. 3, 2026, Secretary Sgt. Stacy Youngblood): SFPD put forward DGO 10.12 at the Sept. 2, 2026 meeting; Commission delayed voting; public comment by email Sept. 4-20, 2026; comments go to SFPD Policy Development Division; scheduled for the Oct. 14, 2026 Commission meeting. Draft text marked PROPOSED (as attached to that notice): states SFPD is 'mandated to use UAS technology under SF Administrative Code § 96I.2(e) and shall not be subject to the requirements of SF Administrative Code, Chapter 19B' (the surveillance technology ordinance); 10.12.04(B) authorizes UAVs 'in any situation in which a member may be deployed for a public safety response or when a member onviews criminal activity'; 10.12.04(C) prohibits use for harassment/discrimination, monitoring based on protected classes, solely monitoring First Amendment activity, personal business, unsafe/FAA-violating operation, as a force option, and 'general surveillance' (defined as sweeping, non-targeted observation with no stated purpose); retention: recordings relevant to criminal/civil/administrative matters at least 2 years; 'public footage' (no evidentiary value) not beyond 30 calendar days (citing Admin Code § 96I.2(e)); sharing with partner agencies per law, court orders and MOUs; annual reporting under Cal. Gov. Code § 7072. Secondary: SF Standard (2026-09-03) reports Commissioner Kevin Benedicto sought the delay and ACLU/Public Defender objections; EFF (2026-09-28) says SFPD revised the draft after pushback but the 'public safety response' trigger remains undefined, and cites roughly 350 deployments in 2024, over 1,100 Jan-Aug 2025, and over 3,500 in the first five months of 2026. The text summarized here is the draft attached to the Sept. 3 notice; a revised draft may be what the Commission hears Oct. 14. Related existing entries: ca-police-department-san-francisco-ca-sfpd-unmanned-aircraft-system-drone-program-authoriz, sf-ord-219-22-prop-e-police-surveillance.","who_is_protected":"People in San Francisco subject to SFPD drone surveillance","who_must_comply":"San Francisco Police Department members and UAS operators","citation":"San Francisco Police Department, proposed Department General Order 10.12, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Operations (Police Commission, Sept. 2, 2026; hearing set Oct. 14, 2026)","source_url":"https://media.api.sf.gov/documents/DGO_10_EyVdRcg.12_-_Public_Comment.pdf","source_title":"San Francisco Police Commission — DGO 10.12 Public Comment notice and proposed DGO 10.12 'Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Operations' (Sept. 3, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"San Francisco Police Commission; SFPD UAS Program Manager","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the draft (departmental policy)"},{"id":"ca-sb-886-data-center-transmission-ratepayer-protection-2026","title":"California SB 886 (Padilla/McNerney) — California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act: CPUC Must Set Data Center Interconnection and Service Tariffs That Prevent Cost Shifts by January 1, 2028; Signed September 21, 2026 (Ch. 438, Stats. 2026)","short_title":"California SB 886 Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-21","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"SB 886, the California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act, requires the California Public Utilities Commission by January 1, 2028 to set new tariffs or rules for connecting large data center customers to the grid and serving them, and to make sure those tariffs do not shift costs or leave stranded costs on other customers. Data centers seeking transmission-level service bear the cost of the transmission upgrades they need, and one that leaves within 10 years of interconnection or fails to ramp up its load must pay an early termination fee. Data centers may join a new demand response program that costs other customers nothing, and utilities may seek approval of individual contracts in the meantime. Governor Newsom signed it on September 21, 2026.","summary_technical":"SB 886 (Padilla, McNerney), 2025-26 Reg. Sess.; adds Article 14.7 (commencing with § 945) to Ch. 4, Pt. 1, Div. 1 of the Public Utilities Code — 'California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act'. Ch. 438, Stats. 2026; approved and chaptered Sept. 21, 2026. Senate concurrence in Assembly amendments Aug. 31, 2026 (Ayes 28, Noes 10). DIGEST: (a) on or before Jan. 1, 2028 the CPUC shall establish new tariffs or update electric rules for interconnection of participating customer facilities and retail, transmission, distribution and generation service to participating customers; (b) CPUC must at minimum evaluate risks/benefits to nonparticipating customers, ensure tariffs prevent stranded costs for or cost shifts to nonparticipating customers, and for unbundled customers show generation-component charges as a separate line item; (c) CPUC must establish a tariff for participating customers seeking retail service at the transmission level; (d) participating customers may join a new CPUC-authorized demand response program; (e) an electrical corporation may submit an 'exceptional case filing' to approve a contract with a data center seeking transmission-level interconnection for service after Jan. 1, 2027 but before the tariff is approved. Violations of implementing CPUC actions are crimes under the Public Utilities Act. VERIFIED TEXT (billNavClient): transmission-level interconnection tariff (§ 945.3) refunds of initial contributions 'shall not exceed 75 percent of the annual net transmission revenue'; early termination fee for a participating customer that 'departs the electrical system within 10 years of the initial interconnection of the facility or fails to achieve adequate load ramp up', fee 'should not be less than the revenue gap' vs. projected demand; § 945.3 applies only to data centers entering a new transmission-level interconnection agreement on or after 2027-01-01; § 945.7 demand response with no net cost to nonparticipating customers; § 945.9 exceptional case filings. Foley reports a labor certification requirement within § 945.3 (not independently checked in bill text). EFFECTIVE DATE 2027-01-01 per Foley ('primarily take effect on January 1, 2027'), not stated on leginfo; non-urgency statute.","who_is_protected":"California electric ratepayers who are not data centers (nonparticipating customers)","who_must_comply":"California Public Utilities Commission; electrical corporations; data center (participating) customers","citation":"Cal. SB 886 (2026), Ch. 438, Stats. 2026 (Pub. Util. Code § 945 et seq.)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB886","source_title":"SB-886 California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act — bill status, California Legislative Information","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Public Utilities Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Violation of a CPUC action implementing the act is a crime under the Public Utilities Act (per Legislative Counsel's Digest)"},{"id":"co-commerce-city-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Commerce City, CO — City Council Adopts Six-Month Moratorium on New Data Center Applications (September 2026)","short_title":"Commerce City CO 6-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Commerce City, CO","state_abbr":"CO","county":"Adams County","city":"Commerce City","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-21","enacted_date":"2026-09-21","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Commerce City, Colorado stopped accepting new data center applications for six months. The City Council passed the moratorium ordinance 7-1 on September 21, 2026, and it took effect immediately. The ordinance cites potential significant impacts on electricity, water supply and telecommunications networks and notes the city's land development code has no specific data center standards; the city will use the time to write rules.","summary_technical":"Ordinance passed 7-1 on Mon. Sept. 21, 2026 (Westword; Denver Post 'Monday'); no vote: Rocky Teter. Effect: prevents the city from accepting new data center applications for six months; effective immediately (Denver Post). Rationale per ordinance (as quoted by Westword): potential 'significant impacts' on city infrastructure and resources (electrical usage, water supply, telecommunications); land development code lacks specific regulations. Council Member Charles Dukes: data centers currently allowed via conditional use permit. Not established: ordinance number; expiry not computed. Not to be confused with Commerce, California (ca-commerce-dc-urgency-moratorium-2026).","who_is_protected":"Residents of Commerce City, Colorado","who_must_comply":"Applicants for new data centers in Commerce City","citation":"Commerce City, Colorado — six-month data center moratorium ordinance (Sept. 21, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.westword.com/news/colorado-data-center-moratoriums-growing-commerce-city-40938030/","source_title":"Another Colorado town joins growing list of data center moratoriums — Westword (Sept. 23, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Commerce City","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"co-mesa-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Mesa County, CO — Board of County Commissioners Unanimously Adopts a 12-Month Moratorium on Data Center Land Use Applications (September 2026)","short_title":"Mesa County CO 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Mesa County, CO","state_abbr":"CO","county":"Mesa County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-29","enacted_date":"2026-09-29","expires_date":"2027-09-29","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Mesa County commissioners unanimously approved a 12-month moratorium at a public hearing on September 29, 2026 that pauses the acceptance, processing and approval of land use applications for data center facilities in unincorporated Mesa County. It took effect immediately. The county's land use code, last updated in 2020, does not address data centers, and the pause gives staff time to keep updating the code while gathering public input on data center regulation. The county says it has no pending data center applications.","summary_technical":"Mesa County Board of County Commissioners, public hearing Sept. 29, 2026: unanimous approval of a 12-month moratorium (Mesa County official release). Effective immediately. Scope: 'temporarily pauses the acceptance, processing and approval of land use applications for data center facilities in unincorporated Mesa County'; supersedes current guidelines. Rationale: 2020 land use code does not address data centers; land development code update under way. No pending applications. expires_date 2027-09-29 is computed from the stated 12-month term running from the Sept. 29, 2026 adoption; no source states an end date. Does not apply inside incorporated municipalities (the City of Grand Junction was separately discussing a moratorium; not covered). NOT ESTABLISHED: resolution number, exemptions, individual commissioner votes beyond 'unanimous'.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Mesa County","who_must_comply":"Data center land use applicants in unincorporated Mesa County","citation":"Mesa County, CO — 12-month data center land use application moratorium (Sept. 29, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.mesacounty.us/news/county-wide/commissioners-approve-data-center-moratorium","source_title":"Commissioners approve data center moratorium — Mesa County (official news release)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Mesa County Board of County Commissioners / Mesa County land use staff","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"co-thornton-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Thornton, CO — City Council Passes One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers Larger Than 50,000 Square Feet (September 2026)","short_title":"Thornton CO 1-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Thornton, CO","state_abbr":"CO","county":"Adams County","city":"Thornton","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-22","enacted_date":"2026-09-22","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Thornton, Colorado adopted a one-year timeout on new data centers on September 22, 2026 by a 5-3 City Council vote. The pause applies to any data center larger than 50,000 square feet and took effect immediately. The city's interim attorney said Thornton has one operating data center and no pending applications.","summary_technical":"Vote 5-3, Tuesday night, Sept. 22, 2026 (Denver Post, published Wed. Sept. 23; KUSA 9News also reports the Tuesday-night vote). Term: one year; effective immediately. Threshold: data centers larger than 50,000 sq ft. Interim city attorney Jessica Whitney: one data center operating, no pending applications. Not established: ordinance number, whether the one-year term can be extended. expires_date not computed.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Thornton, Colorado","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers larger than 50,000 sq ft in Thornton","citation":"City of Thornton, Colorado — one-year data center moratorium (>50,000 sq ft), Sept. 22, 2026","source_url":"https://www.denverpost.com/2026/09/23/data-centers-moratorium-commerce-city-thornton/","source_title":"Two more metro Denver cities pass moratoriums on new data centers — The Denver Post (Sept. 23, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Thornton","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"ct-new-haven-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"New Haven, Connecticut — Board of Alders Unanimously Approves a One-Year Moratorium on New Data Centers, Exempting the Quantum and Life Sciences Cluster (September 2026)","short_title":"New Haven CT one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New Haven, CT","state_abbr":"CT","county":"New Haven County","city":"New Haven","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-22","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"New Haven's Board of Alders unanimously approved a year-long moratorium on new data centers on Tuesday, September 22, 2026. The legislation exempts quantum computing and life sciences research facilities tied to the New Haven Quantum and Life Sciences Innovation Cluster along the former Route 34 corridor. At an August Legislation Committee hearing, City Plan Director Laura Brown said staff would use the 12-month pause to decide whether zoning rules should be updated for modern data centers.","summary_technical":"New Haven, CT Board of Alders — year-long moratorium on new data centers approved unanimously 'on Tuesday' per the New Haven Independent article dated Wednesday, September 23, 2026, so Tuesday, September 22, 2026 (weekday-to-date checked). Tally not given. Authored by Legislation Committee Chair and Majority Leader Ald. Richard Furlow, drawing on moratoria in Groton and West Haven. EXEMPTION: 'quantum computing or life sciences research facilities associated with the New Haven Quantum and Life Sciences Innovation Cluster' (former Route 34 corridor, state Innovation Cluster grant). City Plan staff to review existing zoning during the pause (Laura Brown, at the August Legislation Committee hearing). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance/order number, effective date, whether mayoral signature is still needed, any MW/size threshold, and the expiry date (not computed). Single outlet opened, so confidence is needs-confirmation.","who_is_protected":"New Haven residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of new data centers in New Haven (quantum/life-sciences cluster facilities excepted)","citation":"New Haven, CT Board of Alders, one-year data center moratorium (Sept. 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.newhavenindependent.org/2026/09/23/12-month-pause-approved-for-data-center-development/","source_title":"12-Month Pause Approved For Data Center Development — New Haven Independent","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of New Haven City Plan Department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated"},{"id":"fl-north-port-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"North Port, FL — City Commission Adopts 18-Month Data Center Moratorium 3-2, Letting the Pending Deep Park Application Continue Review but Barring Its Final Approval (September 2026)","short_title":"North Port FL 18-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"North Port, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Sarasota County","city":"North Port","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-22","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"North Port's City Commission voted 3-2 on September 22, 2026 to adopt an 18-month moratorium on data center development. The ordinance freezes new data center applications while the city studies possible rules on water and electricity use, noise, environmental effects, emergency services and infrastructure. The one pending proposal, the Deep Park data center project, can keep moving through staff review, but the city cannot give it final approval during the moratorium. The two commissioners who voted no said they wanted the pending application stopped more completely.","summary_technical":"North Port, Fla. (Sarasota County) — 18-month data center moratorium ordinance. FIRST READING: advanced 4-1 (with an exception for the pending proposal) at a Monday-night meeting of nearly seven hours with about 400 public comments, reported by WGCU/Suncoast Searchlight on 2026-09-04; Commissioner Duval supported it on first reading and switched to no on second (Sarasota Magazine); second reading was set for September 22. FINAL ADOPTION: 3-2 on Tuesday, September 22, 2026 (yes: Mayor Pete Emrich, Vice Mayor Barbara Langdon, Commissioner Phil Stokes; no: Demetrius Petrow and David Duval, who said they wanted the pending application stopped more completely). SCOPE: freezes new data center applications while the city studies regulation of water and electricity use, noise, environmental effects, emergency services and infrastructure. PENDING APPLICATION: North Port Holdings 300 LLC's Deep Park proposal (seven buildings, about 896,000 sq ft on about 112.7 acres within a 282-acre concept north of I-75 and south of Yorkshire Street) may keep responding to staff comments and move through processing and technical review, but cannot get final approval during the moratorium. City Attorney Michael Fuino had warned that rejecting the application outright could invite litigation. WGCU reported that the draft contained a clause exempting properties affected by Hurricanes Debby, Helene or Milton under Florida SB 180, and that the city attorney was unsure whether it applied to the pending application. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, exact effective date, and expiry date (no expires_date computed).","who_is_protected":"North Port residents","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants in the City of North Port","citation":"North Port, Fla. City Commission, 18-month data center moratorium ordinance, adopted 3-2 on September 22, 2026","source_url":"https://www.sarasotamagazine.com/news-and-profiles/2026/09/north-port-data-center-moratorium-deep-park","source_title":"North Port commissioners adopt 18-month data center moratorium — Sarasota Magazine (Sept. 23, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of North Port (City Commission; development services)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"fl-pinellas-county-large-dc-ban-resolution-2026","title":"Pinellas County, FL — Commission Adopts a Resolution Making Explicit That Standalone Large-Scale Data Centers Are Prohibited in Unincorporated Pinellas (September 24, 2026)","short_title":"Pinellas County FL large data center ban resolution (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Pinellas County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Pinellas County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-24","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"On September 24, 2026, Pinellas County commissioners adopted a resolution stating that standalone, large-scale data centers are not allowed in unincorporated Pinellas County. The county's land development code already excludes them because they are not a listed permitted use; the resolution puts that policy in writing. Commissioners cited the county's limited remaining land and data centers' heavy electricity and water use, heat and noise. Smaller data systems that support permitted uses, such as at hospitals or universities, can still be allowed.","summary_technical":"Pinellas County, Fla. Board of County Commissioners — resolution adopted Thursday, September 24, 2026 'reinforcing the County's existing prohibition on standalone, large-scale data centers in the unincorporated county' (county news release). BASIS: large-scale data centers are not a listed permitted use under the land development code; the resolution makes the policy explicit and cites recent Florida legislation recognizing that data centers and other large-load customers create unique planning, infrastructure and land-use compatibility concerns. FINDINGS: limited remaining land for development and redevelopment; substantial electricity and water use, heat and noise could outweigh benefits. CARVE-OUT: ancillary data systems supporting otherwise permitted uses (e.g., hospitals, universities) may still be permitted. BACKGROUND (St Pete Catalyst, Aug. 2026): on County Attorney Jewel White's advice the commission chose a resolution over a moratorium, because a moratorium on a use the code does not allow could imply it is allowed. A resolution does not amend the land development code. Not to be confused with fl-pinellas-park-dc-moratorium-2026 (City of Pinellas Park). NOT ESTABLISHED: resolution number, vote count. Effective date of the resolution itself not stated; the underlying prohibition (not a listed permitted use) is already in force.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Pinellas County","who_must_comply":"Proponents of standalone large-scale data centers in unincorporated Pinellas County","citation":"Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, resolution on large-scale data centers (Sept. 24, 2026)","source_url":"https://pinellas.gov/news/pinellas-commission-reinforces-ban-on-large-scale-data-centers-in-unincorporated-county/","source_title":"Pinellas Commission reinforces ban on large-scale data centers in unincorporated county — Pinellas County (Sept. 24, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Pinellas County (Board of County Commissioners; land development code administration)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"fl-wakulla-county-dc-prohibition-2026","title":"Wakulla County, FL — County Commission Unanimously Adopts Land Development Code Ordinance Prohibiting Data Centers in All Unincorporated Areas (September 2026)","short_title":"Wakulla County FL data center prohibition ordinance (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Wakulla County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Wakulla County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","enacted_date":"2026-09-21","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Wakulla County commissioners unanimously adopted an ordinance prohibiting data centers throughout the unincorporated county. It amends Land Development Code definitions (Section 2-4) and creates a new Section 6-40 stating that data centers are not allowed as a permitted or conditional use in any county zoning district. Staff noted data centers were already not listed as allowed uses; the ordinance makes the ban explicit. Commissioner Valerie Russell, who brought the measure, said it gives the county time to learn about impacts on water and the power grid, and that the county could revisit it later.","summary_technical":"Wakulla County Board of County Commissioners, final public hearing Monday night, September 21, 2026 (WCTV story published Sep. 21, 2026 9:48 PM EDT; weekday checked). Unanimous. Amends LDC Sec. 2-4 (definitions); creates LDC Sec. 6-40: 'Data Centers are not allowed as a permitted or conditional use in any County zoning district. For the avoidance of doubt, Data Centers are prohibited within all unincorporated areas of the County.' Permanent (no sunset stated). Possible legal exposure under Florida SB 180; Russell cited recently passed SB 484 as leverage (WTXL). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; effective date per the ordinance's own terms; definition of 'data center'. Status 'effective': both WCTV and WTXL report the ordinance is 'now in place'; no formal effective date stated.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Wakulla County","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in unincorporated Wakulla County","citation":"Wakulla County, Fla. — Ordinance amending LDC Sec. 2-4 and creating Sec. 6-40 (data center prohibition), adopted Sept. 2026","source_url":"https://www.wctv.tv/2026/09/22/wakulla-county-commissioners-approve-ordinance-prohibiting-data-centers/","source_title":"Wakulla County commissioners approve ordinance prohibiting data centers — WCTV","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Wakulla County Board of County Commissioners / Planning & Community Development","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"ga-americus-dc-moratorium-30day-2026","title":"Americus, GA — City Council Votes 5-1 for a 30-Day Data Center Moratorium While It Drafts Regulations (September 2026)","short_title":"Americus GA 30-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Americus, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Sumter County","city":"Americus","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-09-24","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"The Americus City Council voted 5-1 on September 24, 2026 to put a 30-day moratorium on data centers, giving the city time to write an ordinance amendment regulating them. The vote came amid opposition to a Liberty Data Centers site planned at the end of Swett Avenue in the Frank Myers Industrial Park, next to Georgia Southwestern University. The city attorney advised that a moratorium can buy time to write rules but cannot block a data center indefinitely, and that applicants are governed by the ordinance in force when they apply.","summary_technical":"Americus, Georgia (Sumter County) — 30-day moratorium on data centers enacted at the Sept. 24, 2026 council meeting, 5-1 (yes: Kelvin Pless, Nelson Brown, Kris Bowden, Terrence Clemmons, Daryl Dowdell; no: Frank Ceresoli). Purpose: time to craft an ordinance amendment regulating data centers (an amendment was already under consideration). City Attorney Tommy Coleman advised against a moratorium longer than 180 days, said it may be extended if needed, and that applicants are governed by the ordinance in effect at the time of application. Context: Sumter County conveyed the Frank Myers Industrial Park site to the Americus-Sumter County Payroll Development Authority Feb. 10, 2026; the PDA sold it to Liberty Data Centers for $1 under an agreement with generator-testing and job-creation terms (the City is not a party). Term reported as 30 days; the moratorium's effective date and expiry date are not stated in the source, so no expiry is recorded (30 days from Sept. 24 would be about Oct. 24, not confirmed). NOT ESTABLISHED: whether the pending Liberty project is affected.","who_is_protected":"Americus residents","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants in the City of Americus","citation":"Americus, Ga., City Council 30-day data center moratorium (Sept. 24, 2026)","source_url":"https://americustimesrecorder.com/2026/09/24/americus-city-council-votes-for-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Americus City Council passes data center moratorium — Americus Times-Recorder","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Americus","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"ga-atlanta-surveillance-technology-ordinance-proposed-2026","title":"Atlanta, Georgia — Mayor Dickens' Proposed Surveillance Technology Ordinance Governing Flock License Plate Readers and Other Tools (Introduced September 2026)","short_title":"Atlanta proposed surveillance technology ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Atlanta, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Fulton County","city":"Atlanta","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","transparency","data-retention"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens introduced legislation at the City Council on September 21, 2026 to set citywide rules for surveillance technology such as Flock license plate reader cameras. It would require written policies on authorized and prohibited uses, access and training; rules for collecting, protecting, retaining, deleting and sharing data; monthly internal audits and quarterly public reporting for high-risk police systems; and an annual independent compliance review. It would also create a seven-member review panel, set procedures for misuse allegations and bar vendors from selling the data. The proposal followed an audit in which police flagged 79 of 115,578 Flock searches for further review.","summary_technical":"Mayoral legislation introduced at the Atlanta City Council meeting Monday Sept. 21, 2026 (Spectrum News Sept. 23: 'introduced legislation Monday'; FOX 5 Sept. 15: administration to introduce at the Sept. 21 meeting; Sept. 21, 2026 is a Monday). Council agreed to review it (Spectrum). Administration seeks a work session and public hearing, goal of final consideration within 60 days of introduction (FOX 5). Provisions reported: written authorized/prohibited-use policies, access and training requirements (FOX 5); data collection, protection, retention, deletion and sharing rules (FOX 5); monthly internal audits and quarterly public reporting for high-risk law-enforcement systems; annual independent compliance review (FOX 5); vendor contracts (Flock etc.) to incorporate requirements (FOX 5, truncated); seven-member review panel, misuse-allegation procedures, vendor data-sale ban (AJC Sept. 22); Atlanta Information Management responsible for oversight, risk-based review of new applications (Spectrum). Update of legislation drafted by Councilman Jason Dozier in June 2026 (AJC). Trigger: audit of 115,578 APD Flock searches, 79 search patterns (~0.07%) flagged for internal review (FOX 5). NOT ESTABLISHED: legislation number, committee referral, specific retention periods, vote date.","who_is_protected":"Atlanta residents subject to city surveillance technology","who_must_comply":"Atlanta Police Department and city departments using surveillance technology; surveillance technology vendors","citation":"City of Atlanta, proposed surveillance technology ordinance (Mayor Dickens, introduced Sept. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.ajc.com/news/2026/09/atlanta-mayor-proposes-new-rules-for-flock-surveillance-tools/","source_title":"Atlanta mayor proposes new rules for Flock, surveillance tools — The Atlanta Journal-Constitution","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Atlanta; proposed surveillance technology review panel","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated"},{"id":"ga-euharlee-dc-ordinance-proposed-2026","title":"Euharlee, GA — Planning and Zoning Commission Unanimously Recommends a Data Center Ordinance Modeled on Bartow County's (Industrial Districts, Conditional Use in A-1, Closed-Loop Cooling); City Council Readings Oct. 6 and Oct. 20 (September 2026)","short_title":"Euharlee GA proposed data center ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Euharlee, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Bartow County","city":"Euharlee","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Euharlee's Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval of a data center ordinance on September 22, 2026, sending it to the City Council for readings on October 6 and October 20. City officials said it is modeled on Bartow County's ordinance but is now stricter, with added energy-efficiency requirements. As drafted it would allow data centers in the I-1 and I-2 industrial districts and as a conditional use in agricultural (A-1) districts, with noise protections, a closed-loop cooling requirement and a 50-acre minimum lot size. The city says it has no data center applications pending.","summary_technical":"Euharlee Planning and Zoning Commission (EPZC): ordinance tabled Sept. 8, 2026; recommended approval Sept. 22, 2026 after a public hearing (about 20 attendees, seven speakers); motion by James Thibault, second by Lovako Patterson, passed unanimously with Chairman Jud Mobbs absent. Drafted provisions as reported: data centers allowed in I-1 and I-2, conditional use in A-1; noise protections; closed-loop cooling; energy-efficiency requirements added after the first meeting; commissioner Steve Gray proposed lowering the 50-acre minimum lot size (to 5, then 10 acres) but agreed to leave it at 50 acres; a half-mile buffer from government facilities was discussed and dropped. City Manager James Stephens: modeled on the Bartow County ordinance; Mayor Craig Guyton fielded calls from attorneys for property owners/end users; no applications pending; council will hold at least two public hearings and two readings and may edit the ordinance. City Council first reading Oct. 6, 2026 and second reading Oct. 20, 2026 (7 p.m.). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; final council text; official agenda (not located).","who_is_protected":"Euharlee residents and adjacent property owners","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers in Euharlee","citation":"Euharlee, GA — proposed data center zoning ordinance (P&Z recommendation Sept. 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.daily-tribune.com/news/euharlee-data-center-ordinance-heads-to-council/article_d0939cd1-64dc-5c9e-a8e4-ec49273e7212.html","source_title":"Euharlee data center ordinance heads to council — The Daily Tribune News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Euharlee (City Council; Planning and Zoning Commission)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"litig-finch-mincey-v-effingham-county-ord-2026-352","title":"Finch-Mincey et al. v. Effingham County — Zoning Procedures Law Challenge to Ordinance 2026-352 Allowing Data Centers in Industrial Zones (Ga. Super. Ct., filed Sept. 2026)","short_title":"Finch-Mincey v. Effingham County (data center zoning ordinance, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Effingham County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Effingham County","topics":["data-centers","transparency"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Three Effingham County residents sued the county in early September 2026 to overturn Ordinance 2026-352, adopted August 4, 2026, which added data centers as a permitted use in industrial zones where they were previously not allowed. They argue the county skipped required public hearings before the Planning Board and County Commission in violation of Georgia's Zoning Procedures Law and its own rules, and raise Open Meetings Act and transparency claims tied to OpenAI's 'Project Camellia' data center. They ask the court to declare the ordinance invalid and bar its enforcement.","summary_technical":"Effingham County Superior Court, Georgia. Filing date reported as Sept 2, 2026 (Effingham Herald) / Sept 3, 2026 (The Georgia Virtue). Plaintiffs: Dr. Michelle Finch-Mincey, Lehman Mincey Jr., Raymond Carver. Defendant: Effingham County. Challenged measure: Ordinance 2026-352, amendment to the Permitted Use Table adding 'data centers' as a permitted use in industrial zoning districts; first reading Dec 16, 2025, adopted on second reading Aug 4, 2026 (Georgia Virtue). Claims: Georgia Zoning Procedures Law and county ordinances (no required hearings before Planning Board and Commission); Open Meetings Act (commissioners' retreat; improper executive-session announcement); nondisclosure agreement signed by the County Manager with OpenAI; weakening of Planning Board review; due process; possible conflicts of interest (Effingham Herald). Relief: declaration of invalidity; injunction against enforcement of Ordinance 2026-352; attorney fees under OMA. NOT ESTABLISHED: case number; any ruling. Ordinance 2026-352 itself is not separately in the dataset. Companion case: litig-one-hundred-miles-v-effingham-ida-openai-2026.","who_is_protected":"Effingham County residents near industrial zones","who_must_comply":"Effingham County","citation":"Finch-Mincey et al. v. Effingham County (Effingham Cnty. Super. Ct., filed Sept. 2026) — challenge to Ordinance 2026-352","source_url":"https://www.effinghamherald.net/data-centers/effingham-county-residents-sue-over-data-center-zoning-change-openai-lawsuit/","source_title":"Effingham County residents sue over data center zoning change — Effingham Herald","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Effingham County Superior Court","penalties":"Relief sought: invalidation/injunction of Ordinance 2026-352; OMA attorney fees"},{"id":"litig-one-hundred-miles-v-effingham-ida-openai-2026","title":"One Hundred Miles et al. v. Effingham County Industrial Development Authority — Open Meetings/Open Records Challenge to OpenAI 'Project Camellia' Data Center Deal (Ga. Super. Ct., filed Sept. 2026)","short_title":"One Hundred Miles v. Effingham IDA (OpenAI data center, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Effingham County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Effingham County","topics":["data-centers","transparency"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"A coastal Georgia conservation group, One Hundred Miles, and five Effingham County residents, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center, sued the Effingham County Industrial Development Authority on September 21, 2026. They allege the authority broke Georgia's Open Meetings and Open Records Acts while approving a deal for OpenAI's planned $20 billion 'Project Camellia' data center: listing it only as 'Project Gateway' on an agenda, discussing a roughly $900 million tax abatement in an improper closed session, rescheduling a meeting without proper notice, and selling public land without a public vote. They ask the court to void the authority's memorandum of understanding with OpenAI and the land-sale documents and to release the sale agreements. No ruling has been reported.","summary_technical":"Filed Sept 21, 2026 (Monday), Superior Court of Effingham County, Georgia (Judge Michael Muldrew per The Georgia Virtue). Plaintiffs: One Hundred Miles, Inc., Amy Collins, Robert Collins, Elizabeth Fisher, Crystal Hayes, Manjusha Sheobaran; counsel Zachary Hennessee (SELC). Defendants: Effingham County Industrial Development Authority; Octans GA, LLC (OpenAI affiliate; plaintiffs say they assert no claims against it at this time, per Georgia Virtue). Claims: Georgia Open Meetings Act and Open Records Act. Alleged OMA violations: (1) rescheduled July meeting (where ~$900M in tax abatements were approved) not properly posted / no seven-day notice; (2) agenda listed the item only as 'Project Gateway'; (3) tax abatement discussed in an unauthorized executive session; (4) sale of ~1,440 acres of public land to Octans GA LLC without public vote/disclosure. ORA claim: refusal to produce May and July land-sale agreements. Abatement: 50% property-tax reduction for 15 years, ~ $900M (Inside Climate News). Relief: declare the OpenAI MOU nonbinding and void; invalidate purchase/sale agreements and related documents; compel release of the land-sale agreements. Project (Effingham Herald): OpenAI 'Project Camellia', ~$20B, ~4.4M sq ft on ~1,440 acres at the Savannah Gateway Industrial Hub near Rincon, up to 3.2 GW, 2028-2032. NOT ESTABLISHED: case number; any response or ruling. Companion case: litig-finch-mincey-v-effingham-county-ord-2026-352.","who_is_protected":"Effingham County residents and the public (open-government rights)","who_must_comply":"Effingham County Industrial Development Authority","citation":"One Hundred Miles, Inc. et al. v. Effingham County Industrial Development Authority et al. (Effingham Cnty. Super. Ct., filed Sept. 21, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.effinghamherald.net/data-centers/second-lawsuit-targets-effingham-ida-over-openai-data-center-one-hundred-miles-southern-environmental-law-center-project-camellia-georgia/","source_title":"Second Lawsuit Targets Effingham IDA Over OpenAI Data Center — Effingham Herald","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Effingham County Superior Court","penalties":"Relief sought: voiding of MOU and land-sale documents; records release"},{"id":"ia-decorah-dc-zoning-ordinance-proposed-2026","title":"Decorah, IA — City Council Unanimously Passes First Reading of a Data Center Ordinance (M-3 Only, 500/750-ft Setbacks, 1,000-ft Water and Sinkhole Buffer, Closed-Loop Cooling, 55 dB Limit) (September 2026)","short_title":"Decorah IA proposed data center ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Decorah, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Winneshiek County","city":"Decorah","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Decorah's City Council unanimously advanced, on first reading, an ordinance that would allow data centers and cryptocurrency mining centers only in the M-3 General Industrial District under strict conditions. Buildings would need to be 500 feet from residential zones, and generators, substations and cooling equipment 750 feet. Facilities could not be within 1,000 feet of waterways, water sources, sinkholes or a 500-year floodplain, would have to use air-cooled or closed-loop cooling, and would face a 55-decibel noise limit at residential property lines. Additional readings are needed before it becomes law.","summary_technical":"First reading passed unanimously at the Monday council meeting reported Sept. 24, 2026 (Decorah News published Thu. Sept. 24, 2026 and says 'Monday' = Mon. Sept. 21, 2026). Scope: data centers and cryptocurrency mining centers; permitted in M-3 General Industrial. Setbacks: buildings 500 ft from residential zoning; backup generators, substations, cooling equipment 750 ft (greater when warranted). Prohibited within 1,000 ft of natural/public waterways, water sources, USGS-identified sinkholes or 500-year floodplain. Before a building permit: written utility verification of maximum electrical demand, available capacity, required infrastructure and effects on municipal utility operations. Water: air-cooled or closed-loop cooling; no groundwater/surface water for cooling unless Council approves after Water and Public Works review; projected demand and conservation plan; no on-site well (City Manager Travis Goedken). Noise: 55 dB (or 60 dBC) at property line adjacent to residential zoning; equipment specs; post-construction sound testing possible. Emergency/security: backup power, fire safety and emergency operations plans, controlled access, fencing, 24-hour monitoring, annual coordination with fire department. Decommissioning plan before construction; decommissioning may be required after 12 months of continuous non-operation. Council declined a moratorium (legal-defensibility concerns). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; dates of second/third readings.","who_is_protected":"Decorah residents and water resources","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers and cryptocurrency mining centers in Decorah","citation":"Decorah, IA — proposed data center / cryptocurrency mining zoning ordinance (first reading Sept. 2026)","source_url":"https://decorahnews.com/news/18330/decorah-council-moves-to-regulate-data-centers-with-strict-zoning-utility-and-environmental-standards/","source_title":"Decorah Council Moves to Regulate Data Centers with Strict Zoning, Utility and Environmental Standards — Decorah News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Decorah (City Council; Water and Public Works Departments)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"ia-dubuque-hyperscale-dc-moratorium-6mo-2026","title":"Dubuque, IA — City Council Approves a Six-Month Moratorium on 'Hyperscale' Data Centers (100,000 sq ft, 75 MW, 5,000 Servers or 50 gpm Water) (September 2026)","short_title":"Dubuque IA 6-month hyperscale data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Dubuque, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Dubuque County","city":"Dubuque","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-21","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Dubuque's City Council approved a six-month pause on building 'hyperscale' data centers in the city. A facility counts as hyperscale if it meets any one of four tests: 100,000 square feet or larger, more than 75 megawatts of electrical demand, 5,000 or more servers, or more than 50 gallons per minute of water use for cooling or operations. The council also told the City Attorney's Office to draft a longer-term data center ordinance. The city says no data center project has been formally proposed in Dubuque.","summary_technical":"Moratorium ordinance approved by the Dubuque City Council at its Monday, Sept. 21, 2026 meeting (city page). Hyperscale data center = meets any ONE of: >=100,000 sq ft; electrical demand >75 MW; server count >=5,000; water use for cooling/operations >50 gallons per minute. History: Aug. 17, 2026 work session directed staff to prepare a six-month moratorium and a 'hybrid' ordinance; council first considered the moratorium Sept. 8, 2026 and directed the city attorney to revise it; revised version approved Sept. 21. Term six months; Telegraph Herald reports it gives the council until late March 2027 to draft regulations (exact expiry not stated, left null). City Attorney Crenna Brumwell prepared the revisions (city page). Telegraph Herald: small-scale data centers needed to support existing businesses remain permitted. Next: City Attorney's Office to bring a longer-term ordinance (three readings). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; vote count; effective date; exact expiry.","who_is_protected":"Dubuque residents and city utility systems","who_must_comply":"Developers of hyperscale data centers in the City of Dubuque","citation":"Dubuque, IA — Hyperscale data center moratorium ordinance (approved Sept. 21, 2026); approved ordinance at dubuqueia.portal.civicclerk.com/event/312/files/attachment/11230","source_url":"https://www.cityofdubuque.org/DataCenters","source_title":"City Regulation of Data Centers — City of Dubuque, IA","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Dubuque (City Council; City Attorney's Office)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"ia-marshall-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Marshall County, IA — Board of Supervisors Adopts Six-Month Moratorium on Data Center, AI Computing, Data Mining and Crypto Mining Applications (September 2026)","short_title":"Marshall County IA 6-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Marshall County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Marshall County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-23","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Marshall County, Iowa paused applications for data centers for six months. The Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution covering data centers, artificial intelligence computing facilities, data mining facilities and cryptocurrency mining operations in the county's unincorporated areas. The county Zoning Commission will hold monthly work sessions to draft regulations, expected by spring 2027. The board can shorten or extend the pause; a cap on how long it can be extended was removed before passage.","summary_technical":"Marshall County, Iowa Board of Supervisors: single five-page resolution adopted unanimously at the Wednesday morning regular meeting reported by the Times-Republican (published Thu. Sept. 24, 2026) and KCCI (Sept. 25) -> Wednesday Sept. 23, 2026. The Times-Republican reports both '3-0' (photo caption) and '6-0' (text); the board has three supervisors (Carol Hibbs, Jarret Heil (chair), Christian Goodman), so the vote was unanimous 3-0. Motion by Supervisor Christian Goodman. Scope: 'data centers, artificial intelligence computing facilities, data mining facilities and cryptocurrency/bitcoin mining operations' (resolution text read by Chairman Heil), applications in unincorporated areas. Term: six months; the only wording change from the prior meeting removed the limit on how long the moratorium could potentially be extended (County Zoning Administrator Tyler Kelley; County Attorney Jordan Gaffney: more flexibility). Next: the county zoning commission drafts regulations, expected by spring 2027 (KCCI). NOT ESTABLISHED: resolution number, stated effective date, exact expiry (not computed), treatment of pending applications.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Marshall County, Iowa","who_must_comply":"Applicants for data centers, AI computing, data mining and crypto mining facilities in unincorporated Marshall County","citation":"Marshall County, Iowa — Board of Supervisors resolution, six-month data center moratorium (Sept. 23, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.timesrepublican.com/news/todays-news/2026/09/supervisors-ok-six-month-data-center-moratorium-resolution/","source_title":"Supervisors OK six-month data center moratorium resolution — Times-Republican (Sept. 24, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Marshall County Board of Supervisors; Marshall County Zoning Administrator / Zoning Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"ia-winneshiek-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Winneshiek County, IA — Board of Supervisors Unanimously Approves 12-Month Data Center Moratorium (September 2026)","short_title":"Winneshiek County IA 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Winneshiek County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Winneshiek County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-28","enacted_date":"2026-09-28","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Winneshiek County, Iowa adopted a 12-month moratorium on data center development after a public hearing. The pause stops rezoning for data centers and the issuance of permits to build them while the county does a land-use planning study and considers zoning and comprehensive plan changes. It applies only to rural (unincorporated) areas; the county's eight cities act on their own. The board can end it early if the study is done or extend it if not.","summary_technical":"Winneshiek County Board of Supervisors, unanimous vote approving a 12-month moratorium resolution after a public hearing on Monday 2026-09-28 (Decorah Leader, published Wed 2026-09-30, says 'Monday'; Decorah News published Tue 2026-09-29). Effective upon passage. Scope: temporarily stops rezoning for data center development and issuance of permits to construct data centers while the county conducts a land-use planning study and considers zoning ordinance/comprehensive plan changes; applies only to rural (unincorporated) areas — the county's eight cities act independently (Leader). Board may end it early if the study is complete and issues addressed, or extend it if the study is not done within 12 months. P&Z Commission held its own hearing Sept. 8 (35 of 36 attendees stating a position supported a 12-month moratorium; one favored a permanent ban) and recommended unanimously; reasons included scattered M-2 industrial parcels whose rules do not address data centers and expected 2027 state legislation. expires_date left null (early-termination and extension provisions).","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Winneshiek County, Iowa","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking rezoning or construction permits in unincorporated Winneshiek County","citation":"Winneshiek County, Iowa — Board of Supervisors 12-month data center moratorium resolution (Sept. 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://decorahnews.com/news/18388/supervisors-unanimously-approve-12-month-data-center-moratorium-after-public-hearing/","source_title":"Supervisors Unanimously Approve 12-Month Data Center Moratorium After Public Hearing — Decorah News (Sept. 29, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Winneshiek County Board of Supervisors; Planning and Zoning Commission / Zoning Administrator","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"il-chicago-dc-moratorium-ordinance-proposed-2026","title":"Chicago, IL — Mayor Johnson and Three Aldermen Introduce a 12-Month Data Center Moratorium Ordinance; Referral Stalled and Sent to Rules Committee (September 2026)","short_title":"Chicago 12-month data center moratorium ordinance (proposed 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chicago, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Cook County","city":"Chicago","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"On September 23, 2026, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Aldermen Maria Hadden, Leni Manaa-Hoppenworth and Lamont J. Robinson introduced the Data Center Moratorium Ordinance, which would pause new data centers and material expansions of existing ones for 12 months while the city's Data Centers Task Force (created by the mayor's August 2026 executive order) writes permanent rules on air, water, energy use and residents' health. At the same meeting a procedural move by opposing aldermen sent it to the Rules Committee instead of its intended committee, which the Chicago Tribune said will likely stall it. Ald. Bill Conway introduced a competing ordinance that would treat data centers as planned developments subject to public review; it was also sent to Rules. The moratorium has not been voted on.","summary_technical":"City of Chicago — Data Center Moratorium Ordinance, introduced Wed. Sept. 23, 2026 by Mayor Brandon Johnson with Alds. Maria Hadden (49th), Leni Manaa-Hoppenworth (48th) and Lamont J. Robinson (4th) (official City press release of that date). Operative purpose per release: 'temporarily pause the development of new data centers and the material expansion of existing facilities'; proposed 12-month moratorium giving the Data Centers Task Force (August 2026 EO, il-chicago-mayoral-eo-data-center-review-2026) time to build on the Sustainable Data Centers Working Group's July 2026 report. Scope per WTTW: data centers larger than 1,000 sq ft with more than 20% of floor space dedicated to servers. PROCEDURE: Ald. Marty Quinn (13th) used a parliamentary maneuver to delay its advance into its intended committee (Tribune); WTTW: two alderpeople routed it to the Rules committee upon introduction. COMPETING MEASURE: Ald. Bill Conway (34th) ordinance zoning data centers as planned developments (public review before approval); delayed by the same maneuver (Ald. Matt O'Shea, 19th) and sent to Rules (Tribune, WTTW). SAME MEETING: a separate Hadden ordinance requiring data centers to report annual water and energy use passed final vote (Tribune) — not part of this entry. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance file number, exemptions, hearing date.","who_is_protected":"Chicago residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of new data centers and material expansions of existing data centers in Chicago (if enacted)","citation":"City of Chicago, Data Center Moratorium Ordinance (introduced Sept. 23, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2026/september/data-center-moratorium.html","source_title":"Mayor Brandon Johnson and City Council Members Introduce Data Center Moratorium Ordinance — City of Chicago (Sept. 23, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Chicago","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"il-galesburg-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Galesburg, Illinois — City Council Fast-Tracks and Approves a 180-Day Data Center Moratorium Through April 3, 2027 (September 2026)","short_title":"Galesburg IL 180-day data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Galesburg, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Knox County","city":"Galesburg","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-21","expires_date":"2027-04-03","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Galesburg's City Council voted on Monday, September 21, 2026 to impose a 180-day moratorium blocking the city from accepting, processing or approving data center permits through April 3, 2027. The city had received no data center applications and acted preemptively; the city manager said the pause gives time to study infrastructure, energy, environmental and waste demands and write regulations, and that a longer-term ordinance limiting or banning data centers would require a longer planning process. The ordinance was scheduled for first reading but was advanced to final reading 6-1 and approved 7-0.","summary_technical":"Galesburg, Ill. — moratorium ordinance, Monday 2026-09-21. PROCEDURE (TSPR, WGIL): scheduled for first reading; Ward 4 Council Member Dwight White moved to advance it to second/final reading (approved 6-1, Ward 2's Wendel Hunigan no, wanting more public input); council then voted 7-0 to approve the moratorium (TSPR lede: 'voted unanimously'). SCOPE: city may not accept, process or approve data center permits; term 180 days, through 2027-04-03 (stated by both outlets). City Manager Eric Hanson: no applications received to date; 180 days was the legally recommended length based on existing case law; a limiting or banning ordinance would go through a longer development-committee process. WGIL: officials describe the measure as preemptive and also urged residents to contact state legislators since state action could override local rules. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; data center definition; the moratorium's start/effective date (the stated April 3, 2027 end is 180 days after Oct. 5, 2026, suggesting it may run from a later effective date — not confirmed, so effective_date is null and status is 'enacted').","who_is_protected":"Galesburg residents","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants in Galesburg","citation":"Galesburg, Ill., 180-day data center moratorium ordinance (Sept. 21, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.tspr.org/tspr-local-news/2026-09-22/galesburg-council-fast-tracks-180-day-data-center-moratorium-could-later-impose-limit-or-ban","source_title":"Galesburg council fast-tracks 180-day data center moratorium, could later impose limit or ban — Tri States Public Radio","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Galesburg","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"il-gov-pritzker-dc-investment-program-pause-2026","title":"Illinois — Gov. Pritzker Directs DCEO to Pause New Data Center Investment Program Tax-Incentive Agreements From July 1, 2026, and Outlines a Seven-Point Data Center Framework (June 2026)","short_title":"Illinois data center tax-incentive pause (DCEO, July 2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Illinois","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-06-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker told the state Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity to stop processing new agreements under the Data Center Investment Program, the state's data center tax-incentive program, starting July 1, 2026. Agreements signed before July 1 will be honored. He also set out a seven-point framework he wants lawmakers to pass, covering data centers paying their own grid costs, clean energy, water permits, air quality and community transparency. The pause does not ban data centers; the regulations require legislation, which did not pass in the spring session.","summary_technical":"Governor's directive to DCEO announced June 5, 2026: pause processing agreements for the Data Center Investment Program effective July 1, 2026; all agreements entered into with DCEO before July 1, 2026 honored. The press release gives no end date; Capitol News Illinois says the pause fulfils a proposal from his budget address earlier in 2026. Framework for legislation: (1) fair share costs — a data center rate class, infrastructure costs assigned to data centers, efficiency requirements; (2) the incentive pause; (3) interruptible service during grid strain for data centers without self-supplied clean energy; (4) data centers generate or pay for their own clean energy; (5) comprehensive water permits and sustainable use/reuse; (6) strong generator air standards and cumulative impacts in environmental justice communities; (7) ban on nondisclosure agreements with local governments, public notice, energy/water reporting and community benefits agreements. Capitol News Illinois: the program stems from 2019 legislation; 27 data centers received over $983 million in incentives 2020-2024; the POWER Act (HB 5513) did not advance before the May 31 deadline. NOT ESTABLISHED: whether a formal numbered executive order was issued (the release describes a directive to DCEO); statutory citation.","who_is_protected":"Illinois ratepayers, taxpayers and communities near proposed data centers","who_must_comply":"Illinois DCEO (no new Data Center Investment Program agreements from July 1, 2026); data center developers seeking new incentives","citation":"Office of Gov. JB Pritzker, 'Gov. Pritzker Pauses New Data Center Tax Incentives' (June 5, 2026); Data Center Investment Program pause effective July 1, 2026","source_url":"https://gov-pritzker-newsroom.prezly.com/gov-pritzker-pauses-new-data-center-tax-incentives","source_title":"Gov. Pritzker Pauses New Data Center Tax Incentives — Office of the Governor newsroom (June 5, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None (administrative pause of incentive agreements)"},{"id":"il-mattoon-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Mattoon, IL — City Council Passes a Self-Renewing One-Year Moratorium on Large-Scale Data Centers (21,780+ sq ft) (September 2026)","short_title":"Mattoon IL self-renewing data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Mattoon, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Coles County","city":"Mattoon","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Mattoon's City Council voted 5-0 on September 1, 2026 to pause large-scale data center development for a year. The pause renews automatically every year unless the council passes a resolution to end it, which requires a public hearing first. During the pause, the city bars construction of data centers of 21,780 square feet or more and will not accept applications for new ones. City officials said no one had approached them about building a data center; water use was a main concern after a water crisis last year.","summary_technical":"City of Mattoon (Coles County, IL) resolution, 5-0, Sept 1, 2026. Term: one year, automatically renewing annually unless ended by resolution after a required public hearing. Scope: prohibits construction of any data center at or over 21,780 sq ft and bars acceptance of applications for new developments during the moratorium. Drafted by Community Development and Planning Director Alex Benishek, who said Mattoon, as a non-home-rule municipality, lacks authority to ban data centers outright. Mayor Rick Hall and council said no data center inquiries had been received. NOT ESTABLISHED: resolution number; effective date if different from adoption. Corroborated by WAND-TV (Sept. 1, 2026: unanimous Tuesday-night vote; Commissioner David Phipps: auto-renews after one year if council takes no action) and Effingham Radio (Sept. 9). Status 'enacted' because no effective date is stated.","who_is_protected":"Mattoon residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers of 21,780 sq ft or more in Mattoon","citation":"City of Mattoon, IL data center moratorium resolution (Sept. 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.dailyeasternnews.com/2026/09/22/mattoon-city-council-passes-moratorium-on-data-center-development/","source_title":"Mattoon City Council passes moratorium on data center development — The Daily Eastern News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Mattoon Community Development and Planning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"il-sterling-dc-bess-180-day-moratorium-2026","title":"Sterling, IL — City Council Imposes 180-Day Moratorium on Data Center and Battery Energy Storage Applications (September 2026)","short_title":"Sterling IL 180-day data center/BESS moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Sterling, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Whiteside County","city":"Sterling","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Sterling, Illinois paused the processing and approval of applications for data centers and battery energy storage systems for 180 days. The City Council vote was unanimous. The city has no code that allows or forbids either use, and staff said BESS companies have been asking to locate in the city. The Plan Commission has started work on an ordinance; the city attorney said that as a non-home-rule municipality Sterling can impose a moratorium and regulate these facilities but cannot ban them permanently.","summary_technical":"Vote: unanimous, Sterling City Council. DATE DISCREPANCY: Shaw Local (Sept. 9) says the council 'voted unanimously Monday' (= Sept. 7, 2026) but also refers to 'the Sept. 8 City Council meeting'; Shaw Local (Sept. 26) says 'its Sept. 7 meeting'. Sept. 7, 2026 was Labor Day and a Bing News snippet of a WQAD story (page blocked, 403) refers to a 'Tuesday night meeting' (= Sept. 8); enacted_date therefore left null pending a city record. Term: 180 days (expiry not computed). Scope: processing and approving applications for data centers and battery energy storage systems. Follow-up: Plan Commission meeting Sept. 24, 2026 began ordinance work; a 23-page draft ordinance by city planner Dustin Wolff (definitions by size/capacity, utility standards) was shown July 23. City Attorney Tim Zollinger: non-home-rule city cannot permanently ban a lawful business under Illinois case law; can regulate via zoning. Not established: ordinance number, effective date wording.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Sterling, Illinois","who_must_comply":"Applicants for data centers and battery energy storage systems in Sterling","citation":"City of Sterling, Illinois — 180-day moratorium on data center and BESS applications (Sept. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.shawlocal.com/sauk-valley/2026/09/09/sterling-council-puts-180-day-application-moratorium-on-data-centers-battery-energy-storage-systems/","source_title":"Sterling council puts 180-day application moratorium on data centers, battery energy storage systems — Shaw Local (Sept. 9, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Sterling (City Council; Plan Commission; city planning staff)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"il-troy-dc-moratorium-extended-2026","title":"Troy, IL — City Council extends six-month data center moratorium (Ordinance 2026-24) by another six months, to March 2027 (September 2026)","short_title":"Troy IL data center moratorium extended to Mar 2027","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Troy, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Madison County","city":"Troy","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-03-16","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Troy, Illinois has paused data center development within city limits. The City Council adopted a six-month moratorium (Ordinance 2026-24) by a 6-0 vote on March 16, 2026, and on September 21, 2026 approved an ordinance extending it another six months, to March 2027. City officials want to see whether the Illinois Legislature acts on data centers in its fall veto session or next regular session, and the city attorney considers six-month moratoriums more defensible than a 12-month ban.","summary_technical":"ORIGINAL: Ordinance 2026-24, 'An Ordinance Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on Data Centers in the City of Troy, Illinois', approved 6-0 (Dawson, Hellrung, Henderson, Italiano, Knoll, Turner) at the Monday, March 16, 2026 City Council meeting (official minutes). Per the planning report in those minutes, the moratorium suspends any type of development activity related to data centers; six months chosen over one year on the city attorney's legal-defensibility advice; extension possible. EXTENSION: Ordinance 2026-57, 'An Ordinance Extending the Temporary Moratorium on Data Centers Established by City of Troy Ordinance 2026-24', item 15.01 on the Monday, Sept. 21, 2026 Council agenda (official); approval reported by the Troy Times Tribune (Sept. 24): another six-month moratorium 'until March 2027'. Rationale: await the Illinois veto session (SB 25 cited) and 2027 session; city attorney Fred Keck views six-month moratoriums as more defensible. NOT ESTABLISHED: Sept. 21 vote count (minutes not yet posted), exact expiry date (not computed).","who_is_protected":"Residents of Troy, Illinois","who_must_comply":"Data center developers within Troy city limits","citation":"City of Troy, Illinois, Ordinance 2026-24 (data center moratorium, Mar. 16, 2026), extended by Ordinance 2026-57 (Sept. 21, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.troyil.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_09212026-1020","source_title":"City of Troy, IL — City Council agenda, Sept. 21, 2026 (Ordinance 2026-57)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Troy","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"in-evansville-dc-moratorium-180day-proposed-2026","title":"Evansville, IN — City Council Adopts a 180-Day Data Center Moratorium Within City Limits (Oct. 5, 2026)","short_title":"Evansville IN 180-day data center moratorium (Oct. 5, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Evansville, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Vanderburgh County","city":"Evansville","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-05","enacted_date":"2026-10-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Evansville's City Council voted 9-0 on Oct. 5, 2026 to pause data center development within city limits for 180 days. The Evansville Area Plan Commission recommended the pause so officials can study data centers' impacts and decide how they should be zoned. It took effect immediately and could be extended.","summary_technical":"Ordinance first reading at the City Council meeting of Mon. Sept. 28, 2026 (WFIE Sept. 14 article: council president Ben Trockman said first reading would be at the next meeting on Sept. 28; WEHT published Tue. Sept. 29 says 'last night'). Recommended by the Evansville Area Plan Commission earlier in September. Terms: new applications on hold 180 days; effective immediately upon passage; may be extended. Council considered but rejected forming its own study committee because Vanderburgh County formed one in August, and Vanderburgh County already has its own moratorium (WEHT; WFIE says the county committee created its own moratorium). Second reading Oct. 5, 2026. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; sponsors. The Vanderburgh County moratorium is not in the dataset (lead).","who_is_protected":"Evansville residents","who_must_comply":"Applicants for new data centers in Evansville","citation":"Evansville, IN 180-day data center moratorium ordinance (first reading Sept. 28, 2026; adopted 9-0 Oct. 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/articles/evansville-council-approves-data-center-moratorium","source_title":"Evansville council approves data center moratorium — Inside INdiana Business (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Evansville","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"in-fort-wayne-dc-moratorium-r-26-09-17-proposed-2026","title":"Fort Wayne, Indiana — Proposed One-Year Moratorium on City Council Actions Supporting Data Centers (R-26-09-17) and an Advisory Review Commission (G-26-09-16); Vote Postponed to October 13, 2026","short_title":"Fort Wayne IN proposed data center moratorium (R-26-09-17)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Fort Wayne, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Allen County","city":"Fort Wayne","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Fort Wayne City Councilwoman Rohli Booker introduced two companion resolutions on September 8, 2026: R-26-09-17, a temporary one-year (365-day) moratorium on city/council actions approving or supporting new data center development, which also asks the Department of Planning Services to recommend zoning code changes for large-scale data centers; and G-26-09-16, creating an advisory Community Infrastructure & Environmental Review Commission for major resource-intensive projects. On September 22 the council postponed its vote by three weeks, to October 13. The proposal is not expected to affect the Google data center already under construction on Adams Center Road.","summary_technical":"Fort Wayne, Ind. City Council — introduced 2026-09-08 by Rohli Booker (D-6th): R-26-09-17 (temporary moratorium on data center approvals; requests Department of Planning Services, with other departments, evaluate and recommend standards/Zoning Code amendments for large-scale data centers) and G-26-09-16 (Fort Wayne Community Infrastructure & Environmental Review Commission, CIERC — advisory only; does not displace existing authority) (Fort Wayne Business Weekly). Duration: one year (WPTA); WANE headline/lede: '365-day moratorium on city actions that could support future data center development'. Related: Councilman Russ Jehl withdrew G-26-06-31 (data center task force bill held since June 9). Action: Tuesday 2026-09-22, after discussion of multiple amendments, council held the legislation three weeks; scheduled to take it up again Oct. 13 (WPTA; WBOI 'mid-October'; Journal Gazette 'three more weeks'). Not expected to affect Google's Adams Center Road data center (WBOI). NOT ESTABLISHED: the specific council actions covered (e.g. annexations, abatements), amendment contents, vote count on postponement.","who_is_protected":"Fort Wayne residents","who_must_comply":"Fort Wayne City Council and city departments (approvals/actions supporting new data centers), if adopted","citation":"Fort Wayne City Council Res. R-26-09-17 and G-26-09-16 (introduced Sept. 8, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wane.com/top-stories/council-postpones-vote-on-data-center-amendments/","source_title":"Council postpones vote on data center amendments — WANE 15","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Fort Wayne City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"in-kokomo-dc-zoning-standards-2026","title":"Kokomo, Indiana — Common Council Passes Data Center Zoning Standards 8-1: 350-Foot Residential Separation, 200-Foot Setbacks, No Night-Time Generator Testing, Decommissioning Plans (September 2026)","short_title":"Kokomo IN data center zoning standards (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Kokomo, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Howard County","city":"Kokomo","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-14","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Kokomo's Common Council voted 8-1 on September 14, 2026 to adopt zoning standards for data centers. Before this, data centers were allowed by right and could be built 35 feet from a neighboring home. Under the new rules, data center buildings and substations must sit at least 350 feet from any existing home and 200 feet from property lines that border residential districts. Generator and equipment testing is banned between 5 p.m. and 7 a.m., mechanical equipment must be screened, a full build-out master site plan is required, and high-industrial developments must have decommissioning plans. Data centers remain allowed in all industrial zones and an office/institutional/agricultural overlay. Small facilities under 1 megawatt and 10,000 square feet are exempt. Residents who wanted an outright ban were not satisfied.","summary_technical":"Kokomo, Indiana (Howard County) Common Council, data center standards ordinance (new zoning Section 6.75 drafted by HWC Engineering, per the Kokomo Tribune). First reading Monday, August 24, 2026 (Kokomo Tribune, August 25). Passed 8-1 at the September 14, 2026 meeting (Kokomo Lantern), with Councilman Bob Stephenson (D-2) dissenting, and then sent to Mayor Tyler Moore for signature. STANDARDS (Kokomo Lantern): data center structures, including electric substations, at least 350 ft from any existing residential structure; at least 200 ft setback from any property line abutting a residential district; transmission lines running parallel to a data center lot at least 100 ft from the lot boundary; no equipment or generator testing from 5 p.m. to 7 a.m.; roof- and ground-mounted mechanical equipment fully screened; a master site plan at initial application showing full build-out, phasing and added utility infrastructure; EXEMPTION for data centers with critical IT load under 1 MW and under 10,000 sq ft. ZONING: allowed in all industrial zones and in the OIA-OL (Office, Institutional, Agricultural Overlay) district. High-industrial developments are encouraged to use the most resource-efficient technology and must file a decommissioning plan, handled case by case. NOISE: no new data-center-specific noise rule; the existing ordinance caps sustained noise at 50 dB next to residential areas and 70 dB next to other zones, measured at the property line. PRIOR LAW: data centers were permitted by right with a 35-ft setback next to homes (HWC Engineering's Bryan Stumpf, Kokomo Tribune). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, the mayor's signature date, and the effective date.","who_is_protected":"Kokomo residents living near industrial or overlay-zoned land where data centers may locate.","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators in Kokomo, apart from facilities under 1 MW critical IT load and 10,000 sq ft.","citation":"Kokomo Common Council data center standards ordinance (passed Sept. 14, 2026)","source_url":"https://kokomolantern.substack.com/p/council-passes-changes-for-data-centers","source_title":"Council passes changes for data centers (The Kokomo Lantern, Sept. 22, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Kokomo (Plan Commission / zoning administration)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"in-owen-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Owen County, IN — Commissioners Unanimously Adopt a One-Year Data Center Moratorium That Also Bars Rezonings Meant for Future Data Centers (September 2026)","short_title":"Owen County IN 1-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Owen County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Owen County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-22","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Owen County commissioners voted unanimously on September 22, 2026 to block new data center development for one year while the Plan Commission writes permanent rules. The moratorium also stops land from being rezoned when the planned future use is a data center, a gap officials said developers used in other counties. No data center has been proposed in the county. A draft regulatory ordinance of about 13 pages is being prepared.","summary_technical":"Owen County, Ind. — one-year data center moratorium approved unanimously by the Board of Commissioners (Norman Warner, David Risk, Leonard Hobbs pictured) on Tuesday evening; Indiana Public Media's report is dated Wednesday, Sept 23, 2026, so the vote was Sept 22, 2026. SCOPE: prevents new data center development for a year; also prevents rezoning where the intended future use is a data center (Building and Planning Administrator Heather Huntington: 'This moratorium includes language that prevents the rezoning of land for the intention of developing a data center in the future'). NEXT STEPS: Plan Commission drafting a regulatory ordinance (about 13 pages; considering size or acreage limits), recommendation to commissioners for final approval. Commissioners said Spencer had approved a similar moratorium the night before and Gosport was considering one. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, exact effective and expiry dates (no expires_date computed). Single outlet.","who_is_protected":"Owen County residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and rezoning applicants in Owen County's jurisdiction","citation":"Owen County, Ind. Board of Commissioners, one-year data center moratorium (Sept. 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.ipm.org/news/2026-09-23/owen-county-approves-one-year-moratorium-on-data-centers","source_title":"Owen County approves one-year moratorium on data centers — Indiana Public Media (Sept. 23, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Owen County Board of Commissioners; Owen County Plan Commission / Building and Planning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"in-st-joseph-county-hyperscale-dc-ban-initiating-resolution-2026","title":"St. Joseph County, IN — County Council Passes 6-3 'Data Center Balance' Resolution Starting a Zoning Ban on New Hyperscale Data Centers (September 2026)","short_title":"St. Joseph County IN hyperscale data center ban resolution (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"St. Joseph County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"St. Joseph County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"The St. Joseph County Council (South Bend area) voted 6-3 on September 22, 2026 to start the process of banning new hyperscale data centers in unincorporated parts of the county. The resolution itself is not a ban: it directs the Area Plan Commission to define terms and draft zoning changes, which must come back to the council for a final vote. It does not affect the Amazon and Microsoft data center projects already underway. Members voting no worried a ban could hurt the county's business image.","summary_technical":"St. Joseph County, Indiana — County Council preliminary ('data center balance') resolution adopted 6-3 on Tuesday, September 22, 2026. NO votes: Diana Hess (D), Mark Catanzarite (D), Daniel J. Schaetzle (R). Directs the Area Plan Commission to 'define terms and craft initial changes to the local zoning ordinance' to prohibit hyperscale data centers; applies to UNINCORPORATED county only (not South Bend or Mishawaka). Council President Bryan Tanner called the vote an 'initiating action', not a ban. WSBT: plan commission has 60 working days to draft language and return recommendations; does not affect existing Amazon (New Carlisle) and Microsoft (Granger) projects. NOT ESTABLISHED: resolution number; definition of 'hyperscale'; date of final council vote. review_by set to roughly the end of the 60-working-day window.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated St. Joseph County, IN","who_must_comply":"Prospective hyperscale data center developers in unincorporated St. Joseph County (if the zoning amendment is adopted)","citation":"St. Joseph County, Ind., County Council resolution initiating hyperscale data center zoning ban (adopted 6-3, Sept. 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wndu.com/2026/09/23/st-joseph-county-council-takes-first-step-toward-possible-ban-future-hyperscale-data-centers/","source_title":"St. Joseph County Council takes first step toward possible ban on future hyperscale data centers — WNDU","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"St. Joseph County Council; Area Plan Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not applicable (initiating resolution)"},{"id":"in-zionsville-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Zionsville, IN — Town Council Approves One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers, Solar and Wind Farms and Battery Storage While Plan Commission Reviews Zoning (September 21, 2026)","short_title":"Zionsville IN 1-year data center/renewables moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Zionsville, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Boone County","city":"Zionsville","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-21","expires_date":"2027-09-21","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"On September 21, 2026, the Zionsville Town Council approved a one-year moratorium on data centers, solar and wind farms and battery energy storage systems. The town has no permitted land use for these projects, which now could only come in through a special use permit, and the council directed its planning department and Plan Commission to review the zoning code and recommend whether and where they should be allowed, with public hearings before any vote. The town attorney said the move was partly to get ahead of developers after nearby Boone County adopted its own one-year data center moratorium.","summary_technical":"Town Council action 2026-09-21 (Current Publishing; Indianapolis Business Journal headline 'pass data center pause'). Scope: data centers, solar farms, wind farms, battery energy storage systems. Direction to planning department and Plan Commission to review land-use rules; Plan Commission recommendation and Town Council final approval, each after public hearings. expires_date 2027-09-21 computed from the stated one-year term counted from the 2026-09-21 vote. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance/resolution number; vote tally; effective date; exemptions.","who_is_protected":"Zionsville residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers, solar/wind farms and battery storage in Zionsville","citation":"Town of Zionsville, Ind. — one-year moratorium on data centers, wind, solar and BESS (Sept. 21, 2026)","source_url":"https://youarecurrent.com/2026/09/22/zionsville-town-council-approves-moratorium-on-data-centers-wind-and-solar-projects/","source_title":"Zionsville Town Council approves moratorium on data centers, wind and solar projects — Current Publishing","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Zionsville Town Council; Plan Commission; planning department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"ks-lawrence-dc-sup-text-amendment-2026","title":"Lawrence, KS — Planning Commission Recommends 6-1 Requiring a Special Use Permit for All Future Data Centers (September 2026)","short_title":"Lawrence KS data center special-use-permit text amendment (proposed)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lawrence, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Douglas","city":"Lawrence","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Lawrence's planning commission voted 6-1 on September 21, 2026 to recommend changing the city's land use code so that any future data center would need a special use permit. That would mean public hearings at which the Planning Commission and City Commission can both impose conditions on a project. The City Commission still has to vote. The change is separate from the two-year data center moratorium the City Commission adopted in July 2026.","summary_technical":"Land Development Code text amendment, one of two initiated by the Lawrence City Commission on 2026-07-14 alongside its 24-month moratorium (indexed as lawrence-ks-24-month-dc-moratorium-2026). Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission recommended approval 6-1 on 2026-09-21 (Rexroad no). Effect: data centers would require a special use permit (two public hearings — Planning Commission and City Commission — with ability to impose conditions) rather than being permitted by right in industrial zones. Planner Drew Bealby: amendment 'wouldn't change anything about the moratorium.' NOT ESTABLISHED: City Commission hearing date; the second text amendment (study of water, energy, noise, setbacks, etc.) is not part of this recommendation per sources opened. review_by is a re-check date, not a scheduled vote.","who_is_protected":"Lawrence residents (public hearing and conditions on data center projects)","who_must_comply":"Future data center developers in Lawrence","citation":"Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission, recommendation on data center special-use-permit text amendment (Sept. 21, 2026)","source_url":"https://www2.ljworld.com/news/city-government/2026/sep/21/planning-commission-recommends-adding-more-layers-to-approval-process-for-data-centers-in-lawrence/","source_title":"Planning Commission recommends adding more layers to approval process for data centers in Lawrence — Lawrence Journal-World","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Lawrence Planning & Development Services; Lawrence City Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"ky-hopkinsville-dc-zoning-amendment-proposed-2026","title":"Hopkinsville, KY — Proposed zoning amendment to define and regulate data centers, with size-based setbacks, a conditional-use requirement and a ban on hyperscale facilities (September 2026)","short_title":"Hopkinsville KY proposed data center zoning amendment (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Hopkinsville, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Christian County","city":"Hopkinsville","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Hopkinsville's zoning ordinance does not currently define data centers or list them as an allowed use. A proposed amendment, in a draft dated September 21, 2026, would define data centers, set development and operating standards, and say which zoning districts could consider small, medium and large facilities. Small data centers would need a 50-foot setback and 300 feet of separation from homes and other sensitive uses; medium and large ones would need 100- and 150-foot setbacks and 500 feet of separation. Hyperscale facilities with footprints of 150,000 square feet or more would be banned, every data center would need a conditional-use permit, and applicants would have to show utilities can serve them without raising costs or hurting service for other customers. After a second public hearing, the Planning Commission sent the draft back to committee. The City Council will make the final decision.","summary_technical":"Hopkinsville, Kentucky (Christian County): proposed zoning text amendment on data centers, Sept. 21, 2026 draft, prepared by Community and Development Services and heard by the Hopkinsville-Christian County Planning Commission. STATUS: at the second public hearing on Monday, Sept. 28, 2026 (6 p.m., HCC Auditorium Building; first CDS hearing was July 28, 2026), the Commission made no recommendation and voted to refer the amendment to its Plan Review Committee. Planning official Britton said a recommendation could come in about 30 days and the regulations could reach City Council before year-end. The City Council has final authority. DRAFT PROVISIONS (as reported): definitions plus development and operating standards; district eligibility by size class. SMALL: 50-ft setback from property lines and 300-ft separation from adjoining property with residential, public or quasi-public uses, or property not zoned I-1/I-2. MEDIUM: 100-ft setback and 500-ft separation. LARGE: 150-ft setback and 500-ft separation. PROHIBITS hyperscale data centers with footprints of 150,000 sq ft or more (the footprint definition is disputed by Dark Horse Technologies' counsel). A conditional-use permit is required for every data center. Applicants must provide utility documentation showing sufficient electric, water, wastewater and related capacity without adverse effects on availability, reliability, quality, cost or safety for other customers, and improvements must be in place before operations at no added cost to existing customers. Data centers must meet the existing city noise ordinance, and the draft also covers cooling, screening and decommissioning. MORATORIUM: residents asked for a two-year moratorium; officials said one is unnecessary because data centers are not currently a permitted use. SIZE CLASSES (Sept. 18 draft, Kentucky New Era): small up to 25,000 sq ft footprint; medium >25,000-50,000; large >50,000-<150,000; hyperscale >=150,000. Data centers limited to I-1 and I-2 districts. Other Sept. 18 provisions: waste heat no more than 5 deg F increase at property line (60-minute average vs. control location); decommissioning within 24 months after operation ceases; clustering limit (1,000 ft) to apply to facilities not grid-connected. Context: Dark Horse Technologies / North Campbell Land Co. runs a ~15 MW computing site in HES's Holland Substation and proposes a 50 MW data center served by a new 65 MW substation. An earlier July 17 working draft used different (MW-based) tiers and larger setbacks; superseded. NOT ESTABLISHED: text amendment number; final text.","who_is_protected":"Hopkinsville residents near potential data center sites and existing utility customers.","who_must_comply":"Prospective data center developers in Hopkinsville.","citation":"Hopkinsville zoning ordinance amendment — data centers (Sept. 21, 2026 draft)","source_url":"https://www.kentuckynewera.com/news/local/article_d880f22a-bd1a-5819-9d16-4428a8222cdc.html","source_title":"Residents push back as Hopkinsville weighs future of data centers — Kentucky New Era (Sept. 28, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Hopkinsville-Christian County Planning Commission; Hopkinsville City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"ky-scott-county-dc-moratorium-extended-2027","title":"Scott County, KY — Fiscal Court Extends Data Center Moratorium a Second Time, to March 2027, While Planning Commission Finishes Regulations (September 2026)","short_title":"Scott County KY data center moratorium (extended to Mar 2027)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Scott County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Scott County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","expires_date":"2027-03-13","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Scott County Fiscal Court extended its pause on data centers until March 2027 so the Georgetown-Scott County Planning Commission can finish data center regulations. The moratorium, first adopted in March 2026, had been set to expire in December. The draft rules would put data centers in heavy-industrial zones only, require conditional permits, regulate water and power use, and set stricter noise limits. Judge-Executive Joe Covington said the county prefers a strong regulatory framework over an outright ban because lawyers warned a ban carries litigation risk.","summary_technical":"Scott County, Kentucky (Georgetown). Fiscal Court vote Thursday, Sept 24, 2026 (WKYT, published Sept 25), extending the data center moratorium — its SECOND extension — to March 13, 2027 (News-Graphic; WKYT: 'March'). Original adoption March 2026, initially six months (News-Graphic); prior expiry December 2026 (WKYT). Requested by the Georgetown-Scott County Planning Commission after a Sept 17, 2026 public hearing. Draft ordinance (WKYT Sept 18 and 25): data centers in heavy-industrial zones; conditional permits; water/power provisions including utility certification that peak water can be supplied without harming existing ratepayers; stricter noise limits; WKYT says draft applies to unincorporated county, not Georgetown. Judge-Executive Joe Covington: counsel and the Kentucky Resources Council advised a total ban carries litigation risk. SCOPE CONFLICT: News-Graphic describes the moratorium as county-wide; WKYT describes the draft ordinance as unincorporated-only — moratorium geographic scope not firmly established. Not established: exact original adoption date, first-extension date, ordinance numbers. Related (not in this batch): WKYT Sept 30, 2026 'Georgetown council votes to draft ordinance banning data centers'. CORRECTION (adversarial pass): the '5-1' tally in the earlier draft belonged to the same meeting's separate vote to surplus the old Scott County Jail (News-Graphic: Pratt no, Ellison absent); the moratorium extension vote tally is NOT established.","who_is_protected":"Scott County, KY residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Scott County","citation":"Scott County, Ky., Fiscal Court — data center moratorium extended to March 13, 2027 (Sept. 24, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wkyt.com/2026/09/25/scott-county-extends-data-center-moratorium-until-march/","source_title":"Scott County extends data center moratorium until March — WKYT","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Scott County Fiscal Court; Georgetown-Scott County Planning Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"ma-boston-surveillance-ordinance-amendment-2026-1796","title":"Boston, MA — Proposed Amendment to the Surveillance Oversight Ordinance (Docket 2026-1796): Limits the 'Exigent Circumstances' Exception, Requires Notice of Vendor Switches and ALPR Reporting (September 2026)","short_title":"Boston surveillance ordinance amendment proposal (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Boston, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Suffolk County","city":"Boston","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Boston City Councilors Ben Weber, Gabriela Coletta Zapata and Henry Santana filed an ordinance (Docket 2026-1796, twelve sponsors in all) to tighten the city's surveillance oversight ordinance. It would make clear that use of surveillance technology under the 'exigent circumstances' exception is temporary and still needs council approval, require the council to be notified of new surveillance vendor agreements, and strengthen reporting on automated license plate readers. Sponsors cite Boston police continuing to use social media monitoring tools after the council denied approval in August 2025, and the department's switch from a Flock pilot to ALPR programs with Axon and Motorola. On September 23, 2026 the council referred it to the Committee on Government Operations.","summary_technical":"Boston City Council File 2026-1796 (Council Ordinance): 'Ordinance Amending City of Boston Code, Ordinances, Chapter XVI, Section 63, Ordinance on Surveillance Oversight and Information Sharing.' Legistar: file created 2026-09-14 (Monday); on agenda and referred to the Committee on Government Operations 2026-09-23 (Wednesday); status Referred; 12 sponsors (see sponsors). CONTENT (Boston Globe 2026-09-22; East Boston Times 2026-09-30 carrying the sponsors' statement): (1) clarify that exigent-circumstances use is temporary and council approval is still required; if the council votes against a technology, use must stop unless the department shows emergent threats (Globe); (2) notification of new vendor agreements for previously approved surveillance technologies; (3) strengthened ALPR reporting (Globe: vendors, number and locations of cameras, reads/hotlist hits per camera, misuse disclosures). CONTEXT: council voted 2025-08-27 to deny approval of social media monitoring tools used under exigent circumstances; the 2025 annual surveillance report shows continued use plus an added tool (Globe: AI social media analysis tool LifeRaft — Globe says it is unclear whether exigent circumstances were cited for it); BPD ran a Flock pilot 2025-04-01 to 2025-09-04 during which a vendor-enabled nationwide lookup let other agencies access Boston data, then began ALPR programs with Motorola Solutions and Axon. Weber said approval could take months (Globe). Amends ma-city-council-boston-ma-ordinance-on-surveillance-oversight-and-information-sha-2021. NOT ESTABLISHED: hearing date, final text, adoption.","who_is_protected":"Boston residents subject to city surveillance technology, including ALPRs and social media monitoring.","who_must_comply":"Boston Police Department and other city departments that acquire or use surveillance technology.","citation":"Boston City Council Docket 2026-1796","source_url":"https://boston.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8218946&GUID=178AED5D-367E-4483-9DF6-CBBDDE193982","source_title":"Boston City Council File #2026-1796 — Ordinance Amending Chapter XVI, Section 63, Ordinance on Surveillance Oversight and Information Sharing (Legistar)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Boston City Council","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ma-hudson-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Hudson, MA — Planning Board Recommends a Data Center Moratorium Through December 31, 2027; Town Meeting Vote November 16, 2026 (September 2026)","short_title":"Hudson MA proposed data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Hudson, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Middlesex County","city":"Hudson","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Hudson's Planning Board voted 5-0 on September 15, 2026 to recommend a moratorium on data center development that would last until December 31, 2027. The goal is to give the town time to write a zoning bylaw that gives it more say over what gets built. Town Meeting will vote on the warrant article at the Special Town Meeting on Monday, November 16, 2026. Town planning staff said the former Intel headquarters at 75 Reed Road is not covered, because a 2023 subdivision plan froze the zoning for that parcel.","summary_technical":"Proposed warrant article (temporary zoning moratorium) for the Hudson, MA November 16, 2026 Special Town Meeting (6:30 p.m., Hudson High School). Planning Board vote: 5-0, Tuesday September 15, 2026, after a public hearing attended by about 20 residents (none opposed). Term: through December 31, 2027. Warrant language quoted in reporting: 'during the moratorium period, the Town shall conduct a comprehensive planning process to understand the potential land use, environmental, infrastructure, public safety, and fiscal impacts associated with such facilities, [and] evaluate best practices and regulatory approaches.' Director of Planning and Community Development Kristina Johnson stated a 2023 definitive subdivision plan filed by Intel 'effectively freezes zoning' for 75 Reed Road (now owned by National Development), so new zoning restrictions would not apply there. NOT ESTABLISHED: warrant article number, size thresholds or definitions in the article, whether Town Meeting adopts it (a zoning bylaw amendment ordinarily requires a two-thirds Town Meeting vote in MA — not stated in the source), Attorney General approval timing.","who_is_protected":"Hudson, MA residents","who_must_comply":"Developers proposing data centers in Hudson (if adopted)","citation":"Hudson, MA Planning Board 5-0 recommendation (Sept. 15, 2026); warrant article for Nov. 16, 2026 Special Town Meeting","source_url":"https://www.communityadvocate.com/hudson/hudson-planning-board-votes-for-moratorium-on-data-centers-town-meeting-vote-forthcoming/article_8043f972-12a6-4c33-b40a-48426d496dc2.html","source_title":"Hudson Planning Board votes for moratorium on data centers; Town Meeting vote forthcoming — Community Advocate","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Town of Hudson (Planning and Community Development; Building Commissioner)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"ma-leominster-dc-bess-moratorium-2026","title":"Leominster, MA — City Council Votes 8-0 for Moratoriums on Data Centers and Battery Storage Sites Through July 31, 2027 (September 2026)","short_title":"Leominster MA data center + battery storage moratoriums (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Leominster, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Worcester County","city":"Leominster","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-28","enacted_date":"2026-09-28","expires_date":"2027-07-31","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Leominster's City Council voted 8-0 on September 28, 2026 to approve two moratoriums — one on developing data centers and one on battery storage sites — both in effect until July 31, 2027. Council President Claire Freda, who introduced them, said the pause gives the city time to write an ordinance regulating these facilities. The council rejected a suggested amendment to limit the data center pause to AI data centers and passed the petition as written. Two battery storage projects already underway are not affected.","summary_technical":"Two separate 8-0 votes, Monday Sept. 28, 2026 (Worcester Telegram; MassLive). Both moratoriums run until July 31, 2027 (stated in both sources). Introduced by Council President and Councilor-at-Large Claire Freda. Ward 5 Councilor Carrie Noseworthy was absent and, by letter, recommended amending the data center petition to pause only AI data centers; the council passed Freda's petition without changes. Battery storage: two projects already underway (Lancaster Street and Willard Street) are not paused; city attorney Amy Kwesell advised developers may go to the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board after a moratorium ends, and battery projects of 100 MW or more do not need local approval. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance/petition numbers; exact definitions. Earlier history: public hearing Sept. 14, 2026, after which the council granted further time pending a Planning Board recommendation and continued the hearing to Sept. 28 (News Link Live, per merged draft; not re-opened).","who_is_protected":"Leominster residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers and battery energy storage sites in Leominster","citation":"Leominster, MA — City Council data center and battery storage moratoriums (Sept. 28, 2026; through July 31, 2027)","source_url":"https://www.masslive.com/centralmass/2026/09/central-mass-city-approves-1-year-moratorium-on-data-centers-battery-storage-sites.html","source_title":"Central Mass. city approves 1-year moratorium on data centers, battery storage sites — MassLive","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Leominster","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"md-anne-arundel-bill-63-26-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Anne Arundel County, MD — Bill 63-26 Amended 7-0 From a Data Center Ban to a Moratorium Through January 31, 2028 With a Work Group (Sept. 21, 2026; Hearing Oct. 5)","short_title":"Anne Arundel County MD Bill 63-26 data center moratorium (proposed)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Anne Arundel County, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Anne Arundel County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-10-05","expires_date":"2028-01-31","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Anne Arundel County Council voted 7-0 to change Bill 63-26 from an outright ban on new data centers to a temporary moratorium. The pause would last until January 31, 2028, or until the county adopts comprehensive data center rules, whichever comes first. A work group would study energy and water use, infrastructure, environment, air quality, noise and economic development. Projects already in development could generally continue. The amended bill comes back for a vote on October 5, 2026.","summary_technical":"Anne Arundel County, MD Bill 63-26, introduced in August 2026 by Councilmember Nathan Volke as a data center ban. On Monday Sept 21, 2026 the council approved 7-0 an amendment by Councilmember Julie Hummer (requested by County Executive Steuart Pittman) converting it to a moratorium lasting until Jan 31, 2028 or adoption of comprehensive data center legislation, whichever first (WMAR). Work group studies energy and water use, utility infrastructure, climate/environmental impacts, air quality, noise and economic development and recommends regulations; GovTech/Capital Gazette: 'The chair and seven members of that group would be appointed by the County Council, one per member, while an additional four would be appointed by the county executive' (exact total not established). Projects already in the development process generally continue, including future phases of existing data centers on adjacent or adjoining properties. Amendment also calls for repealing a personal property tax assessment reduction for data storage centers. Microsoft (Annapolis Junction campus) testified against the original ban. County Council legislation page lists 'Bill No. 63-26 (As Amended) AN ORDINANCE concerning: Zoning – Data Storage Center, Introduced by Mr. Volke, Status Amended, Hearing 10/05/2026'. Next: council action Oct 5, 2026 (Monday). NOTE: Patch described the Monday vote as passing the moratorium; WMAR and GovTech describe it as approval of the amendment with the bill returning Oct 5 — entry follows the latter.","who_is_protected":"Anne Arundel County residents","who_must_comply":"New data center developers in Anne Arundel County (if adopted)","citation":"Anne Arundel County, MD Bill No. 63-26 (As Amended), 'Zoning – Data Storage Center' (amended Sept. 21, 2026; hearing Oct. 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wmar2news.com/news/region/anne-arundel-county/anne-arundel-county-approves-moratorium-on-new-data-centers-through-2028","source_title":"Anne Arundel County shifts from data center ban to moratorium — WMAR-2 News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Anne Arundel County (Office of Planning and Zoning)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"md-baltimore-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Baltimore County, MD — Data Center Permitting Moratorium (Bill 3-26, Feb. 2026); Council Unanimously Passes Bill 79-26 Extending It to Dec. 31, 2027 (September 2026)","short_title":"Baltimore County MD data center moratorium (Bill 3-26; extension Bill 79-26)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Baltimore County, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Baltimore County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-02-18","enacted_date":"2026-02-04","expires_date":"2027-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Baltimore County, Maryland has suspended data center permitting since February 2026. Bill 3-26, enacted February 4 and effective February 18, 2026, stopped the county from issuing data center permits or approving development plans or zoning petitions for data centers while the Planning Board studied the issue; it was set to run until January 1, 2027 or 90 days after the Planning Board's report, whichever came first. The Planning Board finalized its report on September 17, 2026. On September 22, 2026 the County Council voted unanimously for Bill 79-26, which extends the pause to December 31, 2027; it takes effect 14 days after it is enacted.","summary_technical":"Bill 3-26 ('Zoning Regulations – Data Center Study'; introduced Jan. 5, 2026 by all councilmembers): legislation detail sheet PASSED AS AMENDED, 4 amendments, ENACTED 02/04/26, EFFECTIVE 02/18/26, 7-0 roll call (motion Young, second Kach). Section 2 as enacted: until the EARLIER of Jan. 1, 2027 or 90 days after the Planning Board submits its report, (1) authority to issue or grant a data center permit suspended; (2) no County agency incl. PAI may approve any development plan or zoning petition regarding a data center, including any permit application. Section 3: Planning Board report due by Oct. 1, 2026. Recitals: Bill 54-24 (Aug. 5, 2024) first defined/permitted data centers ('light touch'). Planning Board finalized report Sept. 17, 2026 (WYPR). Bill 79-26 ('Data Centers – Extension of Temporary Controls Enacted Under Bill 3-26'; introduced Aug. 3, 2026; Legislative Day 15): re-enacts Section 2 with the end date DECEMBER 31, 2027; takes effect 14 days from enactment. Council detail sheet: PASSED, no amendments, 7-0 (Young, Patoka, Mangione, Jones, Marks, Ertel, Crandell), ENACTED N/A, EFFECTIVE N/A as of verification. expires_date 2027-12-31 is the date stated in Bill 79-26 (not computed); if 79-26 were not enacted, Bill 3-26's earlier sunset would govern. Fox45 described the extension as running to 'September 2027', which conflicts with the bill text; bill text controls. NOT ESTABLISHED: Bill 79-26 enactment/effective dates.","who_is_protected":"Baltimore County residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and applicants; Baltimore County agencies including the Department of Permits, Approvals, and Inspections","citation":"Baltimore County Council Bill 3-26 (enacted Feb. 4, 2026; eff. Feb. 18, 2026), as extended by Bill 79-26 (passed Sept. 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://countycouncilweb.s3.amazonaws.com/Bills%202026/b07926.pdf","source_title":"Baltimore County Council Bill No. 79-26 with Legislation Detail (passed Sept. 22, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Baltimore County Department of Permits, Approvals, and Inspections; Baltimore County Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated (permitting suspension)"},{"id":"md-eo-01-01-2026-16-dc-accountability-framework","title":"Maryland — Executive Order 01.01.2026.16 Creates a Data Center Accountability Task Force, Statewide Review Framework and Public Dashboard, and Bans Agency NDAs With Data Center Developers (September 2026)","short_title":"Maryland EO 01.01.2026.16 data center framework (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Maryland","state_abbr":"MD","topics":["data-centers","transparency","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-23","enacted_date":"2026-09-23","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed an executive order on September 23, 2026 that sets one statewide review process for large data centers, meaning those with 25 megawatts or more of peak electric demand. A new Maryland Data Center Accountability Task Force will judge each project on five principles: ratepayer and grid protection, economic benefit, community voice, environmental protection, and transparency. Each project gets a public rating of Aligned, Conditionally Aligned or Not Aligned. For projects rated Not Aligned, or that never ask for a rating, state agencies will not offer letters of support, advocacy or incentives, and will hold off on substantive permit review until local land-use approvals are in place. The order also bars executive agencies from signing non-disclosure agreements with data center developers, and creates a public Data Center Dashboard updated monthly.","summary_technical":"Executive Order 01.01.2026.16, 'Responsible Data Center Development in Maryland: Protecting Ratepayers, Empowering Communities, and Ensuring Transparency and Accountability', signed by Gov. Wes Moore in Annapolis on September 23, 2026, effective immediately (attested by Secretary of State Susan C. Lee). DEFINITION: a facility or campus used mainly for networked computing, storage and telecom equipment with projected or actual peak electric demand of 25 MW or more (including expansions adding 25 MW or more), or a 'Large Load Customer' under Md. Code Ann., Public Utilities § 7-232. EXCLUDED, if the Chair confirms project by project: facilities of accredited higher-education institutions, health care institutions, State agencies or the U.S. Department of Defense. TASK FORCE: a Chair designated by the Governor, plus the Director of the Maryland Energy Administration and the Secretaries of Commerce, Labor, Environment, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Planning (or their designees), and other members the Chair invites. PROCESS: preliminary baseline assessment within 60 days of intake; a written Framework Determination of 'Aligned', 'Conditionally Aligned' or 'Not Aligned'; reconsideration may be requested within 30 days. NOT ALIGNED, 'Non-Performing' or no determination sought: to the fullest extent consistent with law, no Coordinated Review Pathway, facilitation, letters of support or advocacy; agencies defer substantive review until the developer documents local land-use approvals, consistency with the host comprehensive plan, and any required water appropriation or wastewater discharge authorization; Commerce will not recommend, certify or approve discretionary State incentives; the Dashboard shows the status and the reason for it. NDA BAN: no Executive Department agency may enter into, renew or extend an NDA with a data center developer, operator or site-selection agent; NDAs signed before the effective date are honored but not renewed or extended. Developers must disclose identity, parent and controlling entities, anchor tenant, projected energy demand, water use and energy plan, and any duplicate interconnection or siting requests. The Maryland Energy Administration is to set a standard annual report form (for example power usage effectiveness and water usage effectiveness). The Task Force reports to the Governor annually by December 1, starting in 2027. APPLICABILITY: prospective only. Applications that were administratively complete on or before the effective date are governed by the earlier rules, and permits already issued are not affected. The order creates no enforceable private right and does not authorize denying a permit on grounds not authorized by law. Separately, the Governor's press release says he will work with the General Assembly in the coming session to repeal the 2020 data center sales and use tax exemption; that repeal is NOT part of the order. NOT ESTABLISHED: who was named Chair, and the date the Dashboard goes live.","who_is_protected":"Maryland electricity ratepayers, host communities and residents, and the environment (water, air, Chesapeake Bay), through a public review and disclosure process for large data centers.","who_must_comply":"Maryland Executive Department agencies; developers of data centers with 25 MW or more of peak demand that seek State permits, incentives, letters of support or other State engagement.","citation":"Md. Exec. Order 01.01.2026.16 (Sept. 23, 2026)","source_url":"https://governor.maryland.gov/media/1083","source_title":"Executive Order 01.01.2026.16 — Responsible Data Center Development in Maryland (Office of Governor Wes Moore)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Maryland Data Center Accountability Task Force (Governor's Office), with Executive Department agencies including the Maryland Energy Administration and the Departments of Commerce, Labor, Environment, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Planning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No fines. Projects rated Not Aligned lose State facilitation, support and discretionary incentives, and substantive State review is deferred until local approvals are documented."},{"id":"md-salisbury-dc-moratorium-1yr-proposed-2026","title":"Salisbury, MD — City Council Considers One-Year Moratorium on Data Center Applications Recommended by Planning Commission (September 2026)","short_title":"Salisbury MD 1-year data center moratorium (proposed, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Salisbury, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Wicomico County","city":"Salisbury","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Salisbury, Maryland is considering a one-year pause on new data center applications so city leaders can study water and power demands, land use, zoning and environmental effects before any proposal arrives. The Salisbury Planning Commission recommended the moratorium in August 2026, and the City Council was expected to take it up on September 28, 2026. Mayor Randy Taylor supports a pause and said it may not need the full year. Wicomico County approved its own one-year moratorium in August.","summary_technical":"Salisbury, Maryland (Wicomico County). Bay to Bay News (Sept. 17, 2026): the city plans to place a one-year ban on data center proposals. WBOC (Sept. 21, 2026): City Council expected to consider a proposed one-year moratorium on data center applications at its Sept. 28 legislative meeting; purpose to study water and power demands, land use, zoning and environmental impacts before a proposal is submitted. Mayor Randy Taylor supports; Salisbury Area Chamber of Commerce (Bill Chambers) conditionally supportive; Wicomico Environmental Trust (Carol Dunahoo) supports and seeks a task force. WBOC also reports a Planning Commission recommendation (Aug. 2026, per drafter; not re-opened in this pass) and that Wicomico County approved its own one-year moratorium in August. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, reading stage, whether Sept. 28 was first reading or adoption, outcome. Wicomico County moratorium not in dataset (find-entry 'wicomico' = 0) — candidate for a separate entry.","who_is_protected":"Salisbury, MD residents","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants in Salisbury (if adopted)","citation":"Salisbury, Md., proposed one-year data center moratorium (City Council, Sept. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wboc.com/news/salisbury-considers-one-year-moratorium-on-data-center-proposals/article_151e119a-0607-45d8-8460-629deff70dcf.html","source_title":"Salisbury considers one-year moratorium on data center proposals — WBOC","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Salisbury","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not applicable (proposed)"},{"id":"me-bethel-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Bethel, ME — Proposed Six-Month Data Center Moratorium Ordinance Sent to an October 15 Special Town Meeting; Woodstock Preparing a Similar Vote (September 2026)","short_title":"Bethel ME proposed 6-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Bethel, ME","state_abbr":"ME","county":"Oxford County","city":"Bethel","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Bethel voters will decide at a special town meeting on October 15, 2026 whether to adopt a six-month moratorium on any data center development, giving the town time to write siting, permitting, construction and operating standards. The proposal came from the town's Ordinance Review Committee out of general concern, not a specific project. Neighboring Woodstock's selectmen have also asked for a similar moratorium to be prepared for a town vote, with no date set.","summary_technical":"Bethel, Maine — proposed moratorium ordinance: six-month moratorium on any data center development to allow an amendment to the Bethel Ordinance and other town codes 'to establish appropriate standards for the siting, permitting, construction and operation of data centers.' Definition: a facility that primarily contains electronic systems and equipment used to process, store or transmit digital information. Findings recited include water/energy consumption, grid strain and residential rate increases, noise, heat islands, inadequate current codes, and need for at least 180 days. Approved for the warrant at the Sept. 16, 2026 selectmen's meeting; special town meeting Oct. 15, 2026, 6 p.m., Crescent Park Elementary School. WOODSTOCK: at the Sept. 15, 2026 selectmen's meeting the board directed Town Manager Tonya Lewis to obtain Bethel's wording; no vote date set (not a formal measure yet). NOT ESTABLISHED: retroactivity clause; vote outcome.","who_is_protected":"Bethel residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Bethel","citation":"Bethel, Me., proposed data center moratorium ordinance (special town meeting Oct. 15, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.sunjournal.com/2026/09/22/bethel-woodstock-mulling-data-center-moratoriums/","source_title":"Bethel, Woodstock mulling data center moratoriums — Lewiston Sun Journal","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Town of Bethel (code enforcement / planning)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"me-dover-foxcroft-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Dover-Foxcroft, ME — Select Board Adopts a 180-Day Moratorium on Data Center Applications and Projects (September 2026)","short_title":"Dover-Foxcroft ME 180-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Dover-Foxcroft, ME","state_abbr":"ME","county":"Piscataquis County","city":"Dover-Foxcroft","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-28","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Dover-Foxcroft's Select Board voted on September 28, 2026 to temporarily ban data center applications and projects for 180 days. The resolution defines a data center broadly, covering server farms, cloud computing, cryptocurrency mining, AI training facilities and data storage warehouses. No data center has been proposed in the town; officials said the pause lets them check whether existing ordinances are sufficient. Extensions are possible if the town shows it is still working on rules.","summary_technical":"Town of Dover-Foxcroft (Piscataquis County), Me. — 180-day moratorium resolution passed by the Select Board 'Monday evening' (Piscataquis Observer, Sept. 30, 2026; BDN Sept. 29) = 2026-09-28. Definition: 'any building, structure or facility or group thereof, whose primary use is the storage, management, processing or transmission of digital data' housing computer systems/servers, including cooling and power infrastructure, cloud computing facilities, server farms, cryptocurrency mining, AI training facilities and data storage warehouses. Extensions possible if the town shows it is working on regulations (Observer). Precautionary: no pending proposals. Proposed by Carole Boothroyd, chair of the Climate Action Advisory Committee, with Maine Conservation Voters support (BDN, Sept. 21). Vote count, effective date and expiry date not stated (expiry not computed).","who_is_protected":"Dover-Foxcroft residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Dover-Foxcroft","citation":"Town of Dover-Foxcroft, Me., 180-day data center moratorium resolution (Sept. 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://observer-me.com/2026/09/30/featured/dover-foxcroft-temporarily-pauses-data-centers/","source_title":"Dover-Foxcroft temporarily pauses data centers — Piscataquis Observer","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Town of Dover-Foxcroft","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in sources opened"},{"id":"me-saco-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Saco, ME — City Council Enacts a 61-Day Citywide Data Center Moratorium and Extends It 60 Days to November 28, 2026","short_title":"Saco ME data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Saco, ME","state_abbr":"ME","county":"York County","city":"Saco","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","expires_date":"2026-11-28","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"In August 2026 the Saco City Council approved a 61-day temporary prohibition on data centers throughout the city, to give staff time to add data center rules to the city code. On September 28, 2026 the council extended it by 60 days, to November 28, 2026. The moratorium says the current code does not adequately protect the public, neighbors, utility ratepayers and the environment from possible effects such as noise, heat and emissions. The city administrator said Saco will likely keep extending it until the state's data center task force reports in December.","summary_technical":"City of Saco (York County), Me. Original action: Council approved a 61-day temporary prohibition of data centers citywide at a Monday-night meeting reported by Saco Bay News on Aug. 6, 2026 (exact date not stated in the article), renewable for 60 days. Extension: Council voted Monday night (Sept. 28, 2026; article dated Sept. 29) to extend 60 days; Press Herald states it is 'now set to expire Nov. 28.' Moratorium findings: current code doesn't adequately protect 'the public, abutters, utility ratepayers and the environment' from adverse effects including noise, heat and emissions. Staff studying water supply, roads, waste management. City Administrator Ryan Pelletier: city will likely continue to extend pending the Maine Data Center Advisory Task Force's December report. Vote counts not stated. Enacted date left null because the August meeting date is not stated in the sources opened.","who_is_protected":"Saco residents, abutters and utility ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Saco","citation":"City of Saco, Me., data center moratorium (Aug. 2026; extended Sept. 28, 2026 to Nov. 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.pressherald.com/2026/09/29/saco-extends-temporary-data-center-ban-by-another-2-months/","source_title":"Saco extends temporary data center ban by another 2 months — Portland Press Herald","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Saco","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in sources opened"},{"id":"me-westbrook-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Westbrook, ME — City Council Unanimously Adopts a 180-Day Data Center Moratorium; Staff Now Recommend Prohibiting Standalone Data Centers (June–September 2026)","short_title":"Westbrook ME 180-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Westbrook, ME","state_abbr":"ME","county":"Cumberland County","city":"Westbrook","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-01","enacted_date":"2026-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"On June 1, 2026 the Westbrook City Council unanimously approved a 180-day moratorium on data center development, effective immediately, even though no applications had been filed. Data centers are currently allowed only in the Rock Row Contract Zone. During the pause the planning board reviewed the land use ordinance, and by September city staff recommended banning standalone data centers and removing them from the Rock Row zone, while still allowing on-site IT rooms that serve hospitals and other organizations. The City Council has not yet voted on that permanent change.","summary_technical":"City of Westbrook (Cumberland County), Me. Moratorium: 180 days, approved unanimously 2026-06-01 (Monday), effective immediately (Press Herald, June 1). No applications pending at adoption (Mayor Morse). Under existing ordinance data centers are permitted only in the Rock Row Contract Zone with ordinary site plan review. Follow-up (Press Herald, Sept. 22): planning board weighed benefits/drawbacks; staff recommended prohibiting standalone data centers and removing the use from Rock Row Contract Zone; accessory on-site enterprise centers would remain allowed. No final Council vote reported. Expiry date not stated in sources (180-day term; not computed). Ordinance number not established.","who_is_protected":"Westbrook residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Westbrook","citation":"City of Westbrook, Me., 180-day data center moratorium (June 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.pressherald.com/2026/06/01/westbrook-city-council-approves-180-day-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Westbrook City Council approves 180-day data center moratorium — Portland Press Herald","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Westbrook Planning and Code Enforcement","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in sources opened"},{"id":"mi-brighton-township-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Brighton Charter Township (Livingston County), MI — Board of Trustees Adopts Six-Month Moratorium on Accepting or Processing Data Center Applications (September 2026)","short_title":"Brighton Township MI 6-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Brighton Township, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Livingston County","city":"Brighton Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-21","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Brighton Charter Township's Board of Trustees adopted an ordinance pausing the acceptance and processing of any data center applications for six months while the township reviews its ordinances, which do not specifically mention data centers. The pause ends early if new data center rules take effect, and the board can extend it by resolution. The township manager called it a 'housekeeping item' prompted by Michigan Townships Association advice; no data center is proposed in the township.","summary_technical":"Charter Township of Brighton, Livingston County, Michigan — draft 'Ordinance to Enact a Temporary Moratorium on Data Centers' (MTA sample ordinance) in the Sept. 21, 2026 Board of Trustees packet, agenda item F.6 'ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE – Moratorium on Data Centers'; roll-call vote required; staff recommendation: adopt. Section II: temporary moratorium on the acceptance and/or processing of any applications for a data center, in effect six months following adoption or until amended/new data center ordinances take effect, whichever first. Section III: Board may extend by resolution before expiry. Effective upon publication after adoption. Findings cite public health/safety concerns and Michigan case law recognizing moratoria. STATUS: adopted. Official Sept. 21, 2026 packet (agenda note + MTA sample ordinance, staff recommendation: adopt) plus WHMI (Sept. 22, 2026: 'Brighton Twp Adopts Moratorium on New Data Center Applications'; Township Manager Brian Vick: six-month period to review the ordinance, 'housekeeping item', no project proposed). enacted_date 2026-09-21 = the board meeting at which the item was scheduled (Monday; weekday checked); WHMI does not state the date explicitly. Livingston Daily (Sept. 24, headline 'Brighton Township approves moratorium on data centers') paywalled, not read. NOT ESTABLISHED: vote tally, ordinance number, publication (= effective) date, therefore no expires_date.","who_is_protected":"Brighton Township residents","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants in Brighton Township","citation":"Charter Township of Brighton, Mich., draft Ordinance to Enact a Temporary Moratorium on Data Centers (agenda Sept. 21, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.brightontwp.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_09212026-2305","source_title":"Charter Township of Brighton Board of Trustees — September 21, 2026 Regular Meeting Agenda Packet (Moratorium Ordinance on Data Centers)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Brighton Township planning/zoning staff; Board of Trustees","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"mi-dearborn-dc-moratorium-6mo-2026","title":"Dearborn, MI — City Council Votes 7-0 for a Six-Month Moratorium on New Data Centers While Permanent Regulations Are Drafted (September 2026)","short_title":"Dearborn MI 6-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Dearborn, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Wayne County","city":"Dearborn","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-22","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Dearborn's City Council unanimously approved a six-month moratorium on new data centers so the city can write permanent rules for them. The pause is expected to start in October 2026 and run through the end of March 2027. Applications can still be filed during the pause, but they are forwarded to the city's legal department and applicants are told they must reapply. The ordinance also adds a definition of 'data center' to the zoning ordinance for the length of the moratorium.","summary_technical":"Ordinance amending the Dearborn zoning ordinance to impose a six-month moratorium on new data centers. Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval after an Aug. 10, 2026 public hearing; first reading Sept. 8, 2026; second and final reading approved 7-0 on Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2026 (MLive). Per MLive, expected to take effect in October 2026 and last through the end of March 2027 (exact effective and expiry dates not stated, so left null). Adds a data center definition to the zoning ordinance for the moratorium's duration; applications are still accepted but forwarded to the legal department, and applicants receive written notice of the timeline and their obligation to reapply (copy to Council). Context: the city had earlier removed 'data processing' as a listed use in the Technology and Research District and industrial districts, though such uses may still be permitted in the general industrial district. WXYZ broadcast (Sept. 23, 2026) separately reported the council approved a six-month moratorium. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; exact effective/expiry dates; size thresholds.","who_is_protected":"Dearborn residents and neighboring properties","who_must_comply":"Developers and applicants for new data centers in Dearborn","citation":"Dearborn, MI — City Council data center moratorium ordinance (second reading approved 7-0, Sept. 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/2026/09/dearborn-approves-6-month-pause-on-new-data-centers-amid-ai-boom.html","source_title":"Dearborn approves 6-month pause on new data centers amid AI boom — MLive","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Dearborn (City Council; legal department receives applications during the moratorium)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"mi-gibraltar-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Gibraltar, Michigan — City Council Unanimously Adopts a 12-Month Moratorium on Data Centers (March 2026)","short_title":"Gibraltar MI 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Gibraltar, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Wayne County","city":"Gibraltar","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-03-09","expires_date":"2027-03-09","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"The Gibraltar City Council voted unanimously on March 9, 2026 to adopt a 12-month moratorium on the establishment and use of data centers while the city studies the issue and writes new rules; the council can extend it by resolution and can grant waivers. Developers Raeden Acquisitions and CAL Realty, which had applied to build a data center on the former McLouth steel mill site, sued in federal court in August 2026, arguing the moratorium was adopted to defeat their pending application. In September 2026 the city said it had hired the planning firm McKenna to help draft a comprehensive data center zoning ordinance and intends to defend the lawsuit.","summary_technical":"City of Gibraltar, Mich. — moratorium adopted unanimously 2026-03-09 (CBS Detroit). TERM: 12 months, extendable by council resolution (CBS: 'must be terminated after 12 months unless the council adopts a resolution to extend it'; expires_date 2027-03-09 = adoption date + stated 12-month term, assumes term runs from adoption). SCOPE: prohibits establishment and use of data centers pending study and new regulations; News-Herald describes it as a moratorium on 'the development, consideration or review of data centers.' WAIVER: council may grant waivers if a project would not impact health, safety and welfare and complies with the zoning ordinance. FOLLOW-UP: city hired McKenna; draft ordinance reviewed by Planning Commission, Ordinance Steering Committee and counsel (city Facebook post, per News-Herald 2026-09-30); no adoption date set. LITIGATION: Raeden Acquisitions and CAL Realty v. City of Gibraltar, filed 2026-08-17, U.S. District Court, E.D. Mich. — indexed as litig-raeden-v-gibraltar-mi-moratorium-challenge-2026. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; draft ordinance contents. Status 'effective': per the lawsuit (CBS), the city told Raeden in July it would not process the application until the moratorium ended, i.e. it is being applied; a formal effective date is not stated, so effective_date is null.","who_is_protected":"Gibraltar residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and applicants in Gibraltar","citation":"City of Gibraltar, Mich., data center moratorium (adopted Mar. 9, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/raedan-acquisition-sues-gibraltar-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Data center developer accuses Gibraltar city officials of unlawfully imposing 1-year moratorium — CBS Detroit","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Gibraltar City Council; Planning Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"mi-kalamazoo-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Kalamazoo, MI — City Commission Resolution Pausing Data Center, Battery Storage and Crypto Mining Applications Through August 16, 2027 (August 2026)","short_title":"Kalamazoo MI data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Kalamazoo, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Kalamazoo County","city":"Kalamazoo","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-17","enacted_date":"2026-08-17","expires_date":"2027-10-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"The Kalamazoo City Commission voted unanimously in a late-night session on August 17, 2026 to pause applications for data centers, battery storage systems, crypto mining centers and AI data centers. The resolution keeps the pause active through August 16, 2027. Residents had raised concerns about noise, lighting, diesel generators, water use, wastewater and emissions after a cannabis processing facility was pitched as a data center site. The city is now working to write the moratorium into its zoning code so it is enforceable under the zoning code and state law; a City Commission public hearing on that change was set for its next meeting.","summary_technical":"Kalamazoo, MI City Commission RESOLUTION, adopted unanimously Monday Aug. 17, 2026 (FOX 17 zoning article: 'The City Commission placed the moratorium on data centers on Aug. 17'; WOOD-TV Aug. 18: late-night session, unanimous). Scope: temporary moratorium on accepting or processing any applications for data centers, battery storage systems, crypto mining centers and AI data centers within the city. Term: resolution has the pause active through August 16, 2027 (date stated by WOOD-TV). Concerns quoted from the resolution (WOOD): noise/decibel levels, lighting, diesel backup generators, water usage, wastewater discharge, emergency fire response, greenhouse emissions. Trigger: Harbor Farmz cannabis processing facility pitched to potential buyers as a data center. Follow-up: Planning Commission public hearing (FOX 17, ~Sept. 3-4) on adding the moratorium to the zoning code; WKZO (Sept. 22): commissioners set a public hearing for their next meeting on zoning code amendments embedding the moratorium, which 'won't really be official for another couple of weeks'; Assistant City Planner Bobby Durkee: previous action 'was just a resolution'. NOT ESTABLISHED: resolution number; date/outcome of the zoning-code amendment.","who_is_protected":"Kalamazoo residents","who_must_comply":"Applicants for data centers, battery storage, crypto mining and AI data centers in the City of Kalamazoo","citation":"City of Kalamazoo, MI, City Commission resolution, data center moratorium (Aug. 17, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.fox17online.com/news/local-news/kzoo-bc/kalamazoo/kalamazoo-works-to-add-data-center-moratorium-to-zoning-code-amid-rapid-growth-of-ai-technology","source_title":"Kalamazoo works to add data center moratorium to zoning code amid rapid growth of AI technology — FOX 17","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Kalamazoo","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted or processed during the pause"},{"id":"mi-pontiac-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Pontiac, MI — City Council Data Center Moratorium (Adopted January 2026 for Six Months; Now Set to Expire in January 2027)","short_title":"Pontiac MI data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Pontiac, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Oakland County","city":"Pontiac","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Pontiac's City Council unanimously approved a six-month moratorium on data center development in January 2026 to study effects on public health, utilities and infrastructure. As of late September 2026 the moratorium was reported to expire in January, and a council committee is racing to write a data center ordinance covering water and air quality, utilities and noise before then. Councilman Mikal Goodman notes that Michigan law does not let cities ban data centers outright.","summary_technical":"Pontiac, Mich. (Oakland County). ADOPTION: City Council unanimously approved a six-month data center moratorium to study public health, utility and infrastructure impacts (Planet Detroit roundup, Jan 25, 2026, citing The Detroit News 'Pontiac latest community to pass data center moratorium', Jan 21, 2026); Mayor Mike McGuinness cited inquiries after his November election; Councilman Mikal Goodman unsuccessfully pushed for 12 months. CURRENT TERM: WXYZ (late Sept 2026; Bing News feed date Sept 25, page shows no date) reports the moratorium 'expires in January,' which implies it was extended beyond the original six months; the extension's date and terms were not found. PENDING: council special committee on data centers (Goodman) drafting an ordinance on utilities paid for by operators, no diesel backup generators, water and air quality, and noise; a city map shows areas where data centers could go once the moratorium lifts. NOT ESTABLISHED: exact adoption date, extension action, exact expiry date.","who_is_protected":"Pontiac residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Pontiac","citation":"Pontiac, Mich. City Council data center moratorium (Jan. 2026; reported in Sept. 2026 as expiring in January)","source_url":"https://www.wxyz.com/news/pontiacs-data-center-moratorium-expires-in-january-and-the-city-is-racing-to-set-rules","source_title":"Pontiac's data center moratorium expires in January, and the city is racing to set rules — WXYZ (Sept. 25, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Pontiac","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"mi-port-huron-township-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Port Huron Charter Township, MI — Ordinance #257: Temporary Moratorium of Up to 12 Months on Applications for Data Centers and Other High Resource Demand Facilities (September 2026)","short_title":"Port Huron Township data center moratorium (Ord. 257)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Port Huron Township, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"St. Clair County","city":"Port Huron Township","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Port Huron Charter Township in St. Clair County, Michigan, adopted a temporary moratorium (Ordinance #257) on accepting or processing applications for data centers and other high resource demand facilities. It lasts 12 months after final adoption or until zoning amendments on these facilities take effect, whichever comes first, and the board can extend it by resolution. The ordinance also adds a general zoning provision allowing temporary moratoriums. No applications are on file; officials want rules on noise, lighting and safety first.","summary_technical":"Ordinance #257 'Temporary Moratorium on Data Centers and Other High Resource Demand Facilities' (official text posted on township site 8/18/2026): introduced at the Monday 2026-08-17 regular Board of Trustees meeting, motion Shonka, second Reno, ayes Shonka, Reno, Fulk, Dudas, Davis, Lewandowski; absent Pringle. Sec. II adds Zoning Ordinance Art. II Div. 4 Sec. 114 'Temporary Moratorium' (Planning Commission may recommend; Board may impose by ordinance or resolution; extensions by resolution with website notice). Sec. III: moratorium on acceptance and/or processing of any applications for data centers and other high resource demand facilities. Sec. IV term: 12 months after final adoption or until zoning amendments become effective, whichever first; extendable by resolution. Sec. VI: effective eight days after publication after adoption. ADOPTION: WGRT (Sept 24, 2026) reports the township board unanimously passed the moratorium 'this week'; Times Herald headline (Sept 22, 2026) says the township approved a 12-month moratorium. Township board met 2026-09-21 (Monday; agenda/minutes PDFs posted but image-only, not read). NOT ESTABLISHED: exact adoption date and vote, publication and effective dates, definition of 'high resource demand facilities'.","who_is_protected":"Port Huron Township residents","who_must_comply":"Applicants for data centers and other high-demand power users in Port Huron Township","citation":"Port Huron Charter Township (St. Clair County, Mich.) Ordinance #257","source_url":"https://www.porthurontownship.org/news/ordinance-254-dda-and-tifa-plan-renewal","source_title":"Ordinance #257 — Temporary Moratorium on Data Centers and Other High Resource Demand Facilities (Port Huron Charter Township, posted 8/18/2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Port Huron Township","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"mi-portage-dc-bess-moratorium-2026","title":"Portage, MI — City Council Moratorium on Data Centers and Battery Energy Storage Systems (Approved March 2026); Staff Warn an Extension May Be Needed","short_title":"Portage MI data center and BESS moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Portage, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Kalamazoo County","city":"Portage","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Portage's City Council approved a moratorium on data centers and battery energy storage systems in March 2026. WMUK reported it lasts through the end of 2026; WKZO calls it a one-year moratorium. In September, city staff told the council they have a model data center ordinance but must first finish an industrial and commercial rezoning plan, so the moratorium may need to be extended.","summary_technical":"Portage, Mich. (Kalamazoo County) — City Council moratorium covering data centers and battery energy storage systems (BESS). ADOPTION: approved by the council in March 2026 (WKZO: 'The clock started ticking ... in March, when it was approved'; WMUK report dated Mar 26, 2026). TERM CONFLICT: WMUK says it 'lasts through the end of 2026'; WKZO calls it a 'one-year moratorium'. expires_date left null. STATUS UPDATE (WKZO, Sept 23, 2026): City Development Officer Peter Dame presented the Planning Commission work plan on Sept 22; a model ordinance template exists but needs work; the industrial and commercial rezoning plan must be finished first; draft rezoning changes will take at least a couple of months; an extension may be needed. WKZO also reports the City of Kalamazoo has paused data centers and BESS. NOT ESTABLISHED: exact adoption date, ordinance number, expiry date.","who_is_protected":"Portage residents","who_must_comply":"Data center and BESS developers in Portage","citation":"Portage, Mich. City Council moratorium on data centers and BESS (March 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wmuk.org/wmuk-news/2026-03-26/portage-hits-pause-on-data-centers-and-bess-facilities","source_title":"Portage hits 'pause' on data centers and BESS facilities — WMUK (Mar. 26, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Portage","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"mi-saginaw-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026","title":"Saginaw, MI — City Council Unanimously Adopts Data Center Zoning Ordinance: Special Land Use in Industrial Districts, 500-Ft Residential Setback, 55 dB Noise Cap (September 2026)","short_title":"Saginaw MI data center zoning ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Saginaw, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Saginaw County","city":"Saginaw","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-09","enacted_date":"2026-09-28","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Saginaw's City Council approved rules for future data centers. Data centers will be allowed only as special land uses in light and general industrial districts with Planning Commission approval, generally at least 500 feet from homes, with noise capped at 55 decibels at the nearest residential property line. Developers must hold at least two neighborhood meetings and report expected water use, energy demand, wastewater and noise. The ordinance takes effect October 9, 2026; the city's existing moratorium on data centers stays in place through the end of 2026. No data centers are currently proposed in Saginaw.","summary_technical":"Saginaw, Michigan — data center zoning ordinance adopted 8-0 by City Council on Monday, Sept. 28, 2026 (Mayor Pro Tem Priscilla Garcia absent) (WSGW, Sept. 29: 'voted 8 – 0 Monday'; WNEM, published Sept. 29: 'approved a new ordinance Monday night'). Effective October 9, 2026 (WSGW 'It takes effect October 9'; WNEM: expected to be added to the code of ordinances). PROVISIONS: data centers are special land uses only in light-industrial and general-industrial districts, requiring Saginaw Planning Commission approval; generally at least 500 ft from homes and residential districts; noise not to exceed 55 dB at the nearest residential property line; at least two neighborhood meetings; developers must submit reports on water use, energy demand, wastewater, noise and other impacts. No data centers currently in development in the city (WNEM). Saginaw's separate data center moratorium remains in effect through the end of 2026 (its adoption date and terms are NOT established here; it is not in the dataset). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; penalties.","who_is_protected":"Saginaw residents, especially near industrial districts","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in the City of Saginaw","citation":"Saginaw, Mich., data center zoning ordinance (adopted Sept. 2026; effective Oct. 9, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wnem.com/2026/09/29/saginaw-approves-new-rules-future-data-centers-moratorium-nears-end/","source_title":"Saginaw approves new rules for future data centers as moratorium nears end — WNEM","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Saginaw Planning Commission / City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"mi-ypsilanti-city-dc-zoning-proposed-2026","title":"Ypsilanti, MI — Proposed Zoning Text Amendment Regulating Data Centers (Size Tiers, Special Land Use, Open-Loop Cooling Ban, Utility-Only Water) Presented to City Council (September 2026)","short_title":"Ypsilanti MI proposed data center zoning amendment (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Ypsilanti, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Washtenaw County","city":"Ypsilanti","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"The City of Ypsilanti is considering permanent zoning rules for data centers. The proposal creates three categories — accessory, small and large — with small and large data centers allowed only as special land uses; small ones are capped at 20,000 square feet, five megawatts and 20,000 gallons per day of cooling water. It would ban open-loop water cooling, require all water to come from the Ypsilanti Community Utilities Authority with no groundwater or surface-water withdrawals or discharges, set setbacks and design standards, require decommissioning and emergency plans, and lower allowed noise at night. The Planning Commission held a hearing in August and the council heard a presentation on September 15; a first reading has not yet occurred.","summary_technical":"Proposed zoning text amendment. Planning Commission public hearing 2026-08-19 (The Sun Times News). City Council presentation 2026-09-15 (Eastern Echo): tiers — accessory (subordinate/incidental), small (≤20,000 sq ft, ≤5 MW annually, ≤20,000 gal/day cooling water, ≥2.5 acres) and large (above thresholds, ≥5 acres), small/large as special land uses; setbacks 75 ft side/100 ft rear; 60% max lot coverage; 20% tree canopy at maturity; 40% windows/doors per elevation, no blank wall >50 ft; application must include draft development agreement, operations narrative, environmental site assessment, emergency operation plan, decommissioning plan; open-loop cooling prohibited; water only from YCUA; no groundwater/wetland/river/stream withdrawals or discharges; noise complaints may be checked by an acoustical study or decibel reading at the property line Councilor Amber Fellows: originally a first reading, now a presentation with more input sessions before first reading; ordinances need two readings. Next council meeting 2026-10-06. NOT ESTABLISHED: first-reading date; noise limits in decibels.","who_is_protected":"City of Ypsilanti residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in the City of Ypsilanti, if adopted","citation":"City of Ypsilanti, Mich. — proposed data center zoning text amendment (presented Sept. 15, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.easternecho.com/article/2026/09/ypsilanti-officials-consider-data-center-ordinance-proposal","source_title":"Ypsilanti officials consider data center ordinance proposal — The Eastern Echo","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Ypsilanti Planning / City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None — proposed"},{"id":"litig-eagan-capital-v-city-of-eagan-2026","title":"Eagan Capital, LLC v. City of Eagan (filed June 2026) — Lawsuit Seeking to Void Eagan's Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Eagan Capital v. City of Eagan (data center moratorium)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Eagan, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Dakota County","city":"Eagan","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"A Minnesota company, Eagan Capital, sued the City of Eagan in June 2026 to overturn the city's one-year data center moratorium. It argues the city is trying to regulate electricity use, which state law leaves to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, and that the moratorium is arbitrary. It asks the court to void the moratorium, bar enforcement and award more than $50,000. The city says the dispute began after it found unpermitted chiller units on the property and denied an interim use permit in May 2026; it has filed separate challenges to that decision too.","summary_technical":"Plaintiff: Eagan Capital, LLC. Defendant: City of Eagan. Filed June 15, 2026 (court and case number not reported in sources opened). Claims: (1) city exceeded delegated authority — PUC has exclusive authority to regulate electricity demand; (2) arbitrary and capricious — power usage not tied to planning, environment, water/wastewater or public health/safety. Relief: declaration moratorium void; injunction against enforcement; damages 'in excess of $50,000'. City statement: Eagan Capital applied for an Interim Use Permit after staff found temporary trailer-mounted chiller units installed and operating without permits; Council denied the IUP in May 2026; Eagan Capital has also sued over that land-use decision. Underlying measure: mn-eagan-dc-interim-ordinance-moratorium-2026. No ruling reported as of sources opened.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Eagan (if the moratorium is upheld)","who_must_comply":"The City of Eagan, Minnesota, which must defend its data center moratorium","citation":"Eagan Capital, LLC v. City of Eagan (Minnesota court, complaint filed June 15, 2026; court and case number not reported)","source_url":"https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/07/07/city-of-eagan-faces-lawsuit-over-data-center-moratorium","source_title":"City of Eagan faces lawsuit over data center moratorium — MPR News (July 7, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Minnesota state court (specific court and case number not identified in located sources)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $50,000"},{"id":"mn-eagan-dc-interim-ordinance-moratorium-2026","title":"Eagan, MN — City Council Unanimously Adopts One-Year Interim Ordinance (Moratorium) on Data Centers Over 20 MW or Within 500 Feet of Homes (February 2026)","short_title":"Eagan MN data center moratorium (Feb 2026 - Feb 2027)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Eagan, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Dakota County","city":"Eagan","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-02-17","enacted_date":"2026-02-17","expires_date":"2027-02-17","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Eagan, Minnesota adopted a one-year data center moratorium on February 17, 2026 by a unanimous City Council vote, the first hard pause on data centers in the state according to MPR News. It bars new data centers that would use more than 20 megawatts of electricity or be located within 500 feet of homes, and upgrades of existing data centers above 9 megawatts, through February 17, 2027 unless the council lifts it earlier. A data center owner, Eagan Capital, sued in June 2026 to void the moratorium. In September 2026 the city opened a survey and community session to shape permanent regulations.","summary_technical":"Interim ordinance passed unanimously Feb. 17, 2026 (CBS Minnesota). Text quoted by CBS from the city: 'no new data center may be located in Eagan within 500 feet of residential homes or use more than 20 megawatts of electricity through Feb. 17, 2027, unless the Council lifts the moratorium earlier.' Pioneer Press (Sept. 26): also halts upgrades to existing data centers above 9 MW. Purpose: study long-term impacts, design standards, zoning fit. Litigation: Eagan Capital, LLC complaint filed June 15, 2026 alleging the city lacks authority (PUC has exclusive authority over electricity demand) and acted arbitrarily; seeks declaration the moratorium is void, injunction, damages over $50,000 (see litig-eagan-capital-v-city-of-eagan-2026). Public input: Data Center Ordinance Community Input Session; survey closes Nov. 1, 2026. expires_date stated in the ordinance text as quoted. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; whether the 20 MW and 500-ft criteria are alternative or cumulative (CBS quotes 'within 500 feet ... or use more than 20 megawatts'; MPR describes projects using >20 MW within 500 ft of homes). last_action_date is the report date of the input-session article.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Eagan, Minnesota, especially those within 500 feet of proposed data centers","who_must_comply":"Developers of new data centers (>20 MW or within 500 ft of homes) and owners upgrading existing data centers above 9 MW in Eagan","citation":"City of Eagan, Minnesota — interim ordinance (data center moratorium), adopted Feb. 17, 2026, through Feb. 17, 2027","source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/lawsuit-filed-eagan-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Lawsuit filed against Eagan asks court to void city's data center moratorium — CBS Minnesota (July 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Eagan","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"mn-harmony-dc-ordinance-proposed-2026","title":"Harmony, Minnesota — Sixth Draft of a Data Center Ordinance (Closed-Loop Cooling, Annual Noise Studies, NDA Ban, 400-Foot Agricultural Setback) Sent to Planning & Zoning for a Public Hearing (September 2026)","short_title":"Harmony MN proposed data center ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Harmony, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Fillmore County","city":"Harmony","topics":["data-centers","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"The small city of Harmony, Minnesota is drafting its first data center ordinance. The sixth draft, reviewed September 16, 2026, would require closed-loop cooling and annual noise studies to show compliance with state pollution-control noise standards, bar nondisclosure agreements so applications are public, cap building height at 40 feet, require a 400-foot setback from agricultural property lines and make developers pay compliance-monitoring costs. The draft goes to a Planning & Zoning public hearing and then to the City Council for final consideration.","summary_technical":"Harmony, Minn. (Fillmore County) — draft 6 reviewed 2026-09-16 by the combined City Council, EDA and P&Z (Fillmore County Journal; KTTC). PROVISIONS (FCJ): max height 40 ft (down from 60); no shipping-container construction; 400-ft minimum setback from agricultural property lines; 3D acoustic model and annual noise studies for MPCA compliance; third-party soils/geotechnical study; developer bears monitoring costs; city may set violation fines; no NDAs. WATER — SOURCES DIFFER: FCJ says water permitted only for initial closed-loop startup and maintenance with no ongoing operational use; KTTC reports a 60,000-gallon monthly cooling cap absent special approval. HEARING — SOURCES DIFFER: KTTC says P&Z public hearing Oct. 14; FCJ says rescheduled to Wednesday Oct. 28, 2026, 6 p.m. City attorney: 'the beginning of the discussion – not the end.' NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; any specific project (KTTC mentions a 'technological park').","who_is_protected":"Harmony residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Harmony (if adopted)","citation":"City of Harmony, Minn., draft data center ordinance (draft 6, Sept. 16, 2026)","source_url":"https://fillmorecountyjournal.com/harmony-data-center-ordinance-sent-to-pz-and-public-hearing/","source_title":"Harmony Data Center Ordinance Sent to P&Z and Public Hearing — Fillmore County Journal","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Harmony","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"mn-minneapolis-av-safety-monitor-ordinance-2026","title":"Minneapolis, MN — Proposed Ordinance Requiring Paid Human Safety Monitors in Driverless Rideshare Vehicles (September 2026)","short_title":"Minneapolis robotaxi safety-monitor ordinance (proposed 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Minneapolis, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Hennepin County","city":"Minneapolis","topics":["autonomous-vehicles","employment","consumer-protection"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"A proposed Minneapolis ordinance would require a human safety monitor in the driver's seat of driverless rideshare vehicles (robotaxis) such as Waymo and Zoox. The monitor would need a driver's license and would have to be paid at least minimum pay rates. The City Council's Committee of the Whole advanced it 7-4 on September 29, 2026, and a final council vote was set for October 1, 2026. Mayor Jacob Frey has called it a 'back-door ban' and is expected to veto it; if passed, it would not take effect until October 2027.","summary_technical":"Committee of the Whole vote 2026-09-29: 7-4. Yes: Wonsley, Osman, Chughtai, Chavez, Payne, Chowdhury, Stevenson. No: Warren, Vetaw, Palmisano, Rainville. Absent: Shaffer (voiced opposition), Whiting. Final vote scheduled Thursday 2026-10-01 (MPR). Requirements reported: human safety monitor in driverless rideshare vehicles; monitor must hold a driver's license and be paid minimum wage/minimum pay rates. Delayed effect: would not take effect until October 2027 (per both sources). Veto: Mayor Frey expected to veto; nine of 13 votes needed to override. MPR notes it is unclear whether local governments have legal authority to regulate AVs; Minnesota legislature failed to pass statewide AV regulation in spring 2026. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance file number, final vote outcome, exact text, enforcement and penalty provisions.","who_is_protected":"Rideshare drivers in Minneapolis (job protection) and riders/public","who_must_comply":"Operators of autonomous (driverless) rideshare vehicles in Minneapolis, e.g. Waymo, Zoox","citation":"Minneapolis City Council, proposed ordinance requiring human safety monitors in autonomous rideshare vehicles (Committee of the Whole 7-4, Sept. 29, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/10/01/waymo-robotaxi-regulation-up-for-minneapolis-city-council-vote","source_title":"Minneapolis City Council to vote on robotaxi regulation Thursday — MPR News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"mn-north-mankato-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"North Mankato, MN — City Council Unanimously Adopts 12-Month Moratorium and Study on Data Centers Over 150,000 Sq Ft or 50,000 Gallons/Day (September 21, 2026)","short_title":"North Mankato MN 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"North Mankato, MN","state_abbr":"MN","city":"North Mankato","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-21","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"North Mankato's City Council voted unanimously on September 21, 2026 to pause data centers for 12 months. During that time no new data centers may be built and the city will not accept, review, process or approve applications. The ordinance covers facilities larger than 150,000 square feet and/or using 50,000 gallons of water a day or more, and orders a study of local impacts and how other communities regulate data centers. KEYC reports the moratorium can be renewed for another year.","summary_technical":"City of North Mankato, Minnesota — interim moratorium ordinance adopted UNANIMOUSLY Monday Sept. 21, 2026 following a public hearing (the second; the council tabled the item on Aug. 3, 2026 after a first hearing — KEYC). TERM: 12 months (Mankato Free Press); KEYC: 'up to twelve months, with the option to renew the moratorium for an additional year'. SCOPE: no new data center construction; city will not accept, review, process or approve applications. DEFINITION: 'a building or other facility used principally for the storage, management, processing and/or transmission of digital data ... and exceeds 150,000 square feet and/or 50,000 gallons of water per day or more.' STUDY: authorizes a study of 'relevant localized impacts and how other communities regulate them.' City Attorney Michael Kennedy noted the legislature is considering a statewide moratorium. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; effective date (publication) — effective_date left null; expires_date left null.","who_is_protected":"North Mankato residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in North Mankato","citation":"City of North Mankato, MN — data center moratorium ordinance (Sept. 21, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.mankatofreepress.com/news/north-mankato-city-council-passes-12-month-moratorium-on-data-center-construction/article_1f5228e5-e8eb-4177-9363-a7b84f233b57.html","source_title":"North Mankato City Council passes 12-month moratorium on data center construction — Mankato Free Press","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of North Mankato","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"mn-woodbury-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Woodbury, MN — City Council Unanimously Adopts One-Year Interim Ordinance (Moratorium) on New and Expanded Data Centers and Other High-Volume Infrastructure Users, With Study (September 23, 2026)","short_title":"Woodbury MN 1-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Woodbury, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Washington County","city":"Woodbury","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-23","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"On September 23, 2026, Woodbury's mayor and all four council members approved a moratorium of up to one year on new data centers and on expanding existing ones beyond current approvals, along with other 'high-volume public infrastructure users,' while the city studies water use, electricity demand, noise and zoning. It blocks rezonings, comprehensive plan amendments, conditional use permits, variances and building and other city permits for such projects, and covers proposed water or sewer users that would be among the city's largest. It cannot apply retroactively to existing approvals. The city has three existing data centers and no pending applications; staff expect initial findings in early 2027.","summary_technical":"Interim ordinance adopted unanimously (Mayor Burt + 4 council members) on Wednesday 2026-09-23. Scope: applications to establish or expand data centers; related rezonings, comp plan amendments, CUPs, variances; amended at the meeting to include building permits and other city permits (electrical, right-of-way work); also proposed water/sewer users whose annual consumption would place them among the city's largest users (WNN). Term: in effect for one year unless the council decides otherwise; takes effect on adoption and publication; may end early on repeal or adoption of replacement rules. City attorney Kevin Sandstrom: no retroactive operation — existing facilities (IronGate at 401 and 500 Bielenberg Drive; Medtronic at 515 Bielenberg Drive) may use existing permitted capacity. Proactive, not project-driven. Initial study findings expected early 2027, then Planning Commission review. expires_date null because the one-year term runs from publication, whose date was not found. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; publication/effective date.","who_is_protected":"Woodbury residents and water/electric ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers/operators and other high-volume infrastructure users seeking new or expanded approvals","citation":"City of Woodbury, Minn. — interim ordinance (moratorium) on data centers and high-volume infrastructure users (adopted Sept. 23, 2026)","source_url":"https://woodburynewsnet.org/8110/business/woodbury-approves-data-center-moratorium-after-questions-about-water-power/","source_title":"Woodbury Approves Data Center Moratorium After Questions About Water, Power — Woodbury News Net","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Woodbury Community Development / City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"mo-kirksville-dc-zoning-ordinance-proposed-2026","title":"Kirksville, MO — Planning and Zoning Commission Recommends Data Center Rules: M-2 Only by Special Use Permit, 250,000 sq ft Cap, 500-ft Residential Buffer, Closed-Loop Cooling, No Tax Incentives (September 2026)","short_title":"Kirksville MO proposed data center zoning ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Kirksville, MO","state_abbr":"MO","county":"Adair County","city":"Kirksville","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Kirksville's Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended new zoning rules for data centers. They would only be allowed in the heavy industrial (M-2) district with a special use permit, capped at 250,000 square feet, and kept at least 500 feet from homes. The rules also require closed-loop or similarly water-efficient cooling, ban well or surface water use, set noise limits, bar city tax incentives, and require a bonded decommissioning plan. The City Council will hold a study session October 19 and is expected to act October 26, 2026.","summary_technical":"Proposed amendments to Chapter 44 (zoning) of the Kirksville, MO municipal code, recommended unanimously by roll call at a special P&Z meeting/public hearing on Wednesday, Sept. 16, 2026 (Kirksville Daily Express, published Sun. Sept. 20, 2026; KDE's Sept. 2 preview headline names the Sept. 16 special meeting; KTVO also reports the Wednesday meeting and referral to council). Terms: data centers and manufactured engineered non-residential units allowed only in M-2 with a non-transferable SUP in the owner's name; max 250,000 sq ft (added by amendment); height cap 75 ft incl. rooftop equipment; 50-ft setbacks; facility and mechanical equipment >=500 ft from any residential district or use; energy consumption/grid impact study with written verification from the power provider; alternative generation treated as a separate use; closed-loop or comparably water-efficient cooling only; no water from on-site wells or surface sources; Tier 4 emergency generators, testing 7 a.m.-5 p.m.; noise 55 dB at property line daytime, 40 dB continuous at night, minus 5 dB for pure tones; sound/vibration studies at four stages; annual (minimum) reporting with independent review; pre-application public meeting and 30-day comment period for all data centers; waste disposal adequacy; no city-led tax incentive, abatement or special taxing district; decommissioning plan with 125% financial guarantee updated every three years; abandonment after six months inactivity; server rooms under 1 MW exempt as accessory use. Council study session Oct 19; action expected Oct 26, 2026. Commission rejected an outright ban citing legal liability. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance/bill number; final council text. Background: in July 2026 the City Council passed a resolution of intent to set zoning standards for data centers (KTVO/KDE, July 2026 — not separately entered). Petition provision: council/commission may approve over a verified protest petition of a majority of owners within 185 ft only by two-thirds vote.","who_is_protected":"Kirksville residents and nearby property owners","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and property owners in Kirksville","citation":"Kirksville, MO proposed Chapter 44 zoning amendments for data centers (P&Z recommendation, Sept. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kirksvilledailyexpress.com/stories/kirksville-commission-sends-data-center-zoning-rules-to-city-council,32747","source_title":"Kirksville commission sends data center zoning rules to City Council — Kirksville Daily Express","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Kirksville (planning/codes); City Council (SUP approval)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"litig-406-people-first-butte-silver-bow-dc-initiative-2026","title":"406 People First v. Butte-Silver Bow — Montana Supreme Court Orders Data Center Voter-Approval Initiative (Local Initiative 00-02) Onto November Ballot, Then Vacates Two Days Later Because Ballots Were Already Mailed (September 2026)","short_title":"Butte-Silver Bow data center initiative ballot litigation (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Butte-Silver Bow, MT","state_abbr":"MT","county":"Silver Bow County","city":"Butte","topics":["data-centers","elections"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"A Butte citizens' group, 406 People First, gathered more than the 3,652 signatures needed for a local initiative that would bar any authorization to build or expand a data center in Butte-Silver Bow without voter approval. The county elections office first certified the signatures, then said a new state law moved the deadline earlier, which knocked the measure off the ballot. A district judge sided with the county on August 28, 2026. On September 22 the Montana Supreme Court ordered the measure onto the November ballot, but on September 24 it vacated that order after learning ballots had already been mailed and in some cases returned. The initiative will not be on the November 2026 ballot; a later rehearing request was denied (reported September 26).","summary_technical":"Butte-Silver Bow, Montana — LOCAL INITIATIVE 00-02 would prohibit 'any necessary authorization to construct or expand any data center within the city-county' without voter approval. PROPONENTS: Denise Kelly / 406 People First (counsel John Meyer per KBZK). DISPUTE: county told proponents signatures were due Aug. 14; on Aug. 10 the elections administrator said the deadline was July 13, applying 2025's SB 11 (signatures due four weeks before ballot certification). DISTRICT COURT: Judge Frank Joseph issued a TRO Aug. 12, 2026, then ruled for the city-county Aug. 28, 2026. MONTANA SUPREME COURT: order filed Tuesday Sept. 22, 2026 granted an injunction pending appeal requiring the initiative on the November ballot ('The latter is the greater evil'); on Thursday Sept. 24, 2026, in a five-page order, the court VACATED the injunction because absentee/mail ballots had been printed, mailed and some returned, stating state ballot statutes provide 'no remedy' and calling the situation 'entirely avoidable'. Proponents filed an emergency petition for reconsideration; KBZK 'UPDATE 9/26' reports rehearing was DENIED ('Proponents have not demonstrated that exceptional circumstances exist...'); the order's own date is not stated (Sept. 26, 2026 is a Saturday, so it is the update date). Merits of the deadline appeal not resolved in located sources. A parallel Yellowstone County initiative faced the same deadline problem (Daily Montanan).","who_is_protected":"Butte-Silver Bow voters (initiative rights)","who_must_comply":"Butte-Silver Bow City-County elections office (Clerk and Recorder Cynthia Sherman)","citation":"406 People First and Denise Kelly v. Butte-Silver Bow (Mont. Sup. Ct., orders of Sept. 22 and Sept. 24, 2026) — Local Initiative 00-02","source_url":"https://dailymontanan.com/2026/09/25/montana-supreme-court-vacates-decision-to-put-butte-data-center-issue-to-voters/","source_title":"Montana Supreme Court vacates decision to put Butte data center issue to voters — Daily Montanan","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Montana Supreme Court; Montana Second Judicial District Court (Butte-Silver Bow)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None"},{"id":"mt-missoula-city-dc-definition-amendment-2026","title":"Missoula, MT — City Council Final Vote Oct. 5 on Zoning Code Amendment Redefining Data Centers as Standalone Server Facilities (Industrial 2 Only) (2026)","short_title":"Missoula MT data center zoning definition amendment (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Missoula, MT","state_abbr":"MT","county":"Missoula County","city":"Missoula","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-10-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"The City of Missoula is set to vote October 5, 2026 on a zoning code amendment that clarifies what counts as a data center: essentially a standalone building whose main purpose is housing servers and telecommunications equipment. Such standalone data centers would be allowed only in the Industrial 2 zoning district, which is not currently on the zoning map, so any project would need a rezoning by the City Council. In-house server rooms in office buildings would still be allowed. The city's planning commission approved the change as part of a package of development code updates.","summary_technical":"Unified Development Code amendment. Current definition: a data center if equipment occupies the majority of floor area (planners found it unworkable). Proposed: standalone building whose primary purpose is housing servers/telecom equipment; permitted only in Industrial 2 (I-2), which is not mapped anywhere in the city, so a rezoning through City Council would be required; accessory in-house server space permitted. Planning manager Cassie Tripard. The Missoulian (Fri. Sept. 18, 2026, 'Missoula closes data center loophole') reported the planning commission on 'Wednesday night' (= Wed. Sept. 16, 2026) approved UDC changes 'highlighted by a tweak to its data center' rules, needing council approval; an Aug. 24 Missoulian headline describes the tweak as making data centers harder to build as a second use. Final council vote Oct. 5, 2026 (KPAX). Related: missoula-county-mt-dc-interim-zoning-moratorium-2026 (county, excludes city). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number.","who_is_protected":"Missoula residents","who_must_comply":"Proponents of standalone data centers in the City of Missoula","citation":"Missoula, MT — Unified Development Code data center definition amendment (council vote Oct. 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://nbcmontana.com/news/local/missoula-approves-amendments-to-udc-to-address-ai-definition-garage-zoning","source_title":"City of Missoula looking to amend zoning code to better define data centers — KPAX","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Missoula Community Planning, Development and Innovation","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"nc-davidson-county-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Davidson County, NC — Commissioners Vote 4-2 to Set Oct. 26 Public Hearing on a Four-Month Data Center Moratorium (September 2026)","short_title":"Davidson County NC 4-month data center moratorium (proposed, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Davidson County, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Davidson County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Davidson County commissioners voted 4-2 to hold a public hearing on October 26, 2026 on a four-month pause on data centers. A six-month version had died on a 3-3 vote on August 24. No data center has been proposed in the county, and county planning staff are drafting zoning rules for where data centers could go. The moratorium itself still needs a vote after the hearing.","summary_technical":"Davidson County, North Carolina — Board of Commissioners, meeting Monday, Sept. 28, 2026 (WFDD caption dates the meeting Sept. 28). Motion to set an Oct. 26, 2026 public hearing on a FOUR-MONTH data center moratorium passed 4-2: YES — Tripp Kester, Matt Mizell, Chris Elliott, Steve Shook (newly appointed in place of the late Fred McClure); NO — Chairwoman Karen Watford, Steve Shell; Todd Yates absent. Kester reduced his request from six to four months as a compromise. PRIOR: Aug. 24, 2026 a six-month moratorium died 3-3 after a public hearing; Mizell first proposed a moratorium in July. Planning and Zoning Director Lee Crook's staff are drafting data center regulations. County Attorney Adam Jones said the board must hold the Oct. 26 hearing before any moratorium can be imposed (Davidson Local). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance text, scope beyond 'data centers'.","who_is_protected":"Davidson County, NC residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Davidson County jurisdiction (if adopted)","citation":"Davidson County, N.C., Board of Commissioners — public hearing set Oct. 26, 2026 on 4-month data center moratorium","source_url":"https://www.the-dispatch.com/news/business/four-month-data-center-pause-in-davidson-county-advances-amid-divide/article_50632f49-d2f9-502a-8713-f12ca56f9ed9.html","source_title":"Four-month data center pause in Davidson County advances amid divide — The Dispatch","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Davidson County Board of Commissioners; Planning and Zoning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not applicable (proposed)"},{"id":"nc-guilford-county-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Guilford County, North Carolina — Commissioners Set an October 15 Hearing on an Ordinance Imposing a 180-Day Moratorium on Development Approvals for New Data Centers (September 2026)","short_title":"Guilford County NC proposed 180-day data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Guilford County, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Guilford County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Guilford County commissioners voted unanimously on September 17, 2026 to hold a public hearing on October 15 on an ordinance imposing a moratorium of up to 180 days on development approvals for new data centers. Data centers are not currently defined in the county's zoning ordinance, and no data center application is pending. County staff propose a text amendment adding data centers as a permitted use in heavy industrial districts, with design standards for size, height, setbacks and noise and lighting screening.","summary_technical":"Guilford County, N.C. Board of Commissioners voted unanimously on Thursday 2026-09-17 (High Point Enterprise, published Sept 18: 'on Thursday') to set a public hearing for Thursday 2026-10-15, 5:30 p.m., Board of Commissioners Meeting Room, Old Courthouse, 301 W. Market St., Greensboro (WXII, updated Sept 29) on an ordinance to impose a proposed moratorium of up to 180 days on development approvals for new data centers. Context: data centers are not defined in the county development ordinance; no data center application pending; staff propose a text amendment adding data centers as a permitted use in heavy industrial districts with design standards (size, height, setbacks, noise and lighting screening). Commissioner Carly Cooke supported a pause. Separate from Greensboro's city moratorium (nc-greensboro-dc-moratorium-2026). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance text, exemptions, MW threshold.","who_is_protected":"Guilford County residents (unincorporated jurisdiction)","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking county development approvals (if adopted)","citation":"Guilford County, N.C., proposed 180-day data center moratorium ordinance (hearing Oct. 15, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wxii12.com/article/guilford-county-board-of-commissioners-to-consider-moratorium-on-data-centers/73938588","source_title":"Guilford County Board of Commissioners to consider moratorium on data centers — WXII 12","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Guilford County Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"nc-raleigh-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Raleigh, NC — City Council to Hold Public Hearing and Possible Vote Oct. 6 on a Six-Month Moratorium on Data Centers Over 10,000 Square Feet (2026)","short_title":"Raleigh NC proposed 6-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Raleigh, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Wake County","city":"Raleigh","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-06","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Raleigh's City Council is considering a six-month pause on new data centers larger than 10,000 square feet, with a public hearing and possible vote set for October 6, 2026. Mayor Janet Cowell announced the proposal after a closed session with city attorneys, following a withdrawn annexation request tied to a planned data center on Jones Sausage Road. Existing facilities would not be affected. During the pause, the city would study rules on noise, vibration, water use, cooling and power demand. If adopted in October, the moratorium would last until April.","summary_technical":"Announced Tuesday Sept. 15, 2026 by Mayor Janet Cowell after a closed session; council directed attorneys to draft for the Oct. 6, 2026 7 p.m. meeting with a public hearing (N&O; ABC11). Scope: data centers larger than 10,000 sq ft; existing facilities unaffected; six months, lasting until April if adopted in October (N&O). Rationale: Jones Sausage Road annexation for a 100,000-sq-ft data center submitted and withdrawn mid-August; data centers currently allowed on industrially zoned land only with a Board of Adjustment special-use permit. Study topics: noise (property-line decibel limits), vibration, water consumption, cooling technologies, grid demand. Context (N&O): residents cited moratoria in Cary and Durham; Durham County adopted a nine-month moratorium. The City of Raleigh also issued a news release (Sept. 24, 2026) titled 'City Council to Hold Public Hearing on Temporary Moratorium for Data Center Approvals' — it could not be opened (HTTP 403/404). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance text/number; grandfathering of pending applications.","who_is_protected":"Raleigh residents","who_must_comply":"Proponents of data centers over 10,000 sq ft in Raleigh (if adopted)","citation":"Raleigh, NC — Proposed six-month data center moratorium (hearing/vote Oct. 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article317258372.html","source_title":"Raleigh to consider 6-month moratorium on data centers. Here's what's driving it. — The News & Observer","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Raleigh","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"ne-custer-county-dc-zoning-regs-proposed-2026","title":"Custer County, NE — Proposed Data Center Zoning Regulations (Community Benefits Agreements, Power Interruption, 12-Month Abandonment Rule) Sent to Supervisors as Six-Month Moratorium Ends (September 2026)","short_title":"Custer County NE proposed data center regulations (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Custer County, NE","state_abbr":"NE","county":"Custer County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Custer County's Planning Commission unanimously recommended new zoning rules for data centers in rural parts of the county. The rules would require community benefits agreements (mandatory under state law for data centers of 10 megawatts or more), let the local public power district cut or reduce a data center's power when needed, and treat a facility as abandoned after 12 months without operations. The county supervisors held a hearing on Sept. 29, 2026 and plan to vote at their next meeting. A six-month county data center moratorium was reported to expire at the end of September 2026.","summary_technical":"Planning Commission (Broken Bow) unanimously approved amended data center zoning regulations and recommended them to the Board of Supervisors at a public hearing on Wed. Sept. 23, 2026 (Rural Radio Network; Sandhills Express, both published Sept. 23 'Wednesday'). Provisions reported: apply only to rural (unincorporated) areas; community benefits agreements covering road/infrastructure improvements, emergency response funding, public safety training, utility impacts, water/wastewater and environmental monitoring, decommissioning; per both outlets, Nebraska LB 1010 requires a CBA for data centers with peak demand of 10 MW or more, and per Sandhills Express the county could also require one below 10 MW; abandonment after 12 consecutive months without data processing operations, with decommissioning; Custer Public Power may suspend, interrupt or reduce electrical service (irrigation priority during load control per Sandhills Express); closed-loop cooling emphasized to protect the Ogallala Aquifer; setbacks and noise standards (distances not reported). Supervisors' public hearing Tues. Sept. 29, 2026 (Sandhills Express: 'Tuesday morning', published Sept. 29): no public comment, no vote; RRN: voting planned for the board's next meeting; Sandhills Express: resolution at an upcoming meeting. RRN: a six-month county data center moratorium expires at the end of September 2026 (adoption date not verified here). Planning Commission also recommended a 12-month battery energy storage moratorium. NOT ESTABLISHED: exact setback/noise figures; vote date.","who_is_protected":"Rural Custer County residents, groundwater and electric ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers in unincorporated Custer County","citation":"Custer County, NE — proposed data center zoning regulations (Planning Commission recommendation Sept. 23, 2026; Supervisors hearing Sept. 29, 2026)","source_url":"https://ruralradio.com/kbear/news/data-center-regulations-advance-to-custer-county-supervisors/","source_title":"Data Center Regulations Advance to Custer County Supervisors — Rural Radio Network","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Custer County Board of Supervisors; county zoning administrator","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"nj-montclair-schools-genai-policy-proposed-2026","title":"Montclair, NJ — Board of Education Advances Generative AI Acceptable-Use Policy Barring AI for Pre-K–8 Students (September 2026)","short_title":"Montclair Public Schools generative AI policy (first reading 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Montclair, NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","county":"Essex County","city":"Montclair","topics":["education","children","deepfakes","privacy"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Montclair Public Schools introduced a draft policy on student use of generative AI. Students in pre-K through eighth grade would be barred from using AI except for narrow, superintendent-approved exceptions; high school students could use it only under conditions teachers set for each assignment, and parents or guardians must consent before any student uses AI for classwork. The policy also lists prohibited uses, including passing off AI work as one's own, creating misinformation or deepfakes, misusing confidential student or staff data, and using AI to harass or bully. The board approved a first reading in September 2026, with a second reading expected in October.","summary_technical":"Two draft policies introduced at the board's September 2026 public workshop: (1) generative AI acceptable-use policy; (2) educational technology/personal device policy (grade-specific Chromebook expectations K-8; no personal devices for grade 2 and below; sparing use grades 3-5). AI policy per draft quoted by Montclair Local: pre-K-8 prohibition except 'narrow, superintendent-approved, research-supported exceptions'; high school use permitted with limits stated by teachers at time of assignment; parental/guardian consent required; prohibited uses: misrepresenting AI-generated work, creating misinformation or deepfakes, misusing confidential student/staff data, harassment/bullying. First reading approved September 2026 (Superintendent Turner remarks at Sept. 16 meeting); second reading likely at October workshop per district communications director Eshaya Draper. NOT ESTABLISHED: exact first-reading date, policy number, October meeting date, final adoption.","who_is_protected":"Montclair Public Schools students","who_must_comply":"Montclair Public Schools students, teachers and staff","citation":"Montclair Board of Education, draft generative AI acceptable-use policy (first reading, Sept. 2026)","source_url":"https://montclairlocal.news/2026/09/montclair-school-officials-introduce-policies-limiting-ai-technology-use-in-classrooms/","source_title":"Montclair School Officials Introduce Policies Limiting AI, Technology Use in Classrooms — Montclair Local (Sept. 28, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Montclair Public Schools / Montclair Board of Education","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"nj-newark-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Newark, NJ — City Council Adopts Non-Binding Resolution Supporting a 12-Month Data Center Moratorium; Councilman Patrick Council Introduces a One-Year Moratorium Ordinance Referred Through the Planning Board (September 2026)","short_title":"Newark NJ proposed one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Newark, NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","county":"Essex County","city":"Newark","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Newark's City Council voted on September 9, 2026 for a resolution supporting a 12-month moratorium on developing or expanding data centers, and approved a referral to the city planning board on implementing it. The resolution itself does not change city code. It calls for future requirements protecting residents from higher utility costs and requiring water-efficient cooling such as closed-loop chillers. Separately, South Ward Councilman Patrick Council introduced an ordinance that would bar new data center applications, permits, licenses, conditional uses, rezonings and certificates of occupancy for facilities over 5,000 square feet for one year while city agencies study impacts; that ordinance must first go through planning board review.","summary_technical":"Resolution (sponsor Ald. Anibal Ramos Jr., North Ward) passed at the Sept. 9, 2026 council meeting: supports a 12-month moratorium on development or expansion of data centers; notes data centers are currently permitted in the Industrial, Airport and Port Area Districts under Table 4-3 (41:4-3) of Title 41; calls for applicant requirements to protect residents against utility-cost increases (including infrastructure investment) and for closed-loop chillers/water-efficient cooling; council also approved a referral to the planning board regarding implementation. Ordinance (sponsor Councilman Patrick Council, South Ward): 'An ordinance amending Title 41, Zoning and Land Use Regulations ... to establish a one year moratorium on the development of data centers in the City of Newark, and to amend the definition of data center'; would bar acceptance of applications, permits, licenses, conditional use requests, rezoning petitions or certificates of occupancy for data centers larger than 5,000 sq ft; central planning board, environmental commission, housing department and administration to study and report before expiry. Per Patrick Council, the ordinance was returned to the administration because a resolution referring it to the planning board must come first. Advocacy context: South Ward Environmental Alliance and Ironbound Community Corporation campaign for a one-year moratorium. NOT ESTABLISHED: vote count on the resolution; ordinance number; first-reading date. The Sept. 9 resolution is independently confirmed by Insider NJ (Sept. 9, 2026: 'The Municipal Council today approved a resolution sponsored by Ramos expressing support for a temporary moratorium'; calls on the Baraka administration to develop applicant requirements). Ordinance details (5,000 sq ft threshold, study bodies, return to administration) rest on Patch alone. Note: TAPinto's headline 'Newark Sets 12-Month Moratorium...' overstates the non-binding resolution; no binding moratorium is in force.","who_is_protected":"Newark residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Applicants for data centers over 5,000 sq ft in Newark (if the ordinance is adopted)","citation":"Newark, NJ — Council resolution supporting 12-month data center moratorium (Sept. 9, 2026) and proposed one-year moratorium ordinance amending Title 41","source_url":"https://patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/proposed-data-center-ban-newark-moving-along-councilman-says","source_title":"Proposed Data Center Ban In Newark Is Moving Along, Councilman Says — Patch (Sept. 29, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Newark (Central Planning Board; administration)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"nm-grant-county-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Grant County, NM — Commissioners Approve Notice of Intent to Consider a One-Year Data Center Moratorium (September 2026)","short_title":"Grant County NM 1-year data center moratorium (proposed 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Grant County, NM","state_abbr":"NM","county":"Grant County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Grant County, New Mexico commissioners voted to move toward a one-year pause on data center development. On September 24, 2026 they approved a notice of intent to consider the moratorium, which Commissioner Nancy Stephens proposed and modeled on Socorro County's resolution. The full measure is set to be considered on October 8, 2026. The move follows residents' alarm over a little-publicized data center planned by Site Layer 1 LLC near Hachita and Playas.","summary_technical":"Notice of intent approved Sept. 24, 2026 (Commissioner Tom Shelley sole dissent; full tally not reported). Proposed term: one year. Model: Socorro County resolution. Hearing/consideration date: Oct. 8, 2026 (Santa Fe New Mexican/Searchlight NM; Grant County website calendar lists a Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Thu, Oct 8). Context: Site Layer 1 LLC data center proposal on the rural southern edge of the county near Hachita and Playas, disclosed via an Aug. 27 legal notice for an air quality permit; NM Environment Secretary James Kenney sent the developers a Sept. 18 letter expressing 'disappointment' over lack of community engagement. NOT ESTABLISHED: resolution/ordinance text, scope (new applications vs permits), final vote.","who_is_protected":"Grant County, NM residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Grant County, NM","citation":"Grant County (NM) Board of Commissioners, notice of intent to consider one-year data center moratorium (Sept. 24, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/one-southern-mexico-county-eyes-035900457.html","source_title":"One Southern New Mexico county eyes big incentives for data center as another mulls a block — Searchlight New Mexico / Santa Fe New Mexican (via Yahoo), Sept. 25, 2026","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Grant County Board of Commissioners"},{"id":"nm-raton-dc-moratorium-resolution-rejected-2026","title":"Raton, NM — City Commission Votes 3-2 Against a One-Year Data Center Moratorium Resolution Despite a 477-Signature Petition (failed to pass, September 2026)","short_title":"Raton NM data center moratorium (rejected, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Raton, NM","state_abbr":"NM","county":"Colfax County","city":"Raton","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Raton's City Commission voted 3-2 in September 2026 against a resolution that would have imposed a one-year moratorium on business licenses and zoning approvals for data centers while the city drafts a data center ordinance. Before the vote a resident submitted a petition with 477 signatures opposing data centers. Commissioners voting no said the city-owned electric and water utilities already limit what a data center could get, raised concerns about legality and existing data centers, and said an ordinance is the better way to regulate. This entry records a measure that did NOT pass; no moratorium is in effect in Raton.","summary_technical":"NON-ADOPTION RECORD. Resolution: temporary ONE-YEAR moratorium on issuance of business licenses and zoning approvals for data centers, pending adoption of a regulatory ordinance (KRTN). FAILED 3-2 (KRTN): NO — Commissioner Dan (Daniel) Campbell, Mayor Pro-Tem Mark Honeyfield, Mayor Lori Chatterley; YES — Commissioners Lindé Schuster (moved) and Sally Hoger (seconded). Campbell cited Raton Public Service / Raton Water Works safeguards and limited generation and surface water, and did not want Raton to be the first NM municipality to pass one; Honeyfield cited existing facilities (CenturyLink) and lack of legal review; Chatterley said an ordinance is the best way to regulate and noted the earlier MOU with Atterix. City Manager Segotta: staff not involved in final preparation of the document. Petition submitted during public comment by resident Kimberly/Kimberle Burke with 477 qualifying signatures (KRTN; CPR: 'hundreds'). CPR: Colfax County passed its own moratorium the prior month, which does not apply in incorporated Raton. NOT ESTABLISHED: exact meeting date (KRTN article dated 2026-09-22), resolution number, ordinance timeline.","who_is_protected":"N/A — measure failed","who_must_comply":"N/A — measure failed","citation":"Raton, N.M., City Commission — one-year data center moratorium resolution, failed 3-2 (Sept. 2026)","source_url":"https://krtnradio.com/2026/09/22/raton-city-commission-turns-down-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Raton City Commission Turns Down Data Center Moratorium — KRTN (Sept. 22, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Raton","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"N/A — measure failed"},{"id":"litig-killinger-v-reno-facial-recognition-arrest-2026","title":"Killinger v. Jager (D. Nev. No. 3:25-cv-00388) — Wrongful-arrest suit against Reno and a Reno officer over a casino facial recognition match; Innocence Project and ACLU seek to file amicus brief (2026)","short_title":"Killinger v. Jager / Reno facial recognition arrest suit","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Reno, NV","state_abbr":"NV","county":"Washoe County","city":"Reno","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Truck driver Jason Killinger is suing the City of Reno and a Reno police officer in federal court after he was arrested in 2023 when the Peppermill casino's facial recognition system wrongly matched him to someone banned from the casino, even though he showed a Real ID driver's license. The suit alleges Reno police failed to train officers on facial recognition's limits. In September 2026 the Innocence Project and the ACLU filed a proposed friend-of-the-court brief supporting Killinger's motion for judgment, and a filing by his attorneys alleges Peppermill-driven trespass arrests involve nearly 1,000 people a year.","summary_technical":"Killinger v. Jager, No. 3:25-cv-00388 (D. Nev.), filed 2025-07-30, nature of suit 440 Civil Rights: Other; assigned to U.S. District Judge Miranda M. Du, referred to Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (CourtListener docket). Defendants: Officer R. Jager and the City of Reno; ACLU, ACLU of Nevada and Innocence Project appear as parties/amici on the docket. Claim theory includes municipal liability for failure to train on facial recognition technology limitations (Innocence Project/ACLU proposed brief: deliberate indifference). Sept. 9, 2026 plaintiff filing: RPD 'expressly delegated arrest powers to Peppermill private employees', nearly 1,000 persons per year per Peppermill records. Sept. 21: proposed amicus brief (about twice the length of the supported motion; leave required); Judge Du approved amici participation, acceptance of brief pending. Sept. 22: city sought more time. Former Chief Kathryn Nance testified FRT use 'wasn't essential training for officers'. Discovery disputes ruling set for Oct. 14 (Magistrate Judge Craig Denney). NOT ESTABLISHED: date the City of Reno was added; ruling on the amicus brief.","who_is_protected":"People subject to facial-recognition-based arrests in Reno (claimed)","who_must_comply":"City of Reno / Reno Police Department (defendants)","citation":"Killinger v. Jager, No. 3:25-cv-00388 (D. Nev., filed July 30, 2025)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70963595/killinger-v-jager/","source_title":"Killinger v. Jager, No. 3:25-cv-00388 (D. Nev.) — CourtListener docket","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Damages sought (amount not stated)"},{"id":"litig-nye-county-nv-manse-dc-ban-challenge-2026","title":"CDDC LLC and 9 of a Kind LLC v. Nye County — Developer Petition Asking a Nye County District Judge to Overturn the Pahrump Basin 162 Data Center Ban (Ordinance No. 631) (2026)","short_title":"Manse Technology Campus challenge to Nye County data center ban (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Nye County, NV","state_abbr":"NV","county":"Nye County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Two companies that own about 911 acres along Carpenter Canyon Road and State Route 160 near Pahrump have gone to court to overturn Nye County's August 2026 ban on data centers in the Pahrump area's over-appropriated water basin. The companies, which planned the Manse Technology Campus, argue the county had effectively approved their plan and that the ban unlawfully reaches back to undo their reliance on existing zoning and violates their property rights. They ask the court to reverse the ordinance, allow the project and award attorney's fees. Commissioner Ian Bayne, who proposed the ban, said he remains confident in it.","summary_technical":"Petitioners: CDDC, LLC and 9 of a Kind, LLC (Manse Technology Center/Campus, 'MTC Project'; developer Sean Dalesandro); ~911 acres along Carpenter Canyon Road and NV SR 160. Respondents: Nye County (and, per PVT, Pahrump Regional Planning Commission referenced in docket). Challenged measure: Nye County Ordinance No. 631 (per developer statement) — the Basin 162 data center ban adopted August 2026 (dataset entry nv-nye-county-dc-ban-basin-162-2026, Bill No. 2026-11). Theories: common-law property rights; reliance on prior zoning and county guidance; claim that the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission's 'specific plan' designation is void as vague and standardless; retroactivity. Relief: reverse ordinance, allow project, attorney's fees. Filed 'earlier this month' (September 2026) per developer; no county response on docket and no initial court date as of the PVT/RJ report (Sept. 29). NOT ESTABLISHED: case number; exact filing date; court department.","who_is_protected":"Not applicable (developer challenge)","who_must_comply":"Nye County (respondent)","citation":"CDDC, LLC and 9 of a Kind, LLC v. Nye County (Nye County district court, petition filed September 2026; case number not reported)","source_url":"https://www.ktnv.com/news/companies-sue-nye-county-over-data-center-development-ban","source_title":"Companies sue Nye County over data center development ban — KTNV","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Nevada Fifth Judicial District Court (Nye County)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Not applicable; petitioners seek reversal and attorney's fees"},{"id":"litig-realpage-v-james-ny-algorithmic-rent-2026","title":"RealPage, Inc. v. James (S.D.N.Y.) — Judge Caproni Preliminarily Enjoins Section 3 of New York's Algorithmic Rent-Setting Ban and Denies the Attorney General's Motion to Dismiss (September 2026)","short_title":"RealPage v. James — NY algorithmic rent ban enjoined (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","county":"New York County","city":"New York","topics":["automated-decisions","housing-credit","consumer-protection"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"RealPage, which makes rent-pricing software, sued New York's Attorney General to stop the state's 2025 law banning landlords from setting rents with certain algorithmic tools. On September 29, 2026, a federal judge in Manhattan temporarily blocked the key part of the law (Section 3) while the case goes on and refused to dismiss the lawsuit. The judge called it a close call but found RealPage 'marginally' likely to win its First Amendment argument, partly because the law treats software the same whether it uses public or non-public data. This is not a final ruling.","summary_technical":"RealPage, Inc. v. James, U.S. District Court (Manhattan; Southern District of New York), Judge Valerie Caproni. RealPage challenged the New York statute signed by Gov. Hochul in October 2025 (S7882, amending the Donnelly Act), which RealPage argued violates its First Amendment rights. RULING: Reuters (published Wed. Sept 30, 2026) says Caproni issued the preliminary injunction 'on Tuesday' = Sept 29, 2026; PYMNTS/CPI cites a Sept 29 MLex report. preliminary injunction GRANTED against enforcement of Section 3, which bars residential rental owners from setting rental terms based on recommendations from software that performs a 'coordinating function'; the AG's motion to dismiss DENIED. Reasoning reported: 'Although it is a close call ... RealPage is, marginally, likely to succeed on the merits'; Section 3 does not distinguish software that uses publicly available data from software that uses non-public data, so it is likely facially invalid; 'Under the rubric of preventing price fixing, the statute prohibits normal commercial conduct just because it is facilitated by software.' The AG's office declined to comment on the ruling; it had argued the law regulates anticompetitive conduct, not speech. Reuters reported RealPage sued two days after settling with the U.S. DOJ (see us-doj-realpage-consent-decree-2025). NOT ESTABLISHED from sources opened: docket number, whether the state will appeal. Related: ny-s7882-landlord-algorithmic-rent-coordination. Reuters also reports the state had put the law on hold while Caproni considered the case. Section 3 description per PYMNTS/CPI.","who_is_protected":"New York residential tenants (the law being challenged)","who_must_comply":"New York residential landlords and rent-setting software vendors (enforcement of Section 3 enjoined)","citation":"RealPage, Inc. v. James (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2026) (Caproni, J.) (preliminary injunction)","source_url":"https://www.pymnts.com/cpi-posts/realpage-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-new-york-algorithmic-rent-setting-ban/","source_title":"RealPage Wins Preliminary Injunction Against New York Algorithmic Rent-Setting Ban — PYMNTS/CPI","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"U.S. District Court; New York Attorney General (defendant)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not applicable (preliminary injunction)"},{"id":"ny-buffalo-dc-two-year-moratorium-resolution-2026","title":"Buffalo, NY — Common Council Advances Two-Year Moratorium Resolution on New Data Centers and Crypto Mining, With Nine-Member Task Force; Local Law Still Needed (September 2026)","short_title":"Buffalo NY proposed 2-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Buffalo, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"Erie County","city":"Buffalo","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Buffalo's Common Council took a first step on September 29, 2026 toward a two-year pause on new data centers and cryptocurrency facilities, adopting Council Member Joseph Golombek Jr.'s resolution as amended to create a nine-member task force that will recommend zoning and other rules. The pause does not yet have legal force: a local law drafted by the city's Corporation Counsel is still needed to stop new construction, and Spectrum News reports a further full vote in about two weeks. Mayor Sean Ryan said he is reviewing the resolution with Corporation Counsel.","summary_technical":"Instrument: Common Council resolution (sponsor Golombek), adopted as amended Tuesday 2026-09-29 (WIVB: 'adopted his resolution as amended — but it's not over the finish line yet'). Scope: two-year moratorium on new data center projects and no expansions of existing data processing centers (WIVB); covers cryptocurrency facilities (Spectrum, WBEN); Buffalo News page description reports the resolution applies to data centers supporting 20 MW or more, including crypto mining/blockchain facilities (single outlet). Amendment: nine-member task force (city planner, climate action manager, community members per Majority Leader Leah Halton-Pope). Next steps: Spectrum News says the amended resolution is expected back for a full vote in about two weeks (headline: 'delays data center moratorium vote'); WBEN says a Corporation Counsel local law preventing new data center construction is expected before the council by early October with a formal vote to follow. Outlets differ in framing (WBEN/Buffalo News 'approved'; Spectrum 'delayed'); entered as proposed because no binding local law exists. NOT ESTABLISHED: resolution number, vote tally (Buffalo News reportedly says unanimous; not read in article body), local law number. Mayor Sean Ryan: reviewing with Corporation Counsel before deciding how to proceed.","who_is_protected":"Residents of the City of Buffalo","who_must_comply":"Developers of new data centers and cryptocurrency facilities in Buffalo, once a local law is enacted","citation":"City of Buffalo, NY — Common Council two-year data center moratorium resolution (Golombek), adopted as amended Sept. 29, 2026; local law pending","source_url":"https://www.wivb.com/news/local-news/buffalo/step-forward-for-2-year-moratorium-on-new-buffalo-data-centers-not-a-done-deal-yet/","source_title":"Step forward for 2-year moratorium on new Buffalo data centers, not a done deal yet — WIVB (Sept. 29, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Buffalo (Common Council; Corporation Counsel)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not established — local law not yet adopted"},{"id":"ny-ilion-large-load-moratorium-ll3-2026","title":"Ilion, NY — Proposed Local Law No. 3 of 2026: Moratorium on Projects Needing 2 MW or More of Electricity (Vote Tabled September 28, 2026)","short_title":"Ilion NY proposed 2 MW large-load moratorium (LL 3 of 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Ilion, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"Herkimer County","city":"Ilion","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Ilion is weighing a temporary moratorium on any development needing 2 megawatts or more of electricity, aimed at data centers and similar high-power uses. The pause would cover approvals, permits, construction and electric service while the village studies the impacts. After a packed public hearing on September 28, 2026, trustees voted unanimously to delay a decision so they can review information from residents, the owner of the former Remington Arms site, the county IDA and their lawyers. No new vote date has been set.","summary_technical":"Village of Ilion (Herkimer County, NY) proposed Local Law No. 3 of 2026: temporary moratorium on the approval, permitting, construction and electric service of development projects requiring 2 MW or more of electricity. Study scope: land use and zoning, SEQRA environmental considerations, utility/infrastructure capacity, fiscal and community impacts, emergency services and public safety, other municipalities' and NY State approaches, and adequacy of village regulations and utility service policies. The Village Planning Board would prepare a preliminary report within six months recommending zoning amendments, special-permit standards, site-plan requirements or utility policies. Public hearing Sept 28, 2026 (5 p.m., Ilion Municipal Building); trustees then voted unanimously to delay action. Context: Turin Management, owner of the ~1 million sq ft former Remington Arms property, has explored a data center as one redevelopment option; CEO Kristen O'Neill states no data center end user is committed. Mayor David Murray said trustees want the law to be legally sound and not block projects under the threshold. NOT ESTABLISHED: moratorium length, next vote date.","who_is_protected":"Village of Ilion residents and electric ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Developers of projects requiring 2 MW or more of electricity in Ilion (if adopted)","citation":"Village of Ilion, NY proposed Local Law No. 3 of 2026 (2 MW large-load moratorium)","source_url":"https://www.romesentinel.com/news/ilion-delays-decision-on-data-center-moratorium-after-packed-hearing/article_7c2c3551-6a6e-4c5f-a41a-5da6b11cc800.html","source_title":"Ilion delays vote on data center moratorium — Rome Sentinel","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Village of Ilion Board of Trustees; Village Planning Board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"ny-potsdam-town-dc-crypto-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Potsdam (Town), NY — Town Board Proposes Local Law 2026-5, a 12-Month Moratorium on Large-Scale Data Centers (20 MW+ or 50,000 sq ft+) and Crypto Mining (5 MW+); Public Hearing Nov. 5, 2026","short_title":"Potsdam NY proposed 12-month data center/crypto moratorium, LL 2026-5 (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Potsdam, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"St. Lawrence County","city":"Potsdam","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"The Town of Potsdam, New York is considering a 12-month pause on large-scale data centers and cryptocurrency mining facilities while it writes permanent rules. Proposed Local Law 2026-5 would stop the town from accepting, reviewing or approving applications to build, expand or operate such facilities. Large-scale data centers are those with at least 20 megawatts of electrical demand or at least 50,000 square feet; crypto mining facilities of 5 megawatts or more are also covered. A public hearing is set for November 5, 2026.","summary_technical":"Proposed Local Law 2026-5 (Town of Potsdam large-scale computing facility moratorium), proposed by the Town Board at its Sept. 18, 2026 meeting (NorthCountryNow, Sept. 24, 2026; Watertown Daily Times, Sept. 29, 2026 says 'September meeting'). Operative text (NCNow): the town may not accept, review, process or approve applications for construction, expansion or operation of qualifying large-scale computing facilities within the town's jurisdiction outside the villages of Potsdam and Norwood. (WDT instead describes the ban as covering 'the town and village of Potsdam and the village of Norwood' — geographic scope conflicts between outlets; NCNow's wording tracks the law's text.) Thresholds: data centers >=20 MW electrical demand or >=50,000 sq ft gross floor area; crypto facilities >=5 MW. Term: expires 12 months after taking effect unless repealed earlier; terminates automatically if permanent regulations are adopted; takes effect on filing with the NY Secretary of State. Study topics: electrical infrastructure, utility costs, water, emergency services, noise, heat, cooling, backup generation, rural character; permanent rules to address siting, construction, expansion, operation, buffering, utility demand, decommissioning, emergency response, environmental impacts. Public hearing 4:30 p.m. Nov. 5, 2026 (venue reported differently: WDT '18 Elm St. town offices', NCNow 'town hall on Main Street'). Context: NY statewide moratorium in place; St. Lawrence County acted in June on local control of siting. NOT ESTABLISHED: vote to schedule the hearing; final text.","who_is_protected":"Residents of the Town of Potsdam, NY","who_must_comply":"Applicants for large-scale data centers and crypto mining facilities in the Town of Potsdam (if adopted)","citation":"Town of Potsdam, NY — proposed Local Law 2026-5, large-scale computing facility moratorium (hearing Nov. 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.northcountrynow.com/stories/potsdam-town-board-eyes-12-month-moratorium-on-large-data-centers,392132","source_title":"Potsdam town board eyes 12-month moratorium on large data centers — NorthCountryNow (Sept. 24, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Potsdam","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not established"},{"id":"ny-psc-utility-ai-inquiry-26-m-0552-2026","title":"New York — Public Service Commission Orders Utilities to Inventory and Report on Their Use of Artificial Intelligence (Case 26-M-0552, September 2026)","short_title":"NY PSC utility AI inquiry (Case 26-M-0552)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["automated-decisions","transparency","public-sector","consumer-protection"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-09-17","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"New York's Public Service Commission ordered the state's regulated utilities to file a complete inventory of how they use artificial intelligence and to disclose the policies and procedures that govern it. The commission said AI systems can hallucinate, show bias, have privacy and cybersecurity problems, and create growing dependency on AI vendors, which could threaten the safety and reliability of critical infrastructure. Utilities must file an initial inventory within 60 days and report twice a year after that, and the commission will judge their safeguards against common AI governance frameworks.","summary_technical":"Unanimous PSC vote at the Sept. 17, 2026 regular session; Case 26-M-0552 (AI inquiry). Order directs utilities to file 'a complete inventory' of AI use cases and 'disclose their policies, procedures, and protocols'; the commission will evaluate them 'for adequacy and robustness against commonly accepted AI Governance frameworks.' 'AI system' defined as a machine-based system that 'can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments'; staff said scope covers internally built and externally procured AI, using the federal definition and the NYS ITS policy definition. Initial written inventory report due within 60 days of the Sept. 17 order (Utility Dive; Daily Energy Insider), semiannual reports thereafter (Daily Energy Insider, citing the commission's announcement). Applies to electric, gas and water utilities (Utility Dive). Chair Rory M. Christian described it as the first of multiple expected actions; staff will propose further action after filings. NOT ESTABLISHED: order issuance date (if distinct from vote), exact filing deadline date, penalties.","who_is_protected":"New York utility customers and the reliability of the state's critical infrastructure","who_must_comply":"Electric, gas and water utilities regulated by the New York State Public Service Commission","citation":"N.Y. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, Case 26-M-0552, Order Instituting Proceeding on Utility Use of Artificial Intelligence (Sept. 17, 2026 session)","source_url":"https://www.utilitydive.com/news/new-york-audits-utility-ai-use-cites-risk-in-growing-dependency/831242/","source_title":"New York audits utility AI use, cites risk in 'growing dependency' — Utility Dive","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"New York State Public Service Commission / Department of Public Service","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"oh-amherst-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Amherst, OH — Proposed Temporary Moratorium on Data Center Construction (Ord. A-26-38) Amended to Run Through End of 2027 (September 2026)","short_title":"Amherst OH proposed data center moratorium (A-26-38, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Amherst, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Lorain County","city":"Amherst","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Amherst City Council is considering an ordinance that would temporarily stop construction of data centers in the city while it reviews its zoning rules. The proposal followed opposition to a data center proposal that came before the city in late July 2026. The ordinance was on first reading on September 28, 2026; it was introduced to run until June 30, 2027 with an automatic six-month extension, and the council amended it that night to run through the end of 2027. It has not been finally adopted.","summary_technical":"City of Amherst (Lorain County, OH) ordinance A-26-38, 'An Ordinance to establish a temporary moratorium on the construction of Data Centers within the City of Amherst until June 30, 2027, with an automatic six month extension' — listed under ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS FIRST READING on the Sept. 28, 2026 regular council agenda (official). The Building and Lands Committee met Sept. 21, 2026 (minutes on the Sept. 28 consent agenda); The Chronicle-Telegram (Sept. 22) reported the committee advanced the proposal to council and described it as covering 'larger data centers'. The Chronicle-Telegram (Sept. 29) reported council amended the legislation Monday night (Sept. 28) to extend it through the end of 2027. Related: oh-amherst-bza-nordson-data-center-variance-denial-2026. NOT ESTABLISHED (paywalled, could not be opened): the size threshold (draft's '2.5 MW'), vote count on the amendment, whether the automatic extension was removed, sponsor, number of readings/waiting period required, date of next reading.","who_is_protected":"Amherst residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in the City of Amherst (size threshold not confirmed)","citation":"City of Amherst, Ohio, Ordinance A-26-38 (proposed), temporary data center construction moratorium (first reading Sept. 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://amherstohio.org/wp-content/uploads/Council_260928_Agenda.pdf","source_title":"City of Amherst, Ohio — City Council Regular Meeting Agenda, September 28, 2026","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Amherst","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"oh-chillicothe-dc-moratorium-rescinded-2026","title":"Chillicothe, OH — City Council's 60-Day Emergency Data Center Moratorium (Ordinance 44-26, Aug. 24, 2026) Rescinded on Reconsideration Sept. 14, 2026","short_title":"Chillicothe OH data center moratorium, rescinded (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chillicothe, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Ross County","city":"Chillicothe","topics":["data-centers","transparency"],"status":"repealed","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-24","enacted_date":"2026-08-24","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Chillicothe City Council unanimously passed a 60-day emergency moratorium on data centers on August 24, 2026, taking effect immediately. On September 14 the council reconsidered and lifted it after members learned of a February 2026 zoning certification letter in which the city's chief building official said a data center would be a permitted use at the former paper mill site in the General Industrial district. Alignment Engine plans a data center there. Councilman Jeff Creed won a committee vote to draft a revised moratorium that would exempt that site and set limits for other data centers, and city officials are expected to update the Unified Development Code with permanent rules.","summary_technical":"Chillicothe, Ohio (Ross County) City Council. ADOPTED Aug. 24, 2026 as Ordinance 44-26: added to that night's agenda, three-reading rule waived, emergency language so it took effect immediately rather than after 30 days (Scioto Valley Guardian citing the Aug. 24 minutes; Scioto Post). It barred the city from accepting or issuing zoning permits and approvals for new data center uses; term 60 days. RESCINDED Sept. 14, 2026: council voted 8-1 'on Monday' to reconsider and strike the moratorium (Scioto Post, Sept. 15); a Chillicothe Gazette RSS excerpt says the vote was at the Sept. 14 regular meeting and Gunner Barnes was the only member to vote to keep the moratorium (a later Gazette excerpt says Sept. 15; Sept. 14 used, as reported by both Scioto Post articles and the contemporaneous Gazette report). Trigger: a February 2026 city letter to the owner of the former paper mill site indicating a data center appeared to be a permitted use. FOLLOW-UP: the Engineering Committee voted 2-1 (chair Kathy Dunn no, Greg McKeever yes) on Councilman Jeff Creed's motion to move a revised moratorium to the Law Director and council; Creed said it would exclude the Alignment Engine site and specify limits for any data center (100 MW or smaller, own electrical and water supply, self-processed wastewater, sound limits). NOT ESTABLISHED: whether a revised moratorium has been introduced or adopted; individual abstentions on the reconsideration vote (Gazette full text not opened).","who_is_protected":"Chillicothe residents (protection lapsed on rescission)","who_must_comply":"None currently (moratorium rescinded)","citation":"City of Chillicothe, Ohio — 60-day emergency data center moratorium (Aug. 24, 2026), rescinded Sept. 14, 2026","source_url":"https://www.chillicothegazette.com/story/news/local/2026/09/14/moratorium-on-data-centers-in-chillicothe-removed/91769182007/","source_title":"Chillicothe City Council removes moratorium on data centers — Chillicothe Gazette","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Chillicothe City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None"},{"id":"oh-fayette-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Fayette County, Ohio — Commissioners Approve a Data Center Moratorium Through June 1, 2027 Covering Seven County-Zoned Townships (September 2026)","short_title":"Fayette County OH data center moratorium to June 2027","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Fayette County, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Fayette County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-21","enacted_date":"2026-09-21","expires_date":"2027-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Fayette County, Ohio commissioners approved a temporary moratorium on applications, reviews, zoning approvals and permits for data centers in the unincorporated areas of Concord, Green, Jasper, Madison, Marion, Paint and Perry townships, running through June 1, 2027. Jefferson, Wayne and Union townships, which run their own zoning, are not covered. The pause is meant to give the county time to study and recommend regulations; a county land use plan is expected in mid-2027.","summary_technical":"Fayette County, Ohio (seat: Washington Court House) — moratorium dated 2026-09-21, adopted at the commissioners' Monday meeting (Record-Herald). TERM: through 2027-06-01 (about 8 months and 10 days, as reported). SCOPE: applications, reviews, zoning approvals and permits for data centers in unincorporated Concord, Green, Jasper, Madison, Marion, Paint and Perry townships (county-zoned); EXCLUDED: Jefferson, Wayne and Union townships (independent township zoning). VOTE: two of three commissioners signed; Tony Anderson recorded as present in absentia; Donnie Fleak moved approval, chairman Jim Garland seconded. PURPOSE (resolution language quoted): to 'thoroughly assess, analyze, and determine recommendations related to the regulation of such data center(s) and uses within the named townships.' HISTORY (Scioto Valley Guardian, 2026-09-18): proposal was framed as an emergency declaration with a one-year moratorium and had been delayed from Sept. 8 and Sept. 14 meetings; the adopted term reported by the Record-Herald is shorter (to June 1, 2027). NOT ESTABLISHED: resolution number; whether adopted as an emergency measure.","who_is_protected":"Residents of the seven county-zoned townships of Fayette County","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants in unincorporated Concord, Green, Jasper, Madison, Marion, Paint and Perry townships","citation":"Fayette County, Ohio, Board of Commissioners data center moratorium (Sept. 21, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.recordherald.com/2026/09/22/fayette-co-commissioners-approve-temporary-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Fayette Co. commissioners approve temporary data center moratorium — Record-Herald (Washington Court House)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Fayette County Board of Commissioners; county zoning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"oh-st-bernard-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"St. Bernard, OH — Village Council Unanimously Adopts 12-Month Moratorium on Data Centers (September 2026)","short_title":"St. Bernard OH 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"St. Bernard, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Hamilton County","city":"St. Bernard","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-24","enacted_date":"2026-09-24","expires_date":"2027-09-24","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"The village of St. Bernard, Ohio paused new data center development for 12 months. Village Council approved the moratorium unanimously on September 24, 2026, and it took effect immediately. During the pause the village will not process new data center applications while it studies impacts on infrastructure, utility capacity and zoning and considers regulations. A proposal already filed for a 150,000-square-foot, 24-megawatt data center at part of Procter & Gamble's former Ivorydale facility is not stopped by the moratorium and will still be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals on October 12, 2026.","summary_technical":"Village of St. Bernard (Hamilton County, OH). Vote: unanimous, Village Council, Thursday Sept. 24, 2026 (WVXU published Sept. 24 reporting the vote 'Thursday'; WCPO reports 'last week'). Term: 12 months; effective immediately (WVXU). Scope per WVXU Sept. 23 preview: halts acceptance and processing of applications, issuance of permits and approvals for the establishment of data centers in the village for a year. Village officials (Director of Public Safety and Service Mark Wendling) said data centers are not currently permitted anywhere under the village code and no data centers operate in the village. Pending application NOT covered: CAI Investments LLC conditional-use application to the Board of Zoning Appeals (150,000 sq ft, 24 MW, former St. Bernard Soap Co. building on Spring Grove Ave.), BZA hearing Oct. 12, 2026. expires_date 2027-09-24 is computed from the stated 12-month term and the Sept. 24 effective date; no ordinance number or text located. Not established: ordinance number, MW/size threshold (none reported), extension mechanism. Effective-immediately is stated by WVXU; Local 12/WKRC's characterization that the vote 'halts' the Ivorydale proposal is contradicted by WVXU and WCPO (village official: the pre-filed application still gets its BZA hearing).","who_is_protected":"Residents of the Village of St. Bernard, Ohio","who_must_comply":"Applicants seeking to establish data centers in St. Bernard (new applications after passage)","citation":"Village of St. Bernard, Ohio — Village Council 12-month data center moratorium (Sept. 24, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wvxu.org/local-news/2026-09-24/st-bernard-approves-data-center-moratorium-ivorydale-proposal-could-still-happen","source_title":"St. Bernard approves data center moratorium; Ivorydale proposal could still happen — WVXU (Sept. 24, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Village of St. Bernard (Department of Public Safety and Service; Board of Zoning Appeals)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"oh-warren-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Warren County, OH — Board of Commissioners Unanimously Enacts Six-Month Moratorium on Data Center Development in County-Zoned Areas (September 2026)","short_title":"Warren County OH 6-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Warren County, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Warren County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Warren County, Ohio commissioners unanimously approved a six-month moratorium on data center development in county-controlled (unincorporated) areas while local and state zoning codes are reviewed and while the county awaits a water impact study by the Ohio EPA and the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments expected in November. At a September 22 work session the county's building and zoning director said the rural zoning code has no definitions or rules for large hyperscale facilities, and commissioners directed the prosecutor's office to draft a moratorium resolution. The county reported no pending data center requests in unincorporated areas.","summary_technical":"Work session 2026-09-22: Director of Building and Zoning Ray Drafft briefed; rural zoning code lacks hyperscale definitions; three pathways outlined (BZA approval with use standards; administrative review plus BOCC hearings; a 'DC' zoning classification with rezoning and possible township referendums); board directed the prosecutor to draft a formal moratorium resolution with an advertised public hearing (Warren County Post). Enactment: unanimous six-month moratorium reported by the Journal-News on 2026-09-30; targets 'hyperscale data centers' of 10,000+ sq ft; applies in county-controlled areas; Clearcreek and Hamilton townships already have yearlong moratoria (see oh-clearcreek-township-dc-permit-moratorium-2026). NOT ESTABLISHED: exact adoption date and resolution number (hence enacted_date/effective_date null); whether the public hearing preceded the vote; exact expiry. CAVEAT: the Warren County Post (Sept 23) said that once the prosecutor's draft resolution was ready the county would 'schedule and advertise a public hearing ... before any official restrictions are voted into place'; adoption within ~8 days is reported only by the Journal-News and has not been confirmed by commissioners' minutes or a second outlet.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Warren County","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in county-zoned areas","citation":"Warren County, Ohio — Board of Commissioners six-month data center moratorium (Sept. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.journal-news.com/local/warren-county-enacts-6-month-moratorium-on-new-data-centers/article_9b0a7d8f-7ce7-5238-a355-2b1903b14b78.html","source_title":"Warren County enacts 6-month moratorium on new data centers — Journal-News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Warren County Board of Commissioners; Building and Zoning Department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"or-clackamas-county-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Clackamas County, OR — Board of County Commissioners Sets Oct. 21-22 Public Hearings on a Temporary Data Center Moratorium in Unincorporated Areas (2026)","short_title":"Clackamas County OR data center moratorium (proposed, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Clackamas County, OR","state_abbr":"OR","county":"Clackamas County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Clackamas County will hold two public hearings, on October 21 and 22, 2026, on a temporary moratorium on data center development in unincorporated parts of the county. Staff will present the legal criteria for a moratorium; no code changes are proposed at the hearings. The county has no data centers. In August 2026 commissioners discussed a moratorium lasting through the 2027 state legislative session, after Salem, Hillsboro and Woodburn adopted their own pauses.","summary_technical":"Clackamas County, Oregon — Board of County Commissioners. Official county news release (Sept 29, 2026): hearings Wed. Oct 21, 2026 6 p.m. and Thu. Oct 22, 2026 10 a.m., Board Meeting Room, Public Services Building, 2051 Kaen Road, Oregon City, and via Zoom, on a 'temporary moratorium on data center development in unincorporated Clackamas County'; staff presentation on 'criteria for establishing a moratorium'; no proposed code changes; written testimony to bcc@clackamas.us. KATU (Aug 6, 2026): commissioners weighing a moratorium through the 2027 legislative session; vote to begin the process expected the following week; Commissioner Diana Helm quote. NOT ESTABLISHED from opened sources: the date of the vote initiating the process, the proposed term in the hearing notice, ORS authority cited. Adjacent: or-woodburn-dc-moratorium-2026, or-hillsboro-dc-battery-moratorium-2026, or-salem-dc-moratorium-process-2026.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Clackamas County, OR","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in unincorporated Clackamas County (if adopted)","citation":"Clackamas County, Or., Board of County Commissioners — public hearings Oct. 21-22, 2026 on temporary data center moratorium","source_url":"https://www.clackamas.us/news/2026-09-29/public-hearings-on-potential-data-center-moratorium","source_title":"Public hearings on potential data center moratorium — Clackamas County","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Clackamas County Board of County Commissioners; Transportation and Development","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not applicable (proposed)"},{"id":"or-portland-cost-surveillance-pricing-ordinance-2026","title":"Portland, OR — Councilor Zimmerman's Consumers Opposed to Surveillance Technology (COST) Ordinance Banning Personal-Data Pricing Advances From Committee (September 2026)","short_title":"Portland OR COST surveillance pricing ordinance (proposed 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Portland, OR","state_abbr":"OR","county":"Multnomah County","city":"Portland","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Portland City Councilor Eric Zimmerman's Consumers Opposed to Surveillance Technology (COST) ordinance would stop retailers from using shoppers' personal data to charge different people different prices for the same product. It would also limit how often retail prices can be raised, and earlier proposal materials said retailers able to use dynamic pricing would have to disclose it. Loyalty programs, rewards, coupons and sales would still be allowed. The ordinance advanced out of the City Council's City Life Committee in September 2026 and is headed to the full Council.","summary_technical":"Proposed City of Portland ordinance ('COST'), sponsor Councilor Eric Zimmerman. July 30, 2026 press release sought public input and set a City Life Committee hearing for Aug. 11, 2026; described the proposal as preventing personalized pricing where 'businesses use personally identifiable information and algorithms to charge some customers higher prices than others for the same product,' setting expectations for when and how retail prices may change, 'limiting the frequency of price increases,' and requiring retailers equipped for dynamic pricing to 'clearly disclose that to consumers.' Sept. 22, 2026 press release: ordinance advanced through the City Life Committee; full Council in coming weeks. Committee vote count, ordinance number, enforcement mechanism, penalties, covered-retailer definitions and effective date are NOT established in the sources opened.","who_is_protected":"Retail shoppers in Portland","who_must_comply":"Retailers selling goods in Portland (definitions not yet established)","citation":"City of Portland, Or., proposed COST ordinance (Councilor Zimmerman), City Life Committee, Sept. 2026","source_url":"https://www.portland.gov/council/districts/4/eric-zimmerman/news/2026/9/22/press-release-councilor-eric-zimmermans-consumers","source_title":"PRESS RELEASE: Councilor Eric Zimmerman's Consumers Opposed to Surveillance Technology (COST) Ordinance Advances Through Portland City Council's City Life Committee — City of Portland","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","penalties":"Not stated in sources opened"},{"id":"or-sb-1516-alpr-restrictions-2026","title":"Oregon SB 1516 (2026) — Limits Police Use of Automated License Plate Readers to Listed Purposes, 30-Day Retention, Bars Vendors From Using Plate Data, and Lets People Sue Vendors (Ch. 77, Effective March 31, 2026)","short_title":"Oregon SB 1516 — ALPR limits and vendor liability (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Oregon","state_abbr":"OR","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","data-retention","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-03-31","enacted_date":"2026-03-31","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Oregon's SB 1516, signed March 31, 2026 and effective at once, limits how police can use automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras. Police may use them only for listed purposes, such as finding vehicles linked to crimes, arrest warrants or missing people, uninsured or unregistered vehicles, parking or controlling secured areas. Plate data must be deleted after 30 days unless it relates to a criminal investigation or court case. ALPR vendors may not access, sell or share the data, and a person whose data a vendor misuses on purpose or through gross negligence can sue for damages. Lawmakers have said they may push for a full ban on Flock-style cameras in 2027.","summary_technical":"Oregon SB 1516 (2026 R1), 'Relating to public safety; and declaring an emergency' (omnibus; ALPR provisions are Sections 3-9). HISTORY (OLIS): introduced 2026-02-02; Senate passed 2026-02-20, 27 ayes, 3 excused (carried by Prozanski); House passed 2026-03-05, 54-3, 3 excused (carried by Kropf); Governor signed 2026-03-31; Chapter 77, 2026 Laws; effective March 31, 2026. KEY TEXT (enrolled): Sec. 4(1) a law enforcement agency 'may not use an automated license plate recognition system or captured license plate data' except as provided, with allowed uses in Sec. 4(2): identifying vehicles used in crimes (Oregon crimes; substantially equivalent out-of-state crimes; federal crimes only where not contrary to ORS 24.500 / ORS 181A.250, 181A.820, 181A.826), non-traffic violations, vehicles of persons with outstanding criminal warrants (same federal limit), missing or endangered persons (Amber/Silver Alert), uninsured vehicles, unregistered vehicles, parking regulation, secured-area access control. Sec. 4(3): 30-day retention cap for data not tied to a court proceeding or ongoing criminal investigation. Sec. 5: limits on giving data to non-Oregon government entities (only for a law enforcement purpose, limited to relevant data, no unrestricted or ongoing access). Sec. 6: vendor-provided audits (searches, users, alerts, agencies with access). Sec. 7: agencies must publish ALPR policies before use; vendor contracts must keep data agency-owned, encrypted and CJIS-compliant, and make the vendor liable for misuse. Sec. 8: existing contracts may run out their term but cannot be extended or renewed unless compliant; Sec. 4 applies regardless. Sec. 9: vendors may not access, disclose, sell, share or otherwise use captured data (narrow exceptions for technical support with express consent, and audits); intentional or grossly negligent violations give the individual a civil action for economic and noneconomic damages, equitable relief and attorney fees; any person may sue to enjoin. The OLIS measure summary also mentions civil penalties; that term was not found in a keyword search of the enrolled text. CONTEXT: Oregon Capital Chronicle (Sept 24, 2026) reports Reps. Willy Chotzen (D-Portland) and Alek Skarlatos (R-Winston) plan 2027 legislation that could ban Flock cameras; no bill introduced yet.","who_is_protected":"People in Oregon whose vehicle and license plate data ALPR systems capture","who_must_comply":"Oregon law enforcement agencies using ALPRs; ALPR vendors contracting with them","citation":"Or. Laws 2026, ch. 77 (SB 1516), §§ 3-9","source_url":"https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2026R1/Measures/Overview/SB1516","source_title":"SB 1516 2026 Regular Session — Oregon Legislative Information System","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Courts (private civil actions against vendors); agency policies","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil action against vendors for economic and noneconomic damages, equitable relief and attorney fees (Sec. 9); injunctions available to any person"},{"id":"litig-green-amendments-muncy-deemed-approval-2026","title":"Green Amendments for the Generations et al. — Commonwealth Court Appeal Challenging the 'Deemed Approval' of a Muncy Township Data Center and the Constitutionality of Pennsylvania's MPC Deemed-Approval Rule (September 2026)","short_title":"Muncy Twp data center deemed-approval challenge (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pennsylvania","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Lycoming County","city":"Muncy Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"An environmental group, Green Amendments for the Generations, and local residents filed an appeal in Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Court against the 'deemed approval' of a proposed data center in Muncy Township. Under the state Municipalities Planning Code, the developers' conditional use application was treated as approved because the township did not hold a hearing within 60 days. The challengers argue that a state law approving data centers this way, without a chance for communities to be heard, violates environmental rights and due process.","summary_technical":"Filed 'this past Friday' per Williamsport Sun-Gazette (Sun-Gazette page dated Sept. 29, 2026; PennLive's headline on the same filing is time-stamped Mon. Sept. 28, 2026 in Google News; 'this past Friday' = Fri. Sept. 25, 2026) in Commonwealth Court. Petitioners as listed by the Sun-Gazette: John Schaeffer, Sean Tetreault and Daniel Waugh (each as a GAG member and individually), Rae-Ellah Tetreault, Muncy Township and the Muncy Township Board of Supervisors. Underlying facts: Danko Holdings II LP and Fishlips LLC applied April 28, 2026 for conditional use for three data center buildings, water storage/treatment, a substation, etc. near Yetter Road and John Brady Drive; the township held no hearing within 60 days; deemed-approval notice published in July (NorthcentralPA: advertised July 16 and 23). Claims: MPC deemed approval for data centers violates constitutional environmental-rights and due process protections. Related: a separate land use appeal by the Tetreaults in Lycoming County court, with the developers' motion to quash set for argument Nov. 6, 2026 (NorthcentralPA); the township imposed a nine-month moratorium on data center submissions on June 8, 2026 (NorthcentralPA) — not in the dataset. NOT ESTABLISHED: docket number; respondents; relief requested. Note: the Sun-Gazette lists Muncy Township and its Board of Supervisors among the 'petitioners'; their actual party role is unconfirmed.","who_is_protected":"Muncy Township residents; Pennsylvania communities subject to MPC deemed approvals","who_must_comply":"N/A (litigation)","citation":"Green Amendments for the Generations et al., appeal re deemed approval of Danko Holdings II LP / Fishlips LLC data center, Muncy Township (Pa. Commw. Ct., filed Sept. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.sungazette.com/news/top-news/2026/09/appeal-filed-against-deemed-approval-of-data-center-in-muncy-township/","source_title":"Appeal filed against 'deemed approval' of data center in Muncy Township — Williamsport Sun-Gazette","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"N/A (litigation)"},{"id":"litig-sugarloaf-township-pa-dc-curative-amendment-2026","title":"Sugarloaf Township, PA — Data Center Curative Amendment Litigation (Luzerne County C.P.): Sugarloaf Logistics Continues Challenge After LBT Withdraws (2025-2026)","short_title":"Sugarloaf Twp PA data center curative amendment case","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Sugarloaf Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Luzerne County","city":"Sugarloaf Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"A court case in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania is testing whether Sugarloaf Township's zoning ordinance unlawfully excludes data centers. Developer LBT Investment Group sued after township supervisors rejected its proposed 'curative amendment' in June 2025 to allow a six-building data center campus. LBT has withdrawn, but another company, Sugarloaf Logistics, which has a deal to buy the land, can continue the case after a September 2026 ruling. On September 28, 2026, supervisors tabled a resolution that would have declared the ordinance invalid regarding data centers and started their own township-wide fix, after residents worried it could hurt the township's position. A trial is reported for April 2027.","summary_technical":"Court: Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, Judge Lesa S. Gelb (case caption/number not reported). Origin: LBT Investment Group LLC (Chicago) curative amendment to permit data centers (six data centers on 185 acres along Tomhicken Road, ~1.5 mi west of PA Route 93), rejected by supervisors in June 2025; the court case (LBT v. township supervisors) has run since June 2025. LBT withdrew in September 2026. Sugarloaf Industrial and Logistics Holding, L.P. ('Sugarloaf Logistics') and landowner Richard E. Angelo Family Limited Partnership petitioned to intervene/substitute; arguments heard Sept. 24, 2026; ruling (reported Sept. 30): petition moot as to Sugarloaf Logistics (already a plaintiff under procedural rules), denied as to the Angelo partnership (adequately represented). Merits (validity of the zoning ordinance/curative amendment) undecided. Township response: Sept. 28, 2026 special meeting — supervisors (Pecora and Larock moving) tabled a resolution declaring the zoning ordinance 'substantially invalid' regarding data centers and initiating a municipal curative amendment (which would open a 180-day window barring landowner curative amendments). A resident said the 180-day period would end just before a trial on the case starts in April (Standard-Speaker; year not stated).","who_is_protected":"Sugarloaf Township residents (township defending its zoning)","who_must_comply":"Sugarloaf Township Board of Supervisors (defendant)","citation":"LBT Investment Group / Sugarloaf Industrial and Logistics Holding v. Sugarloaf Township Supervisors (Luzerne Co. C.P., curative amendment appeal)","source_url":"https://www.citizensvoice.com/2026/09/30/judge-rules-sugarloaf-logistics-can-advance-data-center-litigation/","source_title":"Judge rules Sugarloaf Logistics can advance data center litigation — Citizens' Voice (Sept. 30, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not applicable"},{"id":"pa-archbald-dc-zoning-overhaul-draft-2026","title":"Archbald, Pennsylvania — Borough Drafts a Stricter 26-Page Data Center Ordinance: Industrial-Only Conditional Use, No Generator Noise Exemption, Low-Frequency Sound Limits, Health and Property-Value Studies (September 2026)","short_title":"Archbald PA stricter data center ordinance draft (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Archbald, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Lackawanna County","city":"Archbald","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Archbald, a Lackawanna County borough facing proposals for at least 51 data centers across six projects, has drafted a stricter data center ordinance to replace the one it adopted in November 2025. The 26-page draft would drop the four overlay districts that ordinance created and allow data centers only as conditional uses in the general industrial district. It would also end the noise exemption for backup generators, regulate low-frequency sound, ban using backup power for peak shaving or grid support, and require the strictest emissions tier for generators. Developers would have to pay for studies of environmental, public health, heat, traffic and property-value impacts, provide an emergency response plan, post bonds and file decommissioning plans. The council still has to vote to advertise the ordinance and hold a public hearing, and the new rules would apply only to future applications.","summary_technical":"Archbald Borough (Lackawanna County, PA), draft data center zoning ordinance (26 pages), reported by The Times-Tribune on September 23, 2026. BACKGROUND: the March 2023 zoning ordinance did not define data centers and allowed them as principal permitted uses in several commercial and industrial districts. A November 2025 amendment, adopted by a divided council, made them conditional uses in four overlay districts, including the Wildcat Ridge, Project Scott and Project Green Mountain sites, and exempted backup generators from noise limits. All four members who voted for it have since left office. DRAFT CHANGES: removes the overlays; data centers become conditional uses only in the general industrial district (Valley View Business Park / Archbald Heights Road area); removes the generator noise exemptions; bans using emergency or backup power for peak shaving and grid support; requires the most stringent generator emissions tier; regulates low-frequency (dBC) sound, with about 8 pages on acoustics. REQUIRED SUBMISSIONS: environmental impact study, public health impact analysis (including cumulative impacts), thermal impact / heat dissipation study, community emergency response action plan, traffic impact study, property value impact assessment, mandatory bonding, and a decommissioning and site restoration plan. PROCESS: council must vote to advertise the finalized ordinance and zoning map for a public hearing before adoption (borough solicitor Jay O'Connor). Zoning amendments apply only prospectively, but any re-application after a denial or withdrawal would fall under the new standards. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number and hearing date.","who_is_protected":"Archbald residents near proposed data center campuses (homes, parks, schools).","who_must_comply":"Future data center applicants in Archbald Borough.","citation":"Archbald Borough draft data center zoning ordinance (Sept. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/2026/09/23/archbald-drafts-new-stricter-standards-for-data-centers/","source_title":"Archbald drafts new, stricter standards for data centers (The Times-Tribune, Sept. 23, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Archbald Borough Council / zoning officer","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pa-columbia-borough-dc-zoning-2026","title":"Columbia Borough, Pennsylvania — Council Votes 4-3 to Remove Data Centers From the Light Business Zone (Pending County Review) and Drafts Data Center Regulations for Industrial Zones (2026)","short_title":"Columbia Borough PA data center zoning (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Columbia Borough, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Lancaster County","city":"Columbia","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"In July 2026, Columbia Borough Council in Lancaster County voted 4-3 to take data centers off the list of uses allowed in the light business zone. That change takes the McGinness Airport / McGinness Innovation Park property off the table as a data center site and leaves data centers only in industrial zoning. WGAL reported in September that this ordinance still needs county approval. The council is now working on a second ordinance that would regulate where data centers can go in the light industrial and industrial zones, how large they can be, and their effects on the community and environment. At a September 22 meeting, 40 to 50 residents asked for strict protections.","summary_technical":"Columbia Borough (Lancaster County, PA). (1) ZONING AMENDMENT: on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, a council member (Councilman Ethan Byers) brought an ordinance straight to the regular meeting to remove data centers from the light business zoning category. It passed 4-3 (WGAL, July 15; CBS 21 / WHP, July 15, citing a Lancaster Stands Up release). WGAL's September 24 report says 'that ordinance still requires county approval,' meaning Lancaster County Planning review under the Pennsylvania MPC, so final adoption status is not confirmed. Effect: the McGinness Airport property (light business zone) would no longer allow data centers. In May 2026 the council had unanimously rejected Saadia Holdings LLC's bid to buy the property for a data center. (2) REGULATIONS ORDINANCE (draft): rules for data centers in light industrial and industrial zones covering location, size, and community and environmental impacts. Council discussed it at a meeting on Tuesday, September 22, 2026 (7 to 9:30 p.m.), got through about half of the ordinance, and plans another meeting. An earlier meeting on the ordinance was cancelled because the venue could not hold the crowd (WGAL / CBS 21 headlines). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance numbers, the county review outcome, and the hearing schedule.","who_is_protected":"Columbia Borough residents near the McGinness property and industrial zones.","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Columbia Borough.","citation":"Columbia Borough Council data center zoning amendment (July 14, 2026) and draft data center regulations","source_url":"https://www.wgal.com/article/columbia-borough-council-discuss-protections-future-data-centers/73874131","source_title":"Columbia Borough Council hears residents' concerns over data center regulations (WGAL, Sept. 24, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Columbia Borough","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pa-east-whiteland-dc-zoning-ord-385-2026","title":"East Whiteland Township, PA — Ordinance No. 385-2026 Permits Data Centers Only as a Conditional Use in the Industrial District, With Setbacks, Noise, Water, Power and Decommissioning Standards (September 2026)","short_title":"East Whiteland Twp PA data center zoning Ord. 385-2026","level":"city","jurisdiction":"East Whiteland Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Chester County","city":"East Whiteland Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-24","enacted_date":"2026-09-24","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"East Whiteland Township's supervisors unanimously adopted a 32-page zoning ordinance for data centers. Data centers are now allowed only in the Industrial District and only as a conditional use, after the applicant shows with site-specific evidence that the facility will not harm the township's protected interests. The ordinance sets limits on how close a data center can be to homes, schools, daycares, parks and churches, and covers noise, water use, cooling systems, power supplies and emergency response. It does not apply to the large data center already under construction at the former Cyprus Foote Mineral site.","summary_technical":"Ordinance No. 385-2026, 'An Ordinance of East Whiteland Township, Amending East Whiteland Township Zoning Ordinance to Provide Regulations of Data Center and Related Uses' (32 pp.), enacted by the Board of Supervisors Sept. 24, 2026 (signed by Scott Lambert, Peter Fixler, Clinton Smith; attested by Township Manager Steve Brown); Section V: effective immediately upon adoption. Section I amends Chapter 200, §200-41 Table of Permitted Uses to add 'Data Center subject to Section 200-43.1' as a Conditional Use; Section II adds §200-43.1 Data Center Uses, permitting data centers only in the Industrial Zoning District under objective, performance-based standards — dimensional requirements, setbacks, noise and vibration limits, water-use restrictions, riparian buffers, emergency-response obligations, decommissioning security, financial security/escrow/mitigation funds — with applicants required to demonstrate through site-specific evidence verified by qualified consultants that there will be no adverse effects. Findings cite groundwater/stream baseflow, low-frequency noise, grid reliability (public safety priority over high-density users), BESS thermal runaway and fuel storage hazards. Inquirer: unanimous vote after months of a data center moratorium; does not affect the 1.5M sq ft project at the former 79-acre Cyprus Foote Mineral Co. property; chairman Lambert called it amendable. Township page lists a curative amendment timeline and a Chester County review letter (CA-08-26-19068). NOT ESTABLISHED here: specific setback distances and decibel limits (not read from the scanned pages beyond pp. 1-2 and 32).","who_is_protected":"East Whiteland residents, schools, daycares, parks, churches and water resources near potential data center sites","who_must_comply":"Applicants and operators of data centers in East Whiteland Township","citation":"East Whiteland Township, Chester County, PA — Ordinance No. 385-2026 (enacted Sept. 24, 2026), Zoning Ordinance Ch. 200 §§200-41, 200-43.1","source_url":"https://www.eastwhiteland.org/government/departments/planning_development/sentinel,_green_fig_data_center_on_swedesford_road.php","source_title":"Sentinel, Green Fig Data Center on Swedesford Road — East Whiteland Township (documents incl. Enacted Ordinance No. 385-2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"East Whiteland Township Board of Supervisors (conditional use approval); township zoning/codes staff","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"pa-ephrata-twp-dc-zoning-rules-2026","title":"Ephrata Township (Lancaster County), PA — Supervisors Unanimously Adopt Zoning Amendment Regulating Data Centers: Industrial Zone With Zoning Hearing Board Approval, Noise and Water-Use Limits, Decommissioning Plan (May 2026)","short_title":"Ephrata Twp PA data center rules (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Ephrata Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Lancaster County","city":"Ephrata Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-05-10","enacted_date":"2026-05-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"On May 5, 2026, Ephrata Township's Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a zoning amendment regulating data centers. Data centers are allowed in the industrial zone with zoning hearing board approval and must meet requirements including minimum lot size, setbacks, water and sewer feasibility studies, noise limits and buffering; water use is restricted and a decommissioning plan is required. The ordinance took effect five days after the hearing.","summary_technical":"Ephrata Township, Lancaster County, PA — 'An Ordinance to Amend the Ephrata Township Zoning Ordinance to Provide Regulations for Data Centers and Their Accessory Uses and to Revise the Regulations for Animals and Animal Shelters.' Public hearing and adoption at the May 5, 2026 Board of Supervisors meeting (official minutes): motion by Ty Zerbe, seconded by Joe Strosser, carried unanimously (Supervisors Haws, Zerbe, Strosser present = 3-0), with the last sentence of Sec. 4.B.7 (rooster ban, animal section) removed. Minutes: 'The ordinance will be in effect five (5) days from the date of the hearing' (effective_date 2026-05-10 derived from that stated term). Hearing had been set for April 7, 2026 but tabled and readvertised for May 5 because of a notice error. Content per manager's summary in minutes: minimum lot size, setbacks, water and sewer feasibility studies, noise limits, buffering and other requirements to mitigate impacts on neighboring properties; LCPC and township planning commission reviewed. Per LNP (Sept. 28, 2026): data centers allowed in the industrial zone with zoning hearing board approval; maximum noise levels and water-usage restrictions; decommissioning plan required. Drafting history: Nov. 18, 2025 supervisors sent the draft to township and county planning commissions. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, numeric limits.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Ephrata Township, Lancaster County, PA","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Ephrata Township","citation":"Ephrata Township, PA Zoning Ordinance amendment (data centers and accessory uses), adopted May 5, 2026","source_url":"https://ephratatownship.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/May%205%2C%202026.pdf","source_title":"Ephrata Township Supervisors Meeting minutes, May 5, 2026","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Ephrata Township Board of Supervisors; zoning officer / zoning hearing board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"pa-lancaster-city-dc-zoning-rules-2026","title":"Lancaster, PA — City Council Adopts the City's First Data Center Zoning Rules, Limiting Data Centers to the Suburban Manufacturing Zone With a Zoning Hearing (July 14, 2026)","short_title":"Lancaster PA data center zoning rules (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lancaster, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Lancaster County","city":"Lancaster","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-07-14","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Lancaster City Council adopted the city's first rules on data centers on July 14, 2026, before a packed chamber. The rules limit future data centers to the suburban manufacturing zone and require a zoning hearing. An amendment passed that night clarifies that the two data center projects approved before June 24 (the Lancaster AI Hub sites on Greenfield Road and Harrisburg Pike) can continue; many of the rules resemble those in the community benefits agreement for those projects.","summary_technical":"City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania — City Council adopted zoning rules for data centers on Tuesday, July 14, 2026 (LNP photo caption). WGAL (July 14, 2026): council passed, Tuesday night, a motion amending the proposed zoning ordinance to clarify that two data centers approved before June 24 (216 Greenfield Road and 1375 Harrisburg Pike) are permitted; council says the ordinance reduces the number of properties where future data centers could be approved. PROVISIONS (LNP roundup): data centers limited to the SUBURBAN MANUFACTURING zone, with a zoning hearing required. CARVE-OUT: rules do not apply to the Lancaster AI Hub data centers planned on Greenfield Road and Harrisburg Pike; many provisions are similar to the community benefits agreement between those developers and the city. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, vote count, specific standards (noise, water, setbacks), effective date. CONTEXT (same roundup): Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning Code gives municipalities zoning authority but state law prohibits outright bans of a legitimate land use; Lancaster County Planning Commission issued a guide for municipal data center rules.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Lancaster, Lancaster County, PA","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Lancaster","citation":"Lancaster (Lancaster County), PA — data center zoning ordinance","source_url":"https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/more-lancaster-county-municipalities-adding-rules-regulating-data-centers-update/article_3838320f-250d-45d1-ab70-fd1625e3bdbc.html","source_title":"More Lancaster County municipalities adding rules regulating data centers [update] — LNP | LancasterOnline (Sept. 28, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Lancaster City Council; zoning officer / zoning hearing board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"pa-manor-twp-lancaster-dc-zoning-ordinance","title":"Manor Township (Lancaster County), PA — Data Center Ordinance (Adopted Fall 2025, Updated March 2026): Industrial District Parcels of 30+ Acres With Zoning Hearing Board Approval, 40-Foot Height Cap, 65/70 dB(A) Noise Limits","short_title":"Manor Twp (Lancaster Co.) PA data center ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Manor Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Lancaster County","city":"Manor Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Manor Township in Lancaster County adopted a data center ordinance in fall 2025 and updated it in March 2026. Data centers are allowed only on parcels of 30 acres or more in the industrial district with zoning hearing board approval. Buildings are limited to 40 feet tall, and noise at neighboring properties is capped at 65 decibels at night and 70 during the day.","summary_technical":"Manor Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania — ordinance 'adopted last fall' (2025) 'and updated in March' (2026) per LNP roundup (Sept. 28, 2026); exact dates not given. PROVISIONS: data centers permitted on parcels of 30+ ACRES in the INDUSTRIAL district with ZONING HEARING BOARD approval; building height max 40 FT; noise at neighboring properties max 65 dB(A) at night and 70 dB(A) daytime. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance numbers, adoption/update dates, votes. CONTEXT (same roundup): Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning Code gives municipalities zoning authority but state law prohibits outright bans of a legitimate land use; Lancaster County Planning Commission issued a guide for municipal data center rules.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Manor Township, Lancaster County, PA","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Manor Township","citation":"Manor Township (Lancaster County), PA — data center zoning ordinance","source_url":"https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/more-lancaster-county-municipalities-adding-rules-regulating-data-centers-update/article_3838320f-250d-45d1-ab70-fd1625e3bdbc.html","source_title":"More Lancaster County municipalities adding rules regulating data centers [update] — LNP | LancasterOnline (Sept. 28, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Manor Township Board of Supervisors; zoning officer / zoning hearing board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"pa-newtown-township-delco-dc-zoning-ordinance-proposed-2026","title":"Newtown Township (Delaware County), PA — Proposed Data Center Zoning Ordinance Confining Data Centers to the Light Industrial District, Recommended by the Planning Commission (September 2026)","short_title":"Newtown Township PA proposed data center ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Newtown Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Delaware County","city":"Newtown Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Newtown Township in Delaware County is drafting zoning rules for data centers even though none are proposed there. The draft would allow data centers only in the township's light industrial district and, after county review, adds requirements such as scaling back operations when power is scarce, environmental and sound studies, closed-loop water cooling, decommissioning standards and a 100-hour annual limit on generator use. The Planning Commission recommended it unanimously; residents argued it is too weak. It goes back to the county and then to the Board of Supervisors.","summary_technical":"Newtown Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania — proposed zoning ordinance regulating data centers (under 20 pages per residents' group). Siting: light industrial district only (about 12 acres per a resident). Changes incorporated from Delaware County Planning Department review: curtailment requirement when power is at a premium; further defined environmental impact studies incl. an additional sound study and pure-tone noise information; closed-loop water cooling or similar; decommissioning and equipment recycling/structure removal standards; generator use limited to 100 hours/year. Solicitor Sokorai: no data center applications pending or anticipated; ordinance intended to avoid exclusionary-zoning exposure. Planning Commission recommended unanimously at 'Thursday's' meeting (article published Saturday Sept. 26, 2026, so Thursday = Sept. 24); next: county re-review, then Board of Supervisors. Residents' group Newtown-Edgmont Alliance for Responsible Growth seeks a Chadds Ford-style ordinance (renewable energy, water monitoring, noise, lighting, emergency response, enforcement). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, hearing dates, setbacks.","who_is_protected":"Newtown Township residents","who_must_comply":"Prospective data center developers in Newtown Township","citation":"Newtown Township, Pa., proposed data center zoning ordinance (2026)","source_url":"https://www.delcotimes.com/2026/09/26/back-and-forth-continues-over-proposed-newtown-data-center-ordinance/","source_title":"Back-and-forth continues over proposed Newtown data center ordinance — Delaware County Daily Times","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Newtown Township; Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"pa-penn-twp-lancaster-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026","title":"Penn Township (Lancaster County), PA — Data Center Ordinance: Zoning Hearing Board Approval in Limited Commercial District, Setbacks, Noise and Water Limits, Closed-Loop Cooling and No Well Water (June 2026)","short_title":"Penn Twp (Lancaster Co.) PA data center ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Penn Township (Lancaster County), PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Lancaster County","city":"Penn Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Penn Township in Lancaster County passed a data center ordinance in June 2026. Data centers are allowed in the limited commercial district with zoning hearing board approval, subject to setbacks from homes, noise limits and water-use restrictions. Developers must submit plans for noise, electronic waste disposal, thermal impacts and emergency response, and cooling systems must be closed-loop and may not use well water.","summary_technical":"Penn Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (not to be confused with other Penn Townships in PA) — ordinance PASSED IN JUNE 2026 (LNP roundup; exact date not given, enacted_date null). PROVISIONS: data centers allowed in the LIMITED COMMERCIAL district with ZONING HEARING BOARD approval; setbacks from residential properties; noise limits; water-use restrictions; required plans for noise, electronic waste disposal, thermal impacts and emergency response; cooling systems must be CLOSED-LOOP and cannot use WELL WATER. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, adoption date, vote, numeric limits. CONTEXT (same roundup): Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning Code gives municipalities zoning authority but state law prohibits outright bans of a legitimate land use; Lancaster County Planning Commission issued a guide for municipal data center rules.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Penn Township, Lancaster County, PA","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Penn Township","citation":"Penn Township (Lancaster County), PA — data center zoning ordinance","source_url":"https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/more-lancaster-county-municipalities-adding-rules-regulating-data-centers-update/article_3838320f-250d-45d1-ab70-fd1625e3bdbc.html","source_title":"More Lancaster County municipalities adding rules regulating data centers [update] — LNP | LancasterOnline (Sept. 28, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Penn Township Board of Supervisors; zoning officer / zoning hearing board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"pa-pequea-twp-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026","title":"Pequea Township (Lancaster County), PA — Supervisors Unanimously Adopt Data Center Ordinance: Conditional Use on 30+ Acre Lots, 300-Foot Setbacks From Sensitive Uses, Noise/Vibration Studies and Annual Air Testing (August 19, 2026)","short_title":"Pequea Twp PA data center zoning ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Pequea Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Lancaster County","city":"Pequea Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-08-19","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Pequea Township supervisors unanimously adopted a data center ordinance on August 19, 2026 after a public hearing. Data centers are a conditional use in the commercial and industrial districts on lots of at least 30 acres with public water and sewer. Developers must show adequate energy is available, provide decommissioning and emergency response plans, noise and vibration studies, and annual air quality testing, and keep 300-foot setbacks from homes, schools and other sensitive uses (100 feet front and rear and 60 feet side from nonresidential uses).","summary_technical":"Pequea Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania — Board of Supervisors meeting Aug. 19, 2026: UNANIMOUS adoption after public hearing. DEFINITION: 'a use involving a building/premise primarily occupied by computers and/or telecommunications and related equipment ... where information is processed, transferred and/or stored.' PROVISIONS: CONDITIONAL USE in commercial and industrial zoning districts; minimum lot 30 acres; connection to public water and wastewater; proof of adequate energy; decommissioning and emergency response plans; security fencing 10-15 ft plus screening; noise and vibration studies; ANNUAL AIR QUALITY TESTING with reports to local, state and federal entities; two setback classes — 300 ft front/side/rear from 'sensitive receptor' uses/districts (residential zones, education, care facilities, agricultural uses); from nonresidential uses 100 ft front and rear, 60 ft side yard, 50 ft building to building; community engagement provision; energy-needs reporting (roundup). Chair Harry Lehman: township needed 'some kind of protection'. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; effective date. CONTEXT (same roundup): Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning Code gives municipalities zoning authority but state law prohibits outright bans of a legitimate land use; Lancaster County Planning Commission issued a guide for municipal data center rules.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Pequea Township, Lancaster County, PA","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Pequea Township","citation":"Pequea Township (Lancaster County), PA — data center zoning ordinance","source_url":"https://lancasteronline.com/news/regional/pequea-township-adds-rules-restrictions-on-data-center-development/article_1e003aae-6e08-4c2f-b605-e98d1d116ac5.html","source_title":"Pequea Township adds rules, restrictions on data center development — LNP | LancasterOnline","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Pequea Township Board of Supervisors; zoning officer / zoning hearing board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"pa-plains-township-energy-technology-overlay-2026","title":"Plains Township, PA — Proposed Energy and Technology Overlay District Permitting Data Centers on Conservation Land, With Setback, Height and Noise Standards (September 2026)","short_title":"Plains Twp PA proposed data center energy/technology overlay (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Plains Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Luzerne County","city":"Plains Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Plains Township in Luzerne County is considering a zoning change that would create an energy and technology overlay district where data centers, solar farms, windmill farms and energy storage could be allowed. The area is roughly 592 acres (about 7% of the township) of conservation-district land on the east side of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The draft would set rules for data centers such as setbacks, height limits and noise restrictions. The board voted on August 11, 2026 to move forward with considering the change, and held a public comment meeting on September 22, 2026. No vote on adoption has been scheduled, and township officials say no data center has applied.","summary_technical":"Aug. 11, 2026 special meeting: Board of Commissioners voted (all in favor) to consider amending the zoning map to add an energy and technology overlay district and to extend a residential district to properties adjacent to the overlay (per CitizenPortal automated meeting summary; not confirmed by an official record). Overlay would authorize 'solar farms, data centers, windmill farms, energy storage systems and such other related uses' as special uses within a defined area; if a special use ceases, the land reverts to conservation designation. Area: ~592 acres, ~7% of township land, near Jumper Road, Westminster Road and Bald Mountain Road, east of the Turnpike (FOX56). Draft standards include setbacks, height limitations and noise restrictions (Times Leader). Residents' critique: decommissioning language exists only for solar, not for data centers or power plants (FOX56). Sept. 22, 2026 public meeting: no vote; additional amendments, introductions and meetings expected. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, full text, specific numeric standards, adoption date.","who_is_protected":"Plains Township residents near the proposed overlay area","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers and energy facilities within the overlay, if adopted","citation":"Plains Township (Luzerne County, PA) proposed Energy and Technology overlay zoning amendment (considered Aug. 11, 2026; public meeting Sept. 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.timesleader.com/news/1760523/this-isnt-something-weve-ever-taken-lightly-plains-twp-weighs-data-center-zoning","source_title":"'This isn't something we've ever taken lightly': Plains Twp. weighs data center zoning — Times Leader (Sept. 22, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Plains Township zoning office / Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in located sources"},{"id":"pa-rapho-twp-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026","title":"Rapho Township (Lancaster County), PA — Supervisors adopt Ordinance 2026-4 regulating data centers: Industrial zone by conditional use, public water/sewer and closed-loop cooling (July 16, 2026)","short_title":"Rapho Twp PA data center zoning rules (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Rapho Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Lancaster County","city":"Rapho Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-07-16","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Rapho Township in Lancaster County adopted data center zoning rules (Ordinance 2026-4) on July 16, 2026. Data centers, previously a use not provided for, are allowed only in the Industrial zone after a conditional use hearing before the Board of Supervisors. They must connect to public water and sewer, any liquid cooling must be closed-loop, and developers must submit plans covering water and energy use, noise minimization, emergency response and electronic waste.","summary_technical":"Rapho Township, Lancaster County, Pa. — Ordinance 2026-4 amending the Rapho Township Code of Ordinances, Chapter 350, Zoning, to add definitions and regulations governing data centers. Adopted July 16, 2026 after an advertised public hearing; motion by Fox, second by Erb, 'All voted in favor' (supervisors present: Lowell Fry, Mark Erb, Randy Fox) per official minutes. Township solicitor/staff (Mr. Wenger): data centers were a use not provided for; ordinance limits them to the Industrial zone with conditional use approval by the Board of Supervisors, which addresses noise, water usage, generators, parking and screening; must connect to public water and sewer; a Noise Mitigation Plan is required. LNP adds: liquid cooling must be closed-loop; plans for water and energy usage, noise minimization, emergency response and electronic waste. NOT ESTABLISHED: effective date, setbacks, size caps. CONTEXT (LNP): Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning Code bars outright bans of a legitimate land use.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Rapho Township, Lancaster County, PA","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Rapho Township","citation":"Rapho Township (Lancaster County), Pa., Ordinance 2026-4 (Chapter 350 Zoning — data centers), adopted July 16, 2026","source_url":"https://raphotownship.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_07162026-767","source_title":"Rapho Township Board of Supervisors — Minutes, July 16, 2026","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Rapho Township Board of Supervisors; zoning officer / zoning hearing board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"pa-valley-view-sd-v-archbald-project-gravity-2026","title":"Archbald, PA — Valley View School District Sues Archbald Borough and Project Gravity Developers to Subject Seven-Building Data Center Campus to Borough Data Center Zoning (September 2026)","short_title":"Valley View SD v. Archbald / Project Gravity data center suit (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Archbald, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Lackawanna County","city":"Archbald","topics":["data-centers","children","education"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"The Valley View School District sued Archbald Borough and the developers of Project Gravity, a proposed seven-building data center campus on a 186-acre site near the district's intermediate, middle and high school campus. Because the project applied before Archbald adopted data center zoning rules, it has been treated as grandfathered under older zoning. The district asks the court to rule that the developers have no vested right to use the old rules, so the borough's data center regulations — which limit data centers to overlay districts that do not include this site — would apply. About 2,000 students and staff attend school daily on the nearby campus.","summary_technical":"Filed in county court (Lackawanna County) on the Friday before the Times-Tribune's 2026-09-22 report (i.e., 2026-09-18). Defendants: Archbald Borough and borough council; Archbald 25 Developer LLC (formerly Western Hospitality Partners – Jermyn LLC); US Gravity Purchaser LLC. Three counts: (1) Project Gravity not entitled to Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code protections against Archbald's data center zoning ordinance; (2) neither Archbald 25 nor US Gravity has vested rights under the March 2023 zoning; (3) Archbald's data center standards apply to US Gravity Purchaser and to any substantively modified plans. The district also challenges the Planning Commission's 2025-09-03 conditional preliminary-plan approval (no written decision, no written acceptance within 30 days) and cites tree clearing without permits and removal from the PA Permit Fast Track Program on April 27. Audacy (WILK) reports the borough's data center zoning amendment was passed in November 2025 and restricts data centers to four overlay districts. Archbald solicitor declined comment. NOT ESTABLISHED: docket number; any hearing date.","who_is_protected":"Valley View School District students and staff (about 2,000 daily on the Columbus Drive campus) and Archbald residents","who_must_comply":"Project Gravity developers (Archbald 25 Developer LLC; US Gravity Purchaser LLC); Archbald Borough","citation":"Valley View School District v. Archbald Borough et al. (Lackawanna County court, filed Sept. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/2026/09/22/valley-view-school-district-lawsuit-could-halt-project-gravity-data-centers/","source_title":"Valley View School District lawsuit could halt Project Gravity data centers — Scranton Times-Tribune","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Lackawanna County court","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Declaratory relief sought; no penalties"},{"id":"pa-west-hempfield-twp-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026","title":"West Hempfield Township (Lancaster County), PA — Supervisors Unanimously Adopt Data Center Ordinance: Conditional Use in General Industrial Zone, 120,000 Sq Ft Cap, 1,000-Foot Buffer From Homes and Farm Buildings (September 2026)","short_title":"West Hempfield Twp PA data center zoning ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"West Hempfield Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Lancaster County","city":"West Hempfield Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"West Hempfield Township's supervisors unanimously approved an ordinance regulating where and how big data centers can be. Data centers are allowed only in the general industrial district with conditional use approval from the supervisors, are capped at 120,000 square feet (156,000 if 75% has a green roof) and 75 feet tall, and must be at least 1,000 feet from homes and farm buildings. Sound studies and water-saving technology such as closed-loop cooling are required. A developer has inquired about the district but no plans have been submitted; the planning commission will consider further amendments on noise, water use and decommissioning.","summary_technical":"West Hempfield Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania — Board of Supervisors UNANIMOUS adoption of a land-use ordinance governing data centers following a public hearing. DATE: WGAL (published Sept. 1, 2026, 10:13 p.m. ET) says 'Monday night' (Aug. 31); LNP's meeting brief says 'Board of Supervisors meeting, Sept. 1'; the roundup says 'voted in September'. enacted_date left null because of this conflict. PROVISIONS (LNP): conditional use approval by the supervisors in the GENERAL INDUSTRIAL district; buildings max 120,000 sq ft (156,000 sq ft if 75% green roof); 75 ft height; restrictions on sound, light and noise; 1,000 ft from the nearest residential property line or agricultural building (Township Manager Andrew Stern: among the most restrictive in Pennsylvania); sound studies; water conservation technology such as closed-loop cooling; groundwater feasibility study. FUTURE: planning commission to consider amendments on noise, water use and decommissioning (WGAL). A developer has inquired about the general industrial district but no plans have been submitted (LNP roundup). CONTEXT (same roundup): Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning Code gives municipalities zoning authority but state law prohibits outright bans of a legitimate land use; Lancaster County Planning Commission issued a guide for municipal data center rules.","who_is_protected":"Residents of West Hempfield Township, Lancaster County, PA","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in West Hempfield Township","citation":"West Hempfield Township (Lancaster County), PA — data center zoning ordinance","source_url":"https://www.wgal.com/article/west-hempfield-township-passes-ordinance-regulate-data-center-development/73586750","source_title":"West Hempfield supervisors adopt data center safeguards after residents raise concerns — WGAL","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"West Hempfield Township Board of Supervisors; zoning officer / zoning hearing board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"sc-fairfield-county-dc-moratorium-ord-856-2026","title":"Fairfield County, South Carolina — County Council Adopts Ordinance 856, a 12-Month Data Center Moratorium, and Sets a Study Calendar Ending With Third Reading of New Rules in June 2027 (September 2026)","short_title":"Fairfield County SC 12-month data center moratorium (Ord. 856)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Fairfield County, SC","state_abbr":"SC","county":"Fairfield County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-14","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Fairfield County Council voted on Monday, September 14, 2026 to approve Ordinance 856, a 12-month moratorium on data centers. During the moratorium the county will not negotiate with data center developers while it gathers information, hears from residents and experts, and develops possible regulations, including updates to its Land Management Ordinance. The county has published a meeting calendar running through June 2027 that ends with a planned third reading of new rules on June 14, 2027.","summary_technical":"Fairfield County, S.C. — ORDINANCE 856 approved by County Council Monday, Sept. 14, 2026 (WLTX; WIS also says approved Sept. 14). TERM: 12 months per both outlets; no effective or sunset date stated, so effective_date/expires_date left null (expected to run to roughly Sept. 2027). OPERATIVE CONTENT per WLTX: county will not negotiate with data-center developers during the 12-month period; purpose is to gather information, hear residents and experts, and develop potential regulations before deciding whether data centers can be accommodated. WIS: objectives are assessing power, water and road impacts, updating the Land Management Ordinance, and resident input; applications resume after the window. OFFICIAL SCHEDULE (county PDF, 'October 2026-June 2027'): Town Hall #1 Ridgeway Oct. 22, 2026; council data center tour Nov. 2026; Town Hall #2 Jenkinsville Jan. 7, 2027; Town Hall #3 Winnsboro Jan. 21, 2027; expert work sessions Feb. 4 / Feb. 18 (if needed); Planning Commission work sessions Feb. 25 / Mar. 11 (if needed); Planning Commission meeting & public hearing Mar. 25; council draft first reading Apr. 12, second reading & public hearing May 10, third reading June 14, 2027. NOT ESTABLISHED: vote count; reading history (a Aug. 18 The State headline says a 12-month moratorium 'passes' in an SC county, likely an earlier reading, not opened); whether pending applications are exempt; scope beyond 'no negotiation'.","who_is_protected":"Fairfield County residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers; Fairfield County government","citation":"Fairfield County, S.C., Ordinance 856 (Sept. 14, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wltx.com/article/news/community/fairfield-county-places-12-month-moratorium-on-data-centers/101-60d1aef5-e827-4c8a-867d-e79ecc9019b8","source_title":"Fairfield County places 12-month moratorium on data centers — WLTX","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Fairfield County Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"sc-kershaw-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Kershaw County, SC — County Council Passes Third and Final Reading of a One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers, Crypto Mining and Data Processing Facilities (September 22, 2026)","short_title":"Kershaw County SC one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Kershaw County, SC","state_abbr":"SC","county":"Kershaw County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-22","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Kershaw County Council unanimously passed the final reading of an ordinance pausing data centers, cryptocurrency mining operations and data processing facilities for one year. The vote came on September 22, 2026, after first and second readings on August 25 and September 8. Council members said the year will be used to study the industry and develop regulations.","summary_technical":"Kershaw County (Camden), SC ordinance establishing a temporary moratorium on data centers, cryptocurrency mining operations and data processing facilities; one-year window per WIS and SC Public Radio. Readings: 1st Aug 25, 2nd Sept 8, 3rd/final Sept 22, 2026 (Tuesday; WIS published Sept. 22, 2026 11:07 PM EDT; SCPR says 'Tuesday night'), unanimous; Councilmember Sammie Tucker Jr. voted remotely. One speaker at the public hearing. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, effective date, exact scope definitions, exemptions for pending projects; expires_date left null.","who_is_protected":"Kershaw County residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers, cryptocurrency mining and data processing facilities in Kershaw County","citation":"Kershaw County, SC temporary data center / crypto mining / data processing moratorium ordinance (third reading Sept. 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wistv.com/2026/09/23/kershaw-county-council-passes-temporary-moratorium-data-centers/","source_title":"Kershaw County Council passes temporary moratorium on data centers — WIS News 10","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Kershaw County Council; Kershaw County Planning and Zoning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"sd-lead-alpr-surveillance-ban-proposed-2026","title":"Lead, SD — City Commission Approves First Reading of an Ordinance Banning Automated License Plate Readers and Warrantless Mass Surveillance (September 21, 2026)","short_title":"Lead SD proposed ALPR / mass surveillance ban (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lead, SD","state_abbr":"SD","county":"Lawrence County","city":"Lead","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Lead's City Commission approved, on September 21, 2026, the first reading of an ordinance that would ban automated license plate readers, often called Flock cameras, and restrict warrantless mass surveillance in the city. City departments, officials, contractors and police could not buy, install or use license plate reader systems, and data from such systems could not be used for warrantless monitoring of the public. Regular security cameras, warrant-based investigations and state or federal systems would not be affected. The final vote is set for October 5, 2026.","summary_technical":"City of Lead (Lawrence County, SD) proposed ordinance. Scope per KOTA: prohibits city departments, officials, contractors and law enforcement from purchasing, installing or using automated license plate reader (ALPR) systems ('often known as Flock cameras'); restricts use of data collected through those systems for warrantless monitoring of the public. Carve-outs: standard security camera systems on city property; investigations conducted with a judicial warrant; surveillance systems operated by state or federal agencies. First reading passed Monday, Sept. 21, 2026 (Black Hills Pioneer, published 2026-09-24, 'On Monday'; KOTA 2026-09-24); second reading and final vote scheduled Oct 5, 2026. Mayor Dustin Heupel said it was driven by residents' privacy and mass-surveillance concerns. Black Hills Pioneer adds that the ordinance bars city entities from purchasing, installing, accepting or utilizing any ALPR. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, vote count, penalties.","who_is_protected":"People in Lead, SD (residents and travelers)","who_must_comply":"City of Lead departments, officials, contractors and law enforcement","citation":"City of Lead, SD proposed ALPR and mass surveillance ban ordinance (first reading Sept. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kotaradio.com/2026/09/24/lead-moves-to-ban-license-plate-readers-and-mass-surveillance-technology/","source_title":"Lead Moves to Ban License Plate Readers and Mass Surveillance Technology — KOTA Radio","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Lead","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"tn-blount-county-dc-zoning-resolution-proposed-2026","title":"Blount County, TN — Planning Commission Unanimously Approves a Zoning Resolution Restricting AI Data Centers and Crypto Mining to Industrial Zones by Special Exception With a 2,000-Foot Buffer, Sending It to the County Commission (September 2026)","short_title":"Blount County TN AI data center zoning resolution (proposed, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Blount County, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Blount County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Blount County's Planning Commission unanimously approved a zoning amendment on September 24, 2026 that would define data centers, AI data centers, crypto mining facilities and blockchain computing centers, and allow them only in the Industrial zone with a special exception from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Commissioners widened the required distance from homes, schools, churches and residential zones to 2,000 feet — a distance staff mapping suggests leaves no qualifying site. The rule also limits noise, heat and EMF emissions, lets the county cut a facility's water use further in droughts, and requires a binding letter that utilities can serve the facility without ratepayer-subsidized upgrades. The County Commission must still hold a hearing and vote; the earliest possible passage is November 19.","summary_technical":"Blount County, Tennessee (unincorporated county jurisdiction only) — zoning ordinance amendment by resolution. Origin: County Commission resolution of June 18, 2026 asking the Planning Commission to define data centers and limit their zones (after ALCOA announced data center partnership plans at former smelter sites). Sept. 24, 2026 Planning Commission: amendments adopted — setback raised from 1,000 to 2,000 feet (motion by Commissioner Nick Bright, 7-2, Effler and Sullins opposed); Sullins amendments on drought water-use reductions prioritizing residential service and expanding the binding Letter of Attestation ('peak operational load can be accommodated without causing service degradation or requiring infrastructure upgrades subsidized by existing ratepayer classes') to all utilities; then unanimous approval. Provisions: definitions (data center, AI data center, cryptocurrency mining facility, blockchain computing center); Industrial zone only, by special exception (Board of Zoning Appeals); minimum distance from Suburbanizing, R-1, R-2, RAC districts and from any dwelling, school or church; sound, thermal and EMF limits; utility-impact limits. Staff mapping: 1,000 ft left five possible sites, 1,250 ft three, 1,500 ft one; 2,000 ft reportedly zones out all sites (raising legal-challenge risk). Next: Alcoa Regional Planning Commission review; County Commission vote to set a public hearing (15-day notice), sponsor notices, workshop, full board vote; fastest path (per the article): board approves a hearing date at its Oct. 20 meeting (Board workshop Tue. Oct. 13), hearing second week of November, vote Nov. 19, 2026. Substantive amendments by the board would send it back to Planning. Earlier (July 2026) the Planning Commission had recommended a 12-month moratorium on AI data center / crypto mining plan acceptance (per prior triage note, not re-verified here); the September coverage does not mention a moratorium.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Blount County","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers, AI data centers, cryptocurrency mining and blockchain computing facilities in unincorporated Blount County","citation":"Blount County, Tenn., proposed zoning resolution on advanced computing and data center facilities (Planning Commission approval Sept. 24, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.thedailytimes.com/news/blount-county-planning-commission-passes-resolution-restricting-ai-data-centers-sends-to-county-commission/article_e97e0c4d-f785-4d84-8bac-40ea8406820f.html","source_title":"Blount County Planning Commission passes resolution restricting AI data centers, sends to County Commission — The Daily Times","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Blount County Development Services; Board of Zoning Appeals; Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"tn-gallatin-dc-six-month-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Gallatin, TN — City Council Advances a Six-Month Data Center Moratorium on First Reading, Cut From 12 Months on the Mayor's Tie-Breaking Vote (September 2026)","short_title":"Gallatin TN proposed six-month data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Gallatin, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Sumner County","city":"Gallatin","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Gallatin, home to a large Meta data center campus, is moving toward a six-month pause on new data center applications. The City Council advanced the moratorium on first reading on September 15, 2026 after amending it from 12 months to six, with Mayor Paige Brown breaking a tie in favor of the shorter term, and exempting telecommunications, broadband, wireless and emergency communications facilities. The measure needs a final council vote before it takes effect. The council also advanced a separate apartment moratorium.","summary_technical":"Gallatin, Tenn. (Sumner County) — ordinance proposed by Councilman Pascal Jouvence; first reading 2026-09-15 (Tennessean). AMENDMENTS: term cut from 12 to 6 months on Mayor Paige Brown's tie-breaking vote; facilities primarily used for telecommunications, broadband, wireless networks and emergency communications excluded. PURPOSE: further define facility types and decide whether regulations should vary by size; the city recently adopted zoning provisions letting officials consider data centers' effects on surrounding properties and utilities. STATUS: must return for final approval; NewsChannel5 says both ordinances go to second reading 'at the next council meeting' (date not stated; review_by is a recheck date, not a scheduled vote). RELATION: follows the 60-day application pause indexed as tn-gallatin-dc-application-pause-2026 (expired ~2026-09-27 per that entry). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; second-reading date; vote counts.","who_is_protected":"Gallatin residents","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants in Gallatin (if adopted)","citation":"Gallatin, Tenn., proposed six-month data center moratorium (first reading Sept. 15, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/sumner/2026/09/16/gallatin-data-center-moratorium-meta/91657291007/","source_title":"Gallatin, home to Meta campus, weighs new data center moratorium — The Tennessean","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Gallatin","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"tn-memphis-dc-moratorium-ord-5982-2026","title":"Memphis, TN — Ordinance No. 5982: Proposed 12-Month Moratorium on Data Center Permits; Final Vote Postponed to October 20, 2026","short_title":"Memphis TN data center moratorium Ord. 5982 (pending final reading)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Memphis, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Shelby County","city":"Memphis","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"The Memphis City Council is one vote away from a temporary pause on new data centers. Ordinance No. 5982, as written in August 2026, would stop the city from processing rezonings, use permits, site plans, building and grading permits for any new data center or 'high-density computing facility' (including AI processing and cryptocurrency mining) for 12 months or until permanent zoning rules are adopted, and would set up a study committee with council members, MLGW and industry experts. It passed first reading on Aug. 18 and second reading on Sept. 1, 2026. The final vote was delayed on Sept. 15 so the sponsor could fold in competing proposals; an amended version, which keeps the 12-month pause, the study committee and the exemption for existing non-expanding data centers and adds community engagement and progress reports, was postponed to Oct. 20, 2026. It is NOT in force.","summary_technical":"Memphis City Council Ordinance No. 5982 — 'An ordinance declaring a temporary moratorium on the acceptance, processing, approval, and issuance of zoning, land use, building, and other associated infrastructure permits for data center developments within the City of Memphis.' PROCEDURE: FIRST READING Aug. 18, 2026 on consent agenda (Commercial Appeal); SECOND READING at the Sept. 1, 2026 meeting (official agenda; Memphis Flyer Sept. 2); THIRD READING scheduled September 15, 2026 was delayed (Action News 5, Tri-State Defender); amended ordinance set for final vote OCTOBER 6, 2026 at 4:00 p.m. (Tennessee Tribune). TEXT (v3 PDF posted on memphistn.gov, August 2026 — the AMENDED version's text has NOT been reviewed): definitions of 'Data Center' and 'High-Density Computing Facility' (AI processing, cryptocurrency mining, commercial server farming); Division of Planning and Development shall not process rezonings, planned developments, special use permits, conditional use permits, site plan approvals, building/grading/land-disturbance permits or any other discretionary land-use approval for a new covered facility; applications accepted only for docketing/completeness and review deadlines tolled. EXEMPTIONS: existing lawfully operating data centers that do not expand footprint/electrical demand/utility capacity/operational intensity; applications legally vested before introduction; routine maintenance; accessory computing uses (hospitals, banks, schools, government, offices, etc.); council waiver on findings of no economically viable use. STUDY: committee chaired by council members with MLGW and industry experts, 17 listed topics including separation distances, noise, water, cost allocation so utility customers do not bear costs of high-demand facilities. DURATION: earlier of 12 months from effective date, adoption of permanent zoning, or repeal; council may extend; progress report requested within six months. AMENDMENT: Tri-State Defender reports the amended version focuses on 'hyperscaled data centers' and folds in elements of competing proposals from Councilmembers Jeff Warren and Philip Spinosa; Tennessee Tribune says it keeps a study committee of experts and adds community engagement and progress reports. Exact amended scope/threshold NOT established.","who_is_protected":"Memphis residents and MLGW utility customers","who_must_comply":"Developers of new data centers and high-density computing facilities in the City of Memphis; the Memphis and Shelby County Division of Planning and Development","citation":"Memphis City Council Ordinance No. 5982 (data center temporary moratorium), second reading Sept. 2, 2026; final reading set Oct. 6, 2026","source_url":"https://memphistn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Data-Center-Temporary-Moratorium-Ordinance-v3.pdf","source_title":"Data Center Temporary Moratorium Ordinance v3 — City of Memphis (memphistn.gov)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Memphis City Council; Memphis and Shelby County Division of Planning and Development","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None stated; the ordinance withholds permits rather than imposing penalties"},{"id":"tn-montgomery-county-dc-zoning-rules-proposed-2026","title":"Montgomery County, Tennessee — Regional Planning Commission Approves First Data-Center-Specific Zoning Rules (M-1/M-2 Only, 10-100 Acres, Noise Plan, Utility Letters, Operator Pays Infrastructure Costs); County Commission Vote Pending (September 2026)","short_title":"Montgomery County TN proposed data center zoning rules (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Montgomery County, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Montgomery County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Montgomery County, Tennessee is moving to adopt its first zoning rules written specifically for data centers. The proposal would allow data centers only in M-1 and M-2 industrial zones through a reviewed (conditional) process that includes a public hearing, on sites of 10 to 100 acres, with 100-foot setbacks, a noise plan, proof of water supply, written statements from TVA and local utilities on power and gas capacity, and a requirement that the owner pay all infrastructure improvement costs rather than passing them to ratepayers. The Regional Planning Commission approved it on September 22, 2026; the County Commission must still vote. If approved, the rules would apply to proposed data centers and to expansions of existing facilities.","summary_technical":"Montgomery County, Tenn. (unincorporated; Clarksville not covered — RPC Director Jeff Tyndall said something similar could follow for the city). PROPOSER: Montgomery County Building and Codes Department. ACTION: Clarksville-Montgomery County Regional Planning Commission approved the zoning update Tuesday 2026-09-22 with one dissent (Clarksville Now article published Wed Sept 23, 2026 says 'Tuesday' = Sept 22, 2026; Fox 17 also says 'Tuesday'). CONTENT (Clarksville Now): permitted-on-review use in M-1/M-2 (Fox 17: conditional use); minimum 10 acres, maximum 100 acres; 100-foot setbacks from zones other than M-1/M-2; noise plan; noise not to exceed 3 dB over ambient or 55 dB at adjoining non-M-1/M-2 property lines (described by Tyndall at the RPC's Friday informal meeting); letter from municipal water source or surface water study; written statements from TVA and local utility providers on electricity and natural gas; owner/operator responsible for all infrastructure improvement costs, which may not be passed to ratepayers; Board of Zoning Appeals review with its own public hearing before the Planning Commission. Fox 17: rules would apply to proposed data centers and expansions of existing facilities. NEXT: Montgomery County Commission vote (date not stated). NOT ESTABLISHED: resolution number; commission vote date.","who_is_protected":"Montgomery County residents and utility ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in unincorporated Montgomery County","citation":"Montgomery County, Tenn., proposed data center zoning amendment (RPC approval Sept. 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://clarksvillenow.com/local/future-data-centers-to-require-public-hearing-under-new-rules-proposed-for-montgomery-county/","source_title":"Future data centers to require public hearing under new rules proposed for Montgomery County — Clarksville Now","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Montgomery County Building and Codes; Regional Planning Commission; County Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"tn-wilson-county-dc-moratorium-6mo-2026","title":"Wilson County, TN — County Commission Unanimously Approves a Six-Month Moratorium on Permits for Data Centers and High-Density Computing Facilities; Draft Zoning Ordinance Under Review (July 2026)","short_title":"Wilson County TN 6-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Wilson County, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Wilson County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-20","enacted_date":"2026-07-20","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Wilson County's Commission unanimously approved a six-month pause on land use, zoning, building, site plan and conditional use permits for data centers and high-density computing facilities. The county mayor set up a five-member committee to study the issue. That committee is now reviewing a draft ordinance with berm, noise and utility-capacity rules. Local reporting gives conflicting end dates (a six-month term 'from July 20' versus a stated Dec. 22, 2026 expiry); the planning and zoning committee can recommend an extension.","summary_technical":"County Commission vote July 20, 2026, unanimous (Commissioners Scruggs, Smith and Bowman absent) (Main Street Media). Scope: 'land use, zoning, building, site plan or conditional use permits' for data centers and high-density computing facilities; six months. County Mayor Randall Hutto to appoint a five-member committee (planning commission member, BZA member, county planning and zoning committee member, two residents); first meeting Aug. 3. Main Street Media (Sept. 21, 2026) says the moratorium was 'established in June' and 'expires on Dec. 22, 2026', but the July 20 article quotes the resolution as six months 'from July 20' — the sources conflict, so expires_date is left null; the Sept. 15 committee meeting reviewed a draft data center zoning ordinance — berm height 40% of building height, max noise 40 dBA / 60 dBC, utility capacity before approval, 48-hour response to noise/vibration complaints, third-party acoustic monitoring, distance requirements; next to the county planning and zoning committee in October, then a County Commission vote. NOT ESTABLISHED: resolution number; vote tally. The Sept. 21 article says the commission set the moratorium 'in June', while the July 20 article reports the vote that day; the July 20 adoption date is used.","who_is_protected":"Wilson County residents","who_must_comply":"Applicants for permits for data centers and high-density computing facilities in Wilson County","citation":"Wilson County, TN — County Commission six-month data center / high-density computing moratorium (July 20, 2026)","source_url":"https://mainstreetmediatn.com/articles/chronicleofmtjuliet/wilson-county-approves-six-month-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Wilson County approves six-month data center moratorium — Main Street Media of Tennessee","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Wilson County (County Commission; planning and zoning)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"tx-ag-paxton-dc-water-survey-investigation-2026","title":"Texas — Attorney General Paxton Opens an Investigation Into Hundreds of Data Center Developments That Did Not Answer the TWDB Water Use Survey (September 2026)","short_title":"Texas AG data center water-reporting investigation (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["data-centers","transparency","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-24","enacted_date":"2026-09-24","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"On September 24, 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that his office is investigating data center developments in Texas that have not answered the Texas Water Development Board's water use survey. State law requires the Board to survey entities that use groundwater or surface water for municipal, industrial, power generation or mining purposes. Paxton is demanding that every data center in Texas submit a survey response that fully complies with the law. The first round of the investigation covers data centers in 18 counties, including Harris, Dallas, Travis, Bexar and El Paso.","summary_technical":"Office of the Attorney General of Texas press release, Sept. 24, 2026 (a Thursday): 'Attorney General Paxton Launches Landmark Investigation into Hundreds of Data Center Developments in Texas to Ensure Compliance with Water Use Reporting Requirements.' Scope: data center developments that have not responded to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) water use survey; the OAG describes 'an ongoing investigation into all data center developments in Texas' and demands that all data centers submit a survey response in full compliance with the law. Initial counties (18): Harris, Montgomery, Travis, Dallas, Tarrant, Smith, Bexar, Tom Green, Potter, Randall, Lubbock, Midland, Ector, Wichita, Victoria, Brazos, Nueces, El Paso. Paxton quote: 'My office is currently investigating hundreds of data center developments.' Statutory background per Dallas Express (not in the OAG release): the survey duty covers municipal, industrial, power-generation and mining water users; TWDB identifies data centers as industrial survey respondents; failure to complete the survey is a Class C misdemeanor and, per TWDB guidance, can make a respondent ineligible for certain TWDB financial assistance and TCEQ water permits/renewals. Follows Gov. Abbott's Sept. 14, 2026 TWDB directive (tx-abbott-twdb-water-reporting-penalties-2026; TWDB update due Oct. 14). NOT ESTABLISHED: investigative instrument (e.g., CIDs), response deadline, named companies, any charges or suits filed.","who_is_protected":"Texas communities and water resources, through enforcement of data center water-use reporting.","who_must_comply":"Data center developments in Texas that are subject to the TWDB water use survey.","citation":"Texas OAG press release (Sept. 24, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-paxton-launches-landmark-investigation-hundreds-data-center-developments-texas","source_title":"Attorney General Paxton Launches Landmark Investigation into Hundreds of Data Center Developments in Texas to Ensure Compliance with Water Use Reporting Requirements (Texas OAG, Sept. 24, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of the Attorney General of Texas","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None announced. Background law (per Dallas Express): failure to complete the TWDB survey is a Class C misdemeanor and can trigger ineligibility for certain TWDB financial assistance and TCEQ water permits."},{"id":"tx-decatur-dc-overlay-district-proposed-2026","title":"Decatur, TX — Proposed Data Center Overlay District for Eagles Landing Business Park, Barring Evaporative Cooling (September 2026)","short_title":"Decatur TX proposed data center overlay district (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Decatur, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Wise County","city":"Decatur","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Decatur, a Wise County city in North Texas, is drafting a zoning overlay district with extra rules for any data center at its Eagles Landing Business Park. City staff presented the draft to the City Council on September 28, 2026, and no vote was taken. As described, the overlay would allow only closed-loop, air-cooled or recycled-water cooling, require water studies and dedicated metering, and set buffers, noise studies and other site standards. The city says no data center developer has applied; the measure is meant to put rules in place before one does.","summary_technical":"DRAFT ONLY — not adopted. Per Wise County Messenger (Sept. 22 and Sept. 29, 2026): the council discussed the proposed overlay at its Sept. 28, 2026 meeting (agenda item listed as discussion only, no action). Location: Eagles Landing Business Park (reported as 529 acres off FM 2264 with U.S. 81/287 and Business 81 frontage). Reported draft standards: cooling limited to closed-loop, air-cooled or recycled-water systems (evaporative systems excluded); water loading studies and dedicated metering; wastewater discharge limits/pretreatment standards; documentation of grid interconnection approval from PUCT/ERCOT; minimum lot size, setback, parking, lighting and screening standards; buffers from schools, hospitals, residences, churches and child care facilities; noise studies and mitigation. Schedule: P&Z discussion Oct. 6, P&Z public hearing Nov. 4, council hearing Nov. 23, 2026. City manager Nate Mara said no data center proposals have been received. Official agenda (City Council, Sept. 28, 2026): discussion item 2, 'Discussion of a proposed ordinance establishing a Data Center Overlay District, including development standards and special regulations applicable to Data Centers' (no action). Messenger: council could take action to establish the district Dec. 14, 2026. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, final text, adoption date; draft standards listed above come only from the Messenger (no backup posted with the agenda).","who_is_protected":"Decatur residents and nearby land uses (schools, hospitals, homes, churches, child care) and the city's water and power supply, if adopted","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers within the proposed overlay at Eagles Landing Business Park, if adopted","citation":"City of Decatur, Texas — proposed Data Center Overlay District (Eagles Landing Business Park), presented to City Council Sept. 28, 2026","source_url":"https://www.wcmessenger.com/articles/decatur-begins-process-to-establish-data-center-overlay-district-at-business-park/","source_title":"Decatur begins process to establish data center overlay district at business park — Wise County Messenger","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Decatur (Development Services; Planning and Zoning Commission; City Council)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"tx-denton-dc-code-amendments-proposed-2026","title":"Denton, TX — Proposed Development Code Amendments Requiring Specific-Use Permits, 300-Foot Residential Setbacks, Water Studies and Low-Water Cooling for All New Data Centers; Council Vote Oct. 13 (2026)","short_title":"Denton TX proposed data center development code amendments (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Denton, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Denton County","city":"Denton","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended tightening the city's data center rules, and the City Council is set to vote on October 13, 2026. Every new data center would need a council-approved specific-use permit, even where zoning now allows it by right; data centers would no longer be allowed in several commercial and mixed-use districts; the setback from homes would grow to 300 feet; and developers would have to submit water and wastewater studies and use closed-loop or free-air cooling. The rules apply only inside city limits. A separate proposed 90-day moratorium is tracked as its own entry.","summary_technical":"Denton, Texas — Denton Development Code amendments recommended 5-0 by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a Wednesday meeting (article published Sept. 28, 2026 via Denton Record-Chronicle; exact meeting date not stated). PROPOSED CHANGES: (1) warehouse data centers, now permitted by right in general office, light/heavy industrial and public facility districts, would require a specific-use permit (SUP) in all allowed districts; (2) removal as an allowable use in mixed-use regional, suburban corridor (and per the article other heavily trafficked) districts; (3) setback from residential districts/uses increased from 100 to 300 feet; (4) water and wastewater demand studies required with initial applications; (5) closed-loop or free-air cooling required; (6) Texas PUC and ERCOT ('Electric Reliability Council') approvals required before an SUP request can be placed on the agenda. Applies only within city limits (no zoning authority in the ETJ). Council vote scheduled Oct. 13, 2026. MORATORIUM TRACK: pitched by Mayor Pro Tem Nick Stevens; next public hearing Oct. 27, 2026; 'a possible moratorium could start in early December.' Existing approved facilities: Core Scientific (up to 391 MW, AI conversion approved 2024) and QumulusAI (20 MW modular, approved January 2026). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance/case numbers; moratorium length and scope. Companion: tx-denton-dc-moratorium-process-2026.","who_is_protected":"Denton residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of new data centers within Denton city limits","citation":"Denton, Tex., proposed Denton Development Code amendments on data centers (P&Z recommendation, Sept. 2026)","source_url":"https://dentonrc.com/news/denton/amendments-to-strengthen-data-center-rules-in-denton-s-development-code-now-head-to-the/article_e5693fe4-b22d-43f2-8d18-186c80ae9813.html","source_title":"Amendments to strengthen data center rules in Denton's development code now head to the City Council — Denton Record-Chronicle","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Denton Development Services / Planning; Denton City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"tx-denton-dc-moratorium-process-2026","title":"Denton, TX — City Council Holds First of Two Required Public Hearings on a 90-Day Data Center Moratorium; Second Hearing Oct. 27, Vote Possible as Early as Dec. 1 (2026)","short_title":"Denton TX proposed 90-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Denton, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Denton County","city":"Denton","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Denton is weighing a 90-day moratorium on new data center development and permitting inside city limits. The City Council unanimously voted on August 18, 2026 to start the legal process, held the first of two required public hearings on September 22, and has the second hearing set for October 27, with a vote possible as early as December 1. If adopted, the moratorium would take effect immediately and could be extended another 90 days. A separate set of development code amendments for data centers is tracked as its own entry.","summary_technical":"Moratorium track: pitched by Mayor Pro Tem Nick Stevens May 14; council approved the pitch June 2; unanimous vote to start the legal process Aug. 18, 2026; two noticed public hearings required, then a vote on a 90-day moratorium on new development and permitting for data centers in city limits (extendable by another 90 days); first hearing Sept. 22, 2026; second Oct. 27; vote as early as Dec. 1 per staff presentation (Community Impact); Denton Record-Chronicle: 'a possible moratorium could start in early December.' City attorney Mack Reinwand said whether it applies to expansions of existing data centers needs more research. Existing facilities: Core Scientific (up to 391 MW) and QumulusAI (20 MW, approved January 2026, not built). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance/resolution number; exemptions. Companion: tx-denton-dc-code-amendments-proposed-2026.","who_is_protected":"Denton residents","who_must_comply":"New data center developers within Denton city limits","citation":"Denton, TX — 90-day data center moratorium process (hearings Sept. 22 and Oct. 27, 2026) and Denton Development Code data center amendments (vote Oct. 13, 2026)","source_url":"https://communityimpact.com/denton/government/denton-officials-weigh-data-center-moratorium-during-first-public-hearing/","source_title":"Denton officials weigh data center moratorium during first public hearing — Community Impact","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Denton (Development Services)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"tx-gov-abbott-tceq-dc-permit-pause-2026","title":"Texas — Governor Abbott Directs TCEQ to Halt All Permits Sought by Data Centers Until ERCOT Review Is Complete (September 21, 2026)","short_title":"Texas Abbott directive: TCEQ data center permit pause (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-21","enacted_date":"2026-09-21","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ordered the state's environmental agency, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, to stop issuing permits sought by data centers. The September 21, 2026 letter says no state agency should move forward with data center approvals until the grid operator ERCOT, the Public Utility Commission and the Water Development Board finish gathering information in their data center audits. TCEQ must pause all data-center-related permits until ERCOT completes its review and report back to the governor by October 19, 2026. The letter also says Abbott will ask the Legislature to eliminate financial incentives for data centers.","summary_technical":"Gubernatorial directive letter (not a statute, rule or executive order) dated Sept. 21, 2026 (a Monday), Gov. Greg Abbott to TCEQ Executive Director Kelly Keel. Text: 'With this letter I am directing the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to halt all permits sought by data centers' ... 'no other state agency shall move forward with regulatory approvals related to data centers until this information is acquired. Therefore, I direct the TCEQ to pause the issuance of all permits related to data center projects until ERCOT completes its review.' Builds on the PUC/ERCOT audit directive (tx-gov-abbott-dc-audit-directive-2026) and the Sept. 14 TWDB water-reporting directive (tx-abbott-twdb-water-reporting-penalties-2026). Stated policy conditions: data center projects must cover all electrical infrastructure costs, result in lower residential electrical bills, complete the ERCOT and TWDB audits, not use water needed by local communities, report electricity and water usage, and abide by setback requirements; the Governor will work with the Legislature to eliminate financial incentives. TCEQ compliance update due Monday, Oct. 19, 2026. IMPLEMENTATION (TechTarget, Sept. 24, 2026, quoting TCEQ external relations director Ryan Vise): TCEQ has paused all air and water permits and other authorizations for construction or development of infrastructure directly supporting data centers; TCEQ has not said whether projects outside ERCOT's interconnection process are covered. Other dates per TechTarget: Oct. 12 ERCOT State and Community Impact RFI responses (applies to developers with >=25 MW peak requested load), Dec. 10 ERCOT report to the PUC. NOT ESTABLISHED: a fixed end date (pause runs until ERCOT completes its review); legal authority of the directive over an independent commission; coverage of behind-the-meter/islanded projects (law-firm commentary conflicts).","who_is_protected":"Texas residents and communities near proposed data centers","who_must_comply":"TCEQ (permit issuance); data center developers seeking TCEQ permits","citation":"Letter of Gov. Greg Abbott to TCEQ Executive Director Kelly Keel, Sept. 21, 2026 (data center permit pause)","source_url":"https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/TCEQ_Data_Center.pdf","source_title":"Letter from Gov. Greg Abbott to TCEQ Executive Director Kelly Keel (Sept. 21, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of the Governor; Texas Commission on Environmental Quality","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None stated (permit pause)"},{"id":"tx-lubbock-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Lubbock, TX — City Council Votes 5-2 to Start the Process for a 90-Day Moratorium on Approvals for Large-Scale Data Centers (September 22, 2026)","short_title":"Lubbock TX proposed 90-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lubbock, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Lubbock County","city":"Lubbock","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"On September 22, 2026, the Lubbock City Council voted 5-2 to start the process of imposing a 90-day moratorium on certain approvals for large-scale data centers while the city studies rules on water, electricity, zoning, noise and lighting. The ordinance still has to go through required public hearings and a final vote. A citizen-petitioned 18-month moratorium did not get a second. Council members Tim Collins and Tim Green voted no; if an optional 90-day extension were approved, a large-scale data center would not be considered until June 2027.","summary_technical":"Resolution adopted 5-2 at the Tuesday 2026-09-22 council meeting (KCBD published 2026-09-22 9:22 PM CDT; Lubbock Lights 'voted 5-2 on Sept. 22'). No votes: District 6 Tim Collins, District 4 Tim Green. Starts the process for a 90-day moratorium on certain approvals for large-scale data centers; while the ordinance is drafted, planning staff to develop guidelines on water use, power reliability, zoning, noise and lighting; expert work session to be scheduled within 90 days (KCBD). The moratorium must still complete the required public-hearing and approval process (Lubbock Lights). Collins argued the city has one moratorium tool and preferred waiting for the Texas legislative session ending May 2027; KCBD: if an optional 90-day extension were approved, a large-scale data center would not be considered until June 2027. Save Lubbock's 18-month petition moratorium failed for lack of a second (Lubbock Lights); Sanders later said he would seek a further three months under state law and hinted at litigation. Planning and Zoning Commission work session on large-scale data center and power-generation/transmission regulations scheduled for Thursday 2026-10-01 at 5 p.m. (Lubbock Lights, published Tuesday 2026-09-29). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance hearing/adoption dates; definition/threshold of 'large-scale'; sponsor names (KLBK report blocked, not confirmed).","who_is_protected":"Lubbock residents","who_must_comply":"Large-scale data center developers seeking city approvals, if adopted","citation":"City of Lubbock, Tex. — resolution initiating a 90-day large-scale data center moratorium (Sept. 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kcbd.com/2026/09/23/city-council-adopts-resolution-regarding-large-scale-data-centers-lubbock-starting-process-potential-moratorium/","source_title":"City council adopts resolution regarding large-scale data centers in Lubbock, starting process for potential moratorium — KCBD","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Lubbock","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None — proposed"},{"id":"tx-puct-large-load-interconnection-rule-58481-2026","title":"Texas — PUCT Adopts Final Large Load Interconnection Standards for Data Centers of 75 MW or More (Project 58481, September 2026)","short_title":"Texas PUCT large load interconnection rule (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-08","enacted_date":"2026-09-18","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"The Public Utility Commission of Texas adopted its final rule on September 18, 2026 for connecting very large electricity users, such as data centers, to the ERCOT grid. It applies to new or expanded loads of 75 megawatts or more at a single site. Developers pay a flat $100,000 study fee and must post financial security of $50,000 per megawatt of requested peak demand. The final rule dropped a proposed non-refundable interconnection fee of $50,000 per megawatt and relaxed some milestone and refund terms compared with the March proposal. The rule implements Senate Bill 6 (2025).","summary_technical":"PUCT Project (Control) No. 58481, 'Rulemaking to Implement Large Load Interconnection Standards under PURA 37.0561' (PURA §37.0561 added by SB 6, 89th Leg., 2025; see tx-sb6). PUCT interchange docket: item 218, 9/18/2026, 'Order Adopting New 16 TAC §25.194'; item 219, 9/18/2026, 'Texas Register Acknowledgement of Receipt - Effective 10.08.2026'. Utility Dive (published Mon. Sept. 21, 2026): commission 'voted Friday' (= Sept. 18). Scope (Colocation Scout, Compute Law): new or expanded interconnections of 75 MW or more at a single site in ERCOT. Final terms: flat $100,000 study fee for all large loads (proposal had size tiers); proposed non-refundable $50,000/MW interconnection fee eliminated; financial security $50,000/MW of requested peak demand (agreement stage: greater of $50,000/MW contracted peak demand or allocated system upgrade costs, per Colocation Scout); the interconnecting DSP/TSP must notify ERCOT of non-utilized capacity after a 24-month miss measured against the energization schedule as a whole (proposal: 30 days after a 6-month miss); within 60 days of that notice, security is applied to amounts owed and the balance returned (proposal: 20% refunded, 80% applied/rate-base offset). Effective Oct. 8, 2026. Adopted during the Governor's Aug. 3 audit directive (tx-gov-abbott-dc-audit-directive-2026). The adoption order text itself was not read.","who_is_protected":"ERCOT ratepayers, protected from stranded interconnection costs of large loads","who_must_comply":"Large load customers (75 MW+ at a single site) seeking ERCOT interconnection, and interconnecting distribution and transmission service providers","citation":"16 TAC §25.194 (PUCT Project No. 58481, order adopted Sept. 18, 2026; effective Oct. 8, 2026)","source_url":"https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?ControlNumber=58481&UtilityType=A&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&DateFiledFrom=09%2F17%2F2026%2000%3A00%3A00&DateFiledTo=09%2F19%2F2026%2000%3A00%3A00","source_title":"PUCT Interchange, Project 58481 filings 9/18/2026 — Order Adopting New 16 TAC §25.194; Texas Register acknowledgement (effective 10.08.2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Public Utility Commission of Texas; ERCOT","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Forfeiture or application of posted financial security; reporting of non-utilized capacity to ERCOT"},{"id":"tx-westlake-keller-hoa-dc-zoning-suit-2026","title":"Lakes at Marshall Ridge HOA et al. v. Westlake officials, City of Keller intervening (Tarrant County Dist. Ct.) — Suit over the Circle T data center's zoning and notice; TRO dissolved, hearing Oct. 23, 2026","short_title":"Keller HOA / City of Keller v. Westlake TX data center suit (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Westlake, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Tarrant County","city":"Westlake","topics":["data-centers","transparency"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"A Keller homeowners association and two residents sued Westlake's mayor and town council over the proposed Circle T data center on the Westlake-Keller border, and the City of Keller joined the case. They claim Westlake broke its own zoning rules and hid what the project really was. A Tarrant County judge blocked a council vote on the project's development agreement on Aug. 17, 2026, but on Sept. 25 she lifted that order and set an Oct. 23 hearing.","summary_technical":"Tarrant County district court (Fort Worth); Judge Kimberly Fitzpatrick. Plaintiffs: The Lakes at Marshall Ridge HOA and two individuals; defendants: Westlake's mayor and council members (Town of Westlake); City of Keller joined as intervenor (Dallas Morning News). Project: Circle T Data Center by PowerHouse Data Centers, four buildings on ~88 acres along U.S. 377 (DMN). Allegations (CBS Texas): site plan omits the 150-foot setback and landscaped buffer required by Westlake's zoning ordinance next to plaintiffs' single-family homes; in December 2024 the town P&Z considered a text amendment nearly doubling permitted height from 45 to 80 feet without the words 'data center' in the agenda notice. TRO issued Aug. 17, 2026 blocking a council vote on the development agreement; extended several times; dissolved Fri. Sept. 25, 2026 after hundreds of pages of late filings; mediation reached impasse. Next: Oct. 23, 2026 hearing on plaintiffs' standing. Westlake says the parcel has been zoned commercial/industrial since 1998 and the use is allowed by right. NOT ESTABLISHED: cause number, filing date.","who_is_protected":"Residents adjoining the proposed Westlake data center site","who_must_comply":"Town of Westlake","citation":"Lakes at Marshall Ridge HOA et al. v. Town of Westlake officials (City of Keller, intervenor), Tarrant County District Court (2026)","source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/westlake-data-center-court-hearing-tarrant-county-september-2026/","source_title":"Judge delays decision on controversial Westlake data center proposal — CBS Texas","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Tarrant County District Court","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"ut-spanish-fork-title-15-onsite-generation-data-center-ordinance-2026","title":"Spanish Fork, UT — Title 15 Code Amendment Allowing One Self-Powered, Grid-Isolated Data Center With a 450 MW Generation Cap and 300,000-Gallon Annual Water Limit (September 2026)","short_title":"Spanish Fork UT Title 15 data center onsite-generation ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Spanish Fork, UT","state_abbr":"UT","county":"Utah County","city":"Spanish Fork","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Spanish Fork's city code previously did not allow facilities that generate their own electricity. The City Council voted 3-2 to amend Title 15 of the municipal code to set requirements for a data center with onsite power generation. The new code allows one such data center, caps its power generation at 450 megawatts, requires it to operate isolated from the city's power system, and limits water use to 300,000 gallons a year after an initial fill of up to 500,000 gallons. It also regulates air emissions, noise and wastewater, and lets the city restrict or suspend operations for violations. Residents have filed a referendum application seeking to put the amendment to voters.","summary_technical":"Spanish Fork City Council, Title 15 municipal code amendment for data centers and other facilities that generate their own electricity. Vote 3-2: yes Kevin Oyler, Shane Marshall, Stacy Beck; no Jesse Cardon, Landon Tooke (Daily Herald). VOTE DATE CONFLICT: FOX13 states 'On Sept.21, the council approved' the amendment; the Daily Herald (dated Sept. 23, 2026) says it was approved 'Tuesday' (which would be Sept. 22). enacted_date left null. Terms per Daily Herald: one data center with onsite generation permitted; max 450 MW generation capacity; must operate isolated from the Spanish Fork power system; after the initial fill of the cooling system and humidification areas, water use may not exceed 300,000 gallons per year (500,000 gallons initial fill was Volition CEO Jeff Chavez's August description of the project, not a code term); regulations on air emissions, noise and wastewater; city may impose operational restrictions and suspensions for violations. Earlier drafts (August 2026) proposed a 500 MW cap and closed-loop/air/dry cooling; the council tabled the item after a six-hour hearing on Aug. 19-20 (Daily Herald Aug. 20). Applicant Volition later moved its proposed site from the canyon-mouth warehouse to the Stockman Flats building in western Spanish Fork (KSL, Sept. 25). Referendum: citizens submitted an application on a Monday after passage; city has 20 days to review (FOX13; article undated in fetch, exact filing date NOT established). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, effective date, whether the referendum suspends the amendment.","who_is_protected":"Spanish Fork residents and utility customers (grid isolation, water and noise limits)","who_must_comply":"Any data center with onsite power generation in Spanish Fork","citation":"Spanish Fork, Utah, Municipal Code Title 15 amendment (onsite-generation data centers), approved 3-2 (Sept. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.heraldextra.com/news/2026/sep/23/spanish-fork-city-council-approves-code-amendment-to-make-way-for-data-center/","source_title":"Spanish Fork City Council approves code amendment to make way for data center — Daily Herald (Sept. 23, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Spanish Fork City","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"City may issue operational restrictions and suspensions for violations (Daily Herald)"},{"id":"va-carroll-county-dc-emergency-ordinance-2026","title":"Carroll County, VA — Board of Supervisors Passes 60-Day Emergency Ordinance Regulating Hyperscale Data Centers (Closed-Loop Cooling, Decommissioning Bond, Ratepayer Protection, Noise Limits) (September 14, 2026)","short_title":"Carroll County VA emergency data center ordinance (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Carroll County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Carroll County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-14","enacted_date":"2026-09-14","expires_date":"2026-11-13","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"At a called meeting on September 14, 2026, the Carroll County Board of Supervisors voted 5-1 to adopt an emergency ordinance regulating hyperscale data centers, in effect for 60 days. It requires closed-loop cooling and bars groundwater as the primary cooling source, requires engineering analyses of water use and decommissioning costs, requires a surety bond for decommissioning, and says data center owners must pay for utility rate increases and utility upgrades tied to their facilities. It sets noise limits of 70 decibels by day and 60 at night at adjacent property, with misdemeanor penalties. The chairman said the county plans to modify it and adopt it permanently, and the board asked its planning commission to fold data center rules into the Comprehensive Plan. Carroll County has no zoning, and the dissenting supervisor argued the ordinance is unenforceable without a zoning ordinance.","summary_technical":"Adopted 5-1 at a called meeting Monday 2026-09-14 after a 50-minute closed session; motion by Supervisor Greg Horton; Supervisor Jody Early voted no. Term: 'in effect for 60 days' per The Carroll News — expires_date 2026-11-13 is computed from that stated 60-day term counted from 2026-09-14. Provisions: closed-loop cooling required; groundwater may not be the primary cooling source; engineering analyses of water usage and decommissioning cost; surety bond for decommissioning/site restoration; owners pay utility rate increases and associated utility upgrades; noise cap 70 dB (6 a.m.-6 p.m.) and 60 dB (6 p.m.-6 a.m.) measured at any adjacent owner's property; violation is a Class 3 misdemeanor (fine up to $500), second offense Class 1 misdemeanor (up to 12 months jail and/or $2,500). Second motion (Vice Chair Tracy Moore, unanimous): planning commission to consider Comprehensive Plan amendments on data centers. Context: on 2026-09-07 five of six supervisors voted to cancel plans for a county zoning ordinance. Enforceability contested (Early: 'It has no teeth'; county attorney reportedly advised a comprehensive zoning ordinance is required). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; official text.","who_is_protected":"Carroll County residents, neighboring property owners and utility ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Owners/developers of hyperscale data centers in Carroll County","citation":"Carroll County, Va. — Emergency ordinance to regulate hyperscale data centers (adopted Sept. 14, 2026, 60 days)","source_url":"https://www.thecarrollnews.com/news/supervisors-pass-emergency-ordinance-to-regulate-data-centers-at-called-meeting-of-monday-sept-14/article_189f12e0-a955-4e8c-89e0-0d35249dde3a.html","source_title":"Supervisors pass emergency ordinance to regulate data centers at 'called' meeting of Monday Sept. 14 — The Carroll News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Carroll County Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Noise violations: Class 3 misdemeanor (up to $500); repeat: Class 1 misdemeanor (up to 12 months and/or $2,500)"},{"id":"va-hb496-dc-water-use-reporting-2026","title":"Virginia — HB 496 (2026): Water Utilities Must Report Potable and Reclaimed Water Supplied to Data Centers (Chapter 623, Effective July 2026)","short_title":"Virginia HB 496 data center water-use reporting (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["data-centers","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-04-13","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Virginia HB 496, approved by the Governor on April 13, 2026 (Chapter 623), requires water suppliers that report to the State Water Control Board and provide water to others to report, each month, the potable water and, separately, the reclaimed water they supply to data centers that hold a DEQ air permit. Where their billing systems allow it without changes, they must also break out water supplied for domestic, commercial/industrial and other purposes. The law took effect July 1, 2026.","summary_technical":"HB 496 (2026 Regular Session), patron Del. Elizabeth Guzman (D) with 9 co-patrons (Simonds, Anderson, Clark, J. Cole, N. Cole, Laufer, LeVere Bolling, Rasoul, Schmidt). Amends Va. Code § 62.1-44.38 (official code history: '2026, cc. 623, 896'). Text now in force: any water user required to register withdrawal and use data that provides water to another person offsite must include in its report, on its regular reporting schedule, the total volume of potable water and, separately, the total volume of reclaimed water provided during each month to (i) a data center (as defined in § 58.1-3506(A)(43)) with an air permit issued by DEQ and (ii) to the extent available without utility billing system modifications, (a) domestic, (b) commercial and industrial (separately or combined) and (c) all other non-categorized purposes. History (tracker): enrolled Mar. 30, 2026; communicated to Governor Mar. 31; approved Apr. 13, 2026, Chapter 623, effective July 1, 2026. NOT ESTABLISHED: penalty provisions; what Chapter 896 (also amending the section) changed.","who_is_protected":"Virginia residents and water-resource planners, through disclosure of data center water use","who_must_comply":"Water suppliers reporting to the State Water Control Board","citation":"Va. HB 496 (2026), Acts of Assembly Chapter 623, amending Va. Code §62.1-44.38","source_url":"https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title62.1/chapter3.1/section62.1-44.38/","source_title":"Va. Code § 62.1-44.38 — Code of Virginia (Virginia Legislative Information System)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"State Water Control Board / Virginia Department of Environmental Quality","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in located sources"},{"id":"va-suffolk-citywide-dc-prohibition-proposed-2026","title":"Suffolk, VA — Planning Commission Unanimously Recommends Citywide Prohibition on Data Centers as a Principal Use; City Council Vote Set for Oct. 21, 2026","short_title":"Suffolk VA proposed citywide data center prohibition (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Suffolk, VA","state_abbr":"VA","city":"Suffolk","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Suffolk, Virginia is close to banning standalone data centers citywide. On September 15, 2026 the Planning Commission voted 8-0 to recommend a zoning change that would prohibit data centers as a primary use in every zoning district, with no conditional-use or exception process. The change also adds a definition of data center and tightens warehouse definitions so a data center cannot be labeled a warehouse. Businesses such as hospitals that run servers to support their main operations would not be affected. City Council is scheduled to vote October 21, 2026.","summary_technical":"Instrument: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendment. Origin: June 17, 2026 City Council directive to draft an ordinance prohibiting data centers in every zoning district (Suffolk News-Herald; WHRO June coverage headline). Planning Commission: 8-0 recommendation, Sept. 15, 2026. Definition: establishment primarily engaged in storing, managing, processing or transmitting digital data, housing computers, servers, network equipment and associated components; may include power and cooling infrastructure. Prohibition applies where the data center is the principal use; accessory server use (hospital, office) exempt. Warehouse/distribution definitions amended to block re-characterization. Per Planning Director Kevin Wyne, if approved data centers 'would not be permitted at all' and there would be no exception process; an applicant could appeal a zoning administrator's determination that a proposal meets the definition. Context: Gov. Spanberger signed EO 22 (Data Center Accountability Framework) three days after the vote. Council vote Oct. 21, 2026 (News-Herald); WHRO says 'October'. Not in force. Framing: News-Herald says the ban would block new standalone projects 'while the city considers long-term regulations'; WHRO headlines describe it as a temporary ban, though no sunset was reported.","who_is_protected":"Residents of the City of Suffolk, Virginia","who_must_comply":"Developers proposing data centers as a principal use in Suffolk (if adopted)","citation":"City of Suffolk, Virginia — proposed UDO amendment prohibiting data centers as a principal use (Planning Commission 8-0, Sept. 15, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.suffolknewsherald.com/news/suffolk-planners-back-data-center-ban-ca2cc41b","source_title":"Suffolk planners back data center ban — Suffolk News-Herald (Sept. 30, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Suffolk (City Council; Planning and Community Development; zoning administrator)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"wa-seattle-cb-121267-surveillance-pricing-ban-2026","title":"Seattle, WA — City Council Passes CB 121267, the First City Ban on Grocery 'Surveillance Pricing' Using Shoppers' Personal Data (September 2026)","short_title":"Seattle CB 121267 grocery surveillance pricing ban (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Seattle, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"King County","city":"Seattle","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"enacted","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2027-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-22","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"On September 22, 2026 the Seattle City Council voted 7-2 to pass the Fair and Transparent Pricing ordinance (Council Bill 121267; reported by Supermarket News as the Fair Pricing and Transparency Act), which bans large grocery retailers and delivery platforms from using a shopper's personal data, through algorithms, to set individualized prices for groceries and other essentials. Data covered includes things like browsing history, location, inferred income, race, gender, employment status, social media activity and chatbot conversations. Prices must be clearly posted and available to all shoppers equally, while ordinary coupons, loyalty programs and sales remain allowed. City officials describe Seattle as the first U.S. city to adopt such a ban.","summary_technical":"Seattle CB 121267 ('An ordinance relating to prohibiting algorithmic-based price discrimination; requiring covered retailer disclosures...'). Introduced 2026-07-22; referred 2026-08-11; discussed in the Human Services, Labor, and Economic Development Committee 2026-08-21; passed committee as amended 2026-09-11; full Council passed 7-2 on 2026-09-22 (no: Kettle, Rivera). Prohibits use of consumers' personal data to set individualized prices for groceries and essential items (The Urbanist: groceries, diapers, hygiene products, OTC medications). Covered: large online and brick-and-mortar grocery retailers; The Urbanist (August 2026, pre-amendment reporting) described coverage as grocery businesses with 20+ locations, large mixed retailers and large delivery services, with small independents exempt; enforcement by the Seattle City Attorney with subpoena power plus a private right of action; and an effective date of September 1, 2027. These details come from pre-final-vote reporting and are NOT confirmed against the final amended text; effective_date is therefore left null. Mayor's signature not confirmed in sources opened. Penalty amounts NOT established from sources opened. Official name per the City bulletin and FOX 13: 'Fair and Transparent Pricing' policy (Supermarket News: 'Fair Pricing and Transparency Act'). Adds new Chapter 7.35 to the Seattle Municipal Code (bill title). As of 2026-10-01 the Mayor's signature was not confirmed in any page opened; status 'enacted' reflects Council passage.","who_is_protected":"Grocery shoppers in Seattle","who_must_comply":"Large grocery retailers (online and brick-and-mortar) and large delivery platforms operating in Seattle","citation":"Seattle Council Bill 121267, Fair and Transparent Pricing ordinance (new SMC ch. 7.35; passed Sept. 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/WASEATTLE/bulletins/42c0ea7","source_title":"Seattle Becomes First City to Stop Grocery Stores from Using AI Based Personal Data to Set Prices — City of Seattle (GovDelivery)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Seattle City Attorney's Office (per August 2026 reporting on the proposal)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil penalties; amounts not confirmed in sources opened"},{"id":"wi-de-pere-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"De Pere, WI — Plan Commission Endorses a One-Year Moratorium on Rezonings for Large Data Centers (300,000+ Gallons/Day or 50,000+ Sq Ft), Citing Water Burden (September 2026)","short_title":"De Pere WI proposed 1-year large data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"De Pere, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Brown County","city":"De Pere","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"De Pere's Plan Commission endorsed a proposed one-year pause on large data centers. If the City Council approves it, the city could not consider any rezoning request for a data center that would use more than 300,000 gallons of water a day or cover more than 50,000 square feet. The city engineer said such a facility could strain the water utility; 300,000 gallons a day would be about an 18% jump in the city's current daily water use. Mayor James Boyd supports the pause.","summary_technical":"Proposed development moratorium under Wisconsin's moratorium statute (which, per city development services director Daniel Lindstrom as quoted by the Press-Gazette, requires an engineer's or health professional's opinion of infrastructure burden or public-health risk, cannot pause developments already underway, and cannot target a specific project). Drafted terms: for one year, officials may not consider any rezoning proposal for a data center using >300,000 gallons of water/day or occupying >50,000 sq ft (the 'large-scale' threshold in city engineer Eric Rakers' memo). Rakers' memo: 300,000 gpd = ~18% increase over current ~1.65 million gpd city use. Plan Commission endorsement Sept. 28, 2026 (Press-Gazette); Spectrum News reports the planning body approved a one-year moratorium that still needs Common Council final approval. Council vote expected November 2026 (Press-Gazette); exact date not stated. NOT ESTABLISHED: Plan Commission vote count; council meeting date; ordinance number.","who_is_protected":"De Pere residents and water-utility ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Applicants seeking rezoning for large-scale data centers in De Pere","citation":"De Pere, WI — proposed one-year large-scale data center rezoning moratorium (Plan Commission endorsement Sept. 28, 2026; Common Council vote pending)","source_url":"https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/local/2026/09/29/de-pere-committee-endorses-data-center-moratorium-on-water-burden/91984739007/","source_title":"De Pere committee endorses data center moratorium, citing water burden — Green Bay Press-Gazette","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of De Pere (Common Council; Plan Commission)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"wi-janesville-city-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Janesville, WI (City) — City Council Unanimously Adopts a 12-Month Data Center Moratorium Covering Rezonings, Permits and Annexations (September 2026)","short_title":"Janesville WI city 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Janesville, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Rock County","city":"Janesville","topics":["data-centers","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-28","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"The Janesville City Council voted unanimously on September 28, 2026 to pause data center development for 12 months. During the pause the city will not accept, process, review or approve data center applications, including rezonings, permits and annexations, while it writes zoning rules for data centers. City staff also may not solicit data center projects or sign nondisclosure agreements about them during the pause. This is the City of Janesville, separate from the Town of Janesville, which has its own moratorium.","summary_technical":"City of Janesville (Rock County, WI) ordinance — 12-month moratorium on accepting, processing, reviewing and approving applications related to data center development (rezonings, permits, annexation actions, other development approvals). Adopted unanimously Monday Sept. 28, 2026 (GazetteXtra, Channel 3000, Big Radio). Per the pre-vote GazetteXtra preview (Sept. 25): if approved it takes effect following publication and remains for 12 months unless amended/rescinded; council may extend; staff will not actively solicit/encourage data center development or enter NDAs related to it; work at existing qualifying data facilities allowed within thresholds (structural repairs, limited alterations, equipment upgrades); ordinance states it is not a 'development moratorium' under state statute. Erdman amendment removed three recitals (GM/JATCO site, November referendum, advisory board). Same night, council approved referendum language on voter final approval of large-scale development at the former GM/JATCO site (Channel 3000). NOT ESTABLISHED: exact vote tally (reported only as unanimous), publication/effective date (so expires_date null), ordinance number. Distinct from wi-town-of-janesville-dc-moratorium-2026.","who_is_protected":"City of Janesville residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and applicants in the City of Janesville","citation":"City of Janesville, WI data center moratorium ordinance (adopted Sept. 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.gazettextra.com/news/local/janesville-city-council-approves-12-month-pause-for-data-centers/article_a2a675b4-4862-4f51-ada2-460aeee20a45.html","source_title":"Janesville city council approves 12-month pause for data centers — GazetteXtra","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Janesville (Community Development / Plan Commission)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"wi-marathon-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Marathon County, WI — County Board Adopts At-Least-12-Month Data Center Moratorium in 18 County-Zoned Towns (August 25, 2026)","short_title":"Marathon County WI 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Marathon County, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Marathon County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-08-25","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"On August 25, 2026, the Marathon County Board approved a zoning ordinance amendment pausing data center development for at least 12 months in the 18 towns that use county zoning while staff write regulations. During the pause the county will not accept, process or approve zoning or conditional use permits, text amendments or other approvals for new data centers or data center expansions where data centers are the primary use or exceed 5,000 square feet. Existing approvals, ordinary maintenance and emergency actions are exempt. Staff will give a progress report six months after passage.","summary_technical":"Zoning code amendment adopted 2026-08-25 (committee recommendation reported 2026-08-06 by The Wausonian). Scope: towns under county zoning — Brighton, Easton, Eau Pleine, Elderon, Frankfort, Green Valley, Guenther, Hewitt, Holton, Hull, Knowlton, Marathon, McMillan, Reid, Rib Falls, Plover, Spencer, Wien. Covers facilities where data center operation is a primary use or cumulative data-center floor area exceeds 5,000 sq ft. Prohibited actions: accepting/processing/approving land use or zoning permits for new development or change in use, CUPs, text amendments submitted primarily to allow data centers, and any other approval authorizing new data center development or expansion. Authority cited: Wis. Stat. 59.02 and 59.69 (59.69(4) limits map-amendment moratoria). Definitions of 'data center' and 'data center expansion' adopted. Exemptions: previously issued lawful approvals, ordinary maintenance/repair, emergency actions. 'At least 12-month' pause — no fixed expiry stated, so expires_date null. Follow-up: The Wausonian (Oct. 1, 2026) reports that after passing the year-long moratorium in August, county leaders that week began developing a permanent data center ordinance. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; vote tally.","who_is_protected":"Residents of the 18 Marathon County towns under county zoning","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in county-zoned towns","citation":"Marathon County, Wis. — zoning code amendment, 12-month data center moratorium (adopted Aug. 25, 2026)","source_url":"https://wausaupilotandreview.com/2026/09/21/what-to-know-about-marathon-countys-12-month-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"What to know about Marathon County's 12-month data center moratorium — Wausau Pilot & Review (Wausau Daily Herald)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Marathon County Conservation, Planning and Zoning Department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"wi-milwaukee-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Milwaukee, Wisconsin — Proposed One-Year Moratorium on Establishing or Enlarging Data Centers Clears City Plan Commission Unanimously; Committee Oct. 6, Common Council Oct. 13 (September 2026)","short_title":"Milwaukee WI proposed one-year data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Milwaukee, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Milwaukee County","city":"Milwaukee","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"A proposed Milwaukee ordinance would pause the establishment, construction, enlargement, expansion, conversion or occupancy of data centers citywide for up to one year, or until the city adopts zoning rules for data centers, whichever comes first. The City Plan Commission unanimously endorsed it on September 28, 2026 after a lengthy hearing. It goes to the Zoning, Neighborhoods and Development Committee on October 6 and is expected before the Common Council on October 13. A separate zoning proposal would ban data centers over 60,000 square feet and regulate smaller ones.","summary_technical":"Milwaukee, Wis. — moratorium ordinance sponsored by Ald. Marina Dimitrijevic; co-sponsors per Urban Milwaukee: Brower, Moore, Bauman, Stamper. SCOPE (BizTimes): one-year pause on data center 'establishment, construction, enlargement, expansion, conversion or occupancy'; rescinded early if zoning rules are adopted. ACTION: City Plan Commission unanimous on Monday 2026-09-28 (Journal Sentinel; FOX6); DCD recommended approval with clarifying changes; a pending amendment listed as offered by Ald. Bauman would exempt the Forest County Potawatomi's existing Data Holdings facility (3135 W. Highland Blvd.). SCHEDULE (Journal Sentinel): ZND Committee 2026-10-06; Common Council expected 2026-10-13. HISTORY: committee review delayed in July after the city attorney's office questioned legality for lack of a public hearing. SEPARATE PROPOSAL (not acted on): zoning framework banning data centers over 60,000 sq ft, allowing <20,000 sq ft in industrial-heavy zones, and requiring BOZA approval plus demand, noise and community-benefit reports for 20,000-60,000 sq ft. Urban Milwaukee (Sept. 30) reports the Bauman exemption amendment previously appeared in the legislative file but is no longer included. BizTimes says the ordinance had 'already passed through' the ZND Committee, which conflicts with the Journal Sentinel's Oct. 6 ZND date; the Journal Sentinel schedule is used. Commissioners Bloomingdale and Crane were excused. NOT ESTABLISHED: Common Council file number.","who_is_protected":"Milwaukee residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators in Milwaukee (if adopted)","citation":"City of Milwaukee proposed data center moratorium ordinance (Plan Commission Sept. 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/business/2026/09/28/milwaukee-plan-commission-advances-one-year-data-center-moratorium/91994736007/","source_title":"City Plan Commission advances one-year data center moratorium — Milwaukee Journal Sentinel","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Milwaukee; Department of City Development","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"wi-vilas-county-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Vilas County, WI — Proposed 12-Month Moratorium on Data Centers, Solar Farms and Battery Storage Sent to County Board for November 10 Vote (September 2026)","short_title":"Vilas County WI proposed 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Vilas County, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Vilas County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Vilas County is considering a 12-month moratorium covering data centers, solar farms and battery energy storage systems so the zoning department can research their impacts and write regulations. The county's Planning and Zoning Committee held a public hearing and voted to send the ordinance to the full county board, which is scheduled to vote on November 10. It follows a one-year moratorium adopted by neighboring Oneida County.","summary_technical":"Proposed zoning ordinance: 12-month pause on 'any datacenters or solar farms or battery energy storage systems' (Zoning Administrator David Sadenwasser) to allow research and regulation, and to see how the state regulates data centers. Planning and Zoning Committee public hearing at a Wednesday-morning meeting (WJFW report dated 2026-09-23); four residents spoke; committee voted to forward to the county board; board vote set for 2026-11-10. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; size thresholds; exemptions; whether it reaches towns with their own zoning.","who_is_protected":"Vilas County residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers, solar farms and battery storage in county-zoned areas, if adopted","citation":"Vilas County, Wis. — proposed 12-month data center/solar/BESS moratorium ordinance (county board vote Nov. 10, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wjfw.com/news/local/vilas-county-eyes-12-month-moratorium-on-data-centers/article_907e7736-1434-4b55-bb8e-f5a178ba9ad0.html","source_title":"Vilas County eyes 12-month moratorium on data centers — WJFW","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Vilas County Zoning Department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None — proposed"},{"id":"wi-wood-county-dc-notice-ordinance-2026","title":"Wood County, WI — County Board Enacts Ordinance 26-9-2 Requiring Developers to Notify the County of Large-Scale Data Center Proposals (September 2026)","short_title":"Wood County WI data center notice ordinance (Ord. 26-9-2)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Wood County, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Wood County","topics":["data-centers","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-09-15","enacted_date":"2026-09-15","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Wood County, Wisconsin now requires developers of large-scale data centers anywhere in the county, including inside its cities, villages and towns, to notify the county within 30 days of their first planning contact with a local municipality. Notice goes to the county Planning and Zoning Director, Administrative Coordinator and Corporation Counsel and must describe the project's location and design, farmland and land-use compatibility, impacts on roads, drainage, emergency services and infrastructure, environmental effects, and proposed mitigation. A large-scale data center is one with at least 25,000 square feet of principal buildings on a 10-acre-plus tract and at least 5,000 servers. The County Board enacted the ordinance 16-2 on September 15, 2026, and it took effect on passage. The county may then seek a mitigation agreement with the developer.","summary_technical":"Ordinance 26-9-2 (Wood County Board of Supervisors, 2026-09-15) creates Ordinance 709 of the Wood County Code. Vote: motion Pliml/Schulz to enact; Clendenning/Leichtnam motion to postpone to the October meeting lost; original motion carried with Clendenning and Leichtnam voting no, Hamilton excused (18 present = 16-2). 709.1 applies to all proposed Large-Scale Data Centers in the county regardless of whether located in a city, village or town. 709.2 definition: buildings with primary purpose of housing computing/networking equipment that (a) aggregate at least 25,000 sq ft of principal buildings, (b) sit on a single contiguous tract of 10+ acres, and (c) consist of at least 5,000 servers. 709.3: within 30 days of the first 'Planning Contact' (15 enumerated forms, (a)-(o), incl. inquiries to clerks, zoning administrators, planning commissions, elected officials, economic development organizations, CUP/site-plan/annexation submissions, letters of intent) the Contacting Party must notify the Planning and Zoning Director, Administrative Coordinator and Corporation Counsel and provide: location/design/operations; agricultural preservation and land use compatibility; impacts on roads, drainage, emergency services, infrastructure; environmental/stormwater impacts; compatibility; proposed mitigation; other information on County highway/service impacts. 709.4: county review, possible referral to a subcommittee or the Board; county may negotiate a mitigation agreement. Recitals cite Wis. Stat. 86.02 and 86.14 (recovery of highway damages). 709.5(3): takes effect upon passage (cover sheet: 'Upon passage & posting'). NOT ESTABLISHED: any penalty for failure to give notice (none in text).","who_is_protected":"Wood County residents and county road/service users","who_must_comply":"Owners, operators, proposed developers (or their agents) of Large-Scale Data Centers anywhere in Wood County","citation":"Wood County, Wis., Ordinance 26-9-2 (enacted Sept. 15, 2026), creating Wood County Code Ordinance 709","source_url":"https://www.woodcountywi.gov/FileService/GetFile.aspx?FileID=eae553b3-61e6-4761-866b-16286bda8f2f","source_title":"Proceedings of the Wood County Board of Supervisors, September 15, 2026 (minutes)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Wood County Planning and Zoning Director; Administrative Coordinator; Corporation Counsel","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None stated in the ordinance; recitals note county authority under Wis. Stat. 86.02/86.14 to recover highway damages"},{"id":"litig-cheyenne-wy-microsoft-annexation-petitions-2026","title":"Cheyenne, WY — Resident's Laramie County District Court Petitions Seek to Void the 3,460-Acre Microsoft Data Center Annexation and the Council's Aug. 10 Vote; City Seeks Declaratory Judgment on Referendum (2026)","short_title":"Cheyenne Microsoft data center annexation challenges (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cheyenne, WY","state_abbr":"WY","county":"Laramie County","city":"Cheyenne","topics":["data-centers","transparency"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"A Cheyenne resident has asked a Laramie County judge to overturn the City Council's July 13, 2026 approval of a roughly 3,460-acre annexation for Microsoft's planned 2.7-gigawatt data center campus, arguing the wrong landowner was listed. A second petition says the council violated Wyoming's Open Meetings Act on August 10 when, after an executive session, it voted 8-1 to have the city attorney seek a court ruling on whether the annexation can be challenged by citizen referendum. Donis says petitioners collected more than 3,000 referendum signatures; the clerk's office is still verifying them. The city says one state law points annexation challenges to district court while another allows a petition.","summary_technical":"Petitioner: Heather Madrid Donis, Laramie County homeowner (describes herself as a non-lawyer). Forum: Laramie County District Court. Petition A (filed Sept. 3, 2026): asks the court to void the July 13, 2026 annexation (~3,460 acres; Microsoft 'Highlands' 2.7 GW campus), alleging the wrong landowner is listed on annexation paperwork. Petition B: alleges Open Meetings Act violation on Aug. 10, 2026 — after an executive session the council voted 8-1, on an item allegedly not on the public agenda, to authorize City Attorney John Brody to seek a declaratory judgment on whether annexations can be challenged by referendum (Title 22) or only by district court appeal (Title 15); asks that the Aug. 10 vote be declared null and void. Referendum: requires 10% of 2024 city electorate (~2,739) within 20 days; organizers estimated ~3,200 signatures; clerk reported 128 pages / 1,912 signatures reviewed (~57%) as of Sept. 25, 2026; clerk has until Nov. 3. Mayor Patrick Collins said the executive session was on the agenda. As of Sept. 29, 2026 no district court judgment on the city's declaratory request had been published (Cap City News). Donis acknowledged standing may be contested. NOT ESTABLISHED: case numbers; filing date of the Open Meetings petition; whether counsel is involved; assigned judge; city's formal response.","who_is_protected":"Cheyenne voters and residents (claimed)","who_must_comply":"City of Cheyenne (respondent)","citation":"Donis petitions v. City of Cheyenne (Laramie County District Court, filed Sept. 2026)","source_url":"https://cowboystatedaily.com/2026/09/25/cheyenne-woman-asks-court-to-overturn-3-500-acre-microsoft-data-center-annexation/","source_title":"Cheyenne Woman Asks Court To Overturn 3,500-Acre Microsoft Data Center Annexation — Cowboy State Daily (Sept. 25, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Laramie County District Court","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not applicable (petitions seek voiding of council actions)"},{"id":"pa-bethlehem-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026","title":"Bethlehem, PA — Data Center Zoning Amendment (Special Exception in Industrial District, 1,000-Ft Residential Setback) Passes First Reading 7-0 (Oct. 6, 2026); Final Vote Set for Oct. 20","short_title":"Bethlehem PA data center zoning amendment (first reading)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Bethlehem, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Lehigh and Northampton","city":"Bethlehem","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Bethlehem, Pennsylvania is close to adopting zoning rules for data centers. They would be allowed only by special exception in the Industrial district, at least 1,000 feet from homes, schools, day cares, parks and hospitals, and applicants would have to submit environmental, water, energy, sound, emergency and decommissioning studies up front. City Council approved the change 7-0 on first reading on Oct. 6, 2026, with a final vote set for Oct. 20.","summary_technical":"Amends Part 13 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Bethlehem Codified Ordinances: adds a \"Data Center\" definition (new Art. 1302.35); permits data centers only as a Special Exception in the Industrial (IN) district (Zoning Hearing Board review); requires all plans, studies and mitigation strategies at application; 200-ft setback from any right-of-way or lot outside IN; 1,000-ft setback from any residential-district lot or lot with a sensitive receptor (dwelling, school, child/adult day care, park, hospital, community recreation center); max height, yards, buffer yards and building coverage limits scaled to building size; environmental assessment, water/sewer approvals, energy plan, emergency plan, decommissioning plan, heat and noise studies (post-occupancy noise study). Per Lehigh Daily, the pending Industrial Drive data center application predates the amendment and would not be subject to it.","who_is_protected":"Bethlehem, PA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Bethlehem","citation":"City of Bethlehem, PA, Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Data Centers (Bill No. __-2026), first reading Oct. 6, 2026","source_url":"https://www.bethlehem-pa.gov/getmedia/418548d0-b59f-4a4c-9aaa-ec57ecaff99d/06d-Director-of-Planning-and-Zoning-Zoning-Text-Amendment-Data-Centers.pdf","source_title":"City of Bethlehem — Director of Planning and Zoning memo and draft ordinance, Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Data Centers (July 15, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Bethlehem Zoning Hearing Board; Department of Community and Economic Development","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"id-blaine-county-dc-emergency-moratorium-2026","title":"Blaine County, ID — Commissioners Unanimously Enact a 182-Day Emergency Moratorium on Data Center Applications in Unincorporated Areas (Oct. 6, 2026)","short_title":"Blaine County ID 182-day emergency data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Blaine County, ID","state_abbr":"ID","county":"Blaine County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-06","enacted_date":"2026-10-06","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Blaine County, Idaho stopped accepting, processing and approving data center applications in its unincorporated areas for 182 days. Commissioners adopted the emergency moratorium unanimously on Oct. 6, 2026 to give the county time to write data center rules with public input. Cities such as Hailey and Ketchum are not covered.","summary_technical":"Blaine County (ID) BOCC emergency moratorium, Tuesday Oct. 6, 2026, 3-0: bars 'receipt, processing and approval of applications' for data centers in unincorporated county for 182 days (statutory maximum for an emergency moratorium; Idaho Code 67-6523 by context — section not named in sources). Planning and Zoning Commission to draft regulations with public input. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; exact expiry date (182 days computed ~April 6, 2027).","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Blaine County, ID","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants in unincorporated Blaine County, ID","citation":"Blaine County, ID 182-day emergency data center moratorium (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.mtexpress.com/news/blaine_county/county-enacts-emergency-moratorium-on-data-centers/article_f6a9f3b1-88ad-40c6-b9c2-36649bedfe3f.html","source_title":"County enacts emergency moratorium on data centers — Idaho Mountain Express (Oct. 7, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Blaine County Planning and Zoning","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"mo-ozark-dc-zoning-regulations-2026","title":"Ozark, MO — Board of Aldermen Unanimously Adopts Data Center Zoning Rules: Conditional Use Permits, Industrial Zoning for Large-Load Sites, 60/65 dB Noise Limits, Air- or Efficient Liquid-Cooling (Oct. 5, 2026)","short_title":"Ozark MO data center zoning rules","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Ozark, MO","state_abbr":"MO","county":"Christian","city":"Ozark","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-10-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Ozark, Missouri's Board of Aldermen unanimously approved zoning rules for data centers on Oct. 5, 2026, choosing regulation over a moratorium. Small accessory facilities are allowed in commercial, mixed-use, office-warehouse or industrial zones, while micro and large-load data centers need industrial zoning and a conditional use permit. The rules cap noise at 60 decibels next to homes, schools, churches and parks (65 at commercial/industrial property), require air-cooled or high-efficiency liquid cooling, and require public noise reports and yearly compliance reports.","summary_technical":"Tiers: accessory facilities permitted in commercial, mixed-use, office-warehouse or industrial zones; micro and large-load facilities require industrial zoning plus a conditional use permit (applicant states community benefits; environmental and economic impact reports). Noise at property line: 60 dB adjoining sensitive uses (residences, schools, churches, daycares, parks, nursing homes); 65 dB at commercial/industrial. Cooling: 'fully air-cooled or high efficiency liquid cooled systems, or equivalent technologies.' No moratorium in Ozark. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, effective date.","who_is_protected":"Ozark, MO residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Ozark, MO","citation":"Ozark, MO, data center zoning code amendments (adopted Oct. 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://sgfcitizen.org/news/ozark/ozark-adopts-new-data-center-zoning/","source_title":"Ozark adopts new data center regulations in zoning code — Springfield Daily Citizen (Oct. 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Ozark Board of Aldermen; Planning and Zoning","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"il-mchenry-county-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"McHenry County, IL — Proposed 12-Month Moratorium on Data Center Zoning Approvals and Permits in Unincorporated Areas (Advanced by Committee Oct. 6, 2026; Board Vote Expected Nov. 17)","short_title":"McHenry County IL proposed 12-month data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"McHenry County, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"McHenry","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"McHenry County, Illinois is considering an ordinance that would pause, for 12 months, applications for zoning changes, conditional use permits, variances and building permits for data centers in unincorporated parts of the county while it writes rules on noise, electricity, water and cooling. A county board committee advanced it in early October 2026, and the full County Board is expected to vote Nov. 17, 2026. Cities and villages would need their own moratoriums.","summary_technical":"McHenry County (IL) proposed ordinance: temporary 12-month moratorium 'on the submission, receipt, processing, review, and approval of any application for a zoning map amendment, UDO text amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Use Determination, Site Plan Review, variance, or building permit' that would permit a data center in unincorporated McHenry County; effective immediately on passage; board may extend, repeal or modify. On the Planning, Environment and Development Committee consent agenda Tuesday Oct. 6, 2026; full County Board vote listed for Nov. 17, 2026 (Lake & McHenry County Scanner). Modeled on Lake County's eight-month moratorium. NOT ESTABLISHED: committee outcome.","who_is_protected":"McHenry County, IL residents","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants in unincorporated McHenry County, IL","citation":"McHenry County, IL, proposed 12-month data center moratorium ordinance (committee Oct. 6, 2026; board vote expected Nov. 17, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.lakemchenryscanner.com/2026/10/05/mchenry-county-proposes-12-month-ban-on-new-data-centers-in-unincorporated-parts-of-county/","source_title":"McHenry County proposes 12-month ban on new data centers in unincorporated parts of county — Lake and McHenry County Scanner (Oct. 5, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"McHenry County Board; McHenry County Planning and Development Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-humboldt-county-dc-urgency-moratorium-2026","title":"Humboldt County, CA — Board of Supervisors Adopts 45-Day Urgency Moratorium on Most New Data Center Permit Applications, 4-1 (Oct. 6, 2026)","short_title":"Humboldt County CA 45-day data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Humboldt County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Humboldt","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-10-06","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Humboldt County, California supervisors voted 4-1 on Oct. 6, 2026 to pause new data center permit applications in unincorporated areas for an initial 45 days, which the board can extend for up to 11 more months. Smaller facilities (15 megawatts or less) that run on 100% on-site renewable power and use closed-loop water systems can still go through the normal permit process. Staff expect to write a permanent ordinance within a year.","summary_technical":"Interim moratorium (45 days, renewable up to ~11 months, consistent with Cal. Gov. Code 65858 urgency procedure; four-fifths vote achieved) on data center permit applications for facilities above a 15 MW power consumption threshold; exemptions for facilities using 100% renewable energy or closed-loop water systems. Follows July 14, 2026 board direction to staff to draft a moratorium. Ordinance number and exact expiry not stated in the source.","who_is_protected":"Humboldt County, CA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants (>15 MW) in unincorporated Humboldt County","citation":"Humboldt County, CA interim data center moratorium (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://kymkemp.com/2026/10/09/as-ai-ascends-humboldt-seeks-control-of-data-centers/","source_title":"As AI Ascends, Humboldt Seeks Control of Data Centers — Redheaded Blackbelt (Oct. 9, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Humboldt County Planning and Building Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"nc-beaufort-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Beaufort County, NC — Commissioners Pass One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers 6-1 (October 5, 2026)","short_title":"Beaufort County NC one-year data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Beaufort County, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Beaufort","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-05","enacted_date":"2026-10-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Beaufort County, North Carolina commissioners passed a one-year moratorium on data centers by a 6-1 vote after a public hearing. During the moratorium the county will not accept, process or approve applications for data centers. Commissioners said they will use the year to study noise and electricity impacts.","summary_technical":"Beaufort County (NC) Board of Commissioners — one-year moratorium on data centers (no acceptance, processing or approval of data center applications). Public hearing and vote Monday Oct. 5, 2026 (hearing had been postponed from September); passed 6-1, Commissioner Hood Richardson opposed. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, stated end date.","who_is_protected":"Beaufort County, NC residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and applicants in Beaufort County, NC","citation":"Beaufort County, NC — Commissioners Pass One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers 6-1 (October 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.witn.com/2026/10/05/beaufort-county-commissioners-holding-public-hearing-vote-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Beaufort County commissioners holding public hearing & vote on data center moratorium — WITN (Oct. 5, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Beaufort County Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"me-bucksport-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Bucksport, ME — Town Council Advances Proposed 180-Day Moratorium on Commercial Data Centers; Second Reading and Public Hearing Oct. 8, 2026","short_title":"Bucksport ME proposed 180-day data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Bucksport, ME","state_abbr":"ME","county":"Hancock","city":"Bucksport","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Bucksport, Maine's Town Council voted, with one councilor opposed, to advance a proposed 180-day moratorium on commercial data centers. Supporters want time to study energy, water and environmental impacts after a developer toured the former paper mill site. The ordinance was set for a second reading and public hearing on Oct. 8, 2026.","summary_technical":"Bucksport (ME) Town Council — proposed 180-day moratorium ordinance on commercial data centers (30-A M.R.S. §4356). Advanced following discussion at the Sept. 24, 2026 meeting with one dissenting vote; second reading and formal public hearing scheduled Oct. 8, 2026. NOT ESTABLISHED: outcome of the Oct. 8 meeting, retroactivity.","who_is_protected":"Bucksport, ME residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and applicants in Bucksport, ME","citation":"Bucksport, ME — Town Council Advances Proposed 180-Day Moratorium on Commercial Data Centers; Second Reading and Public Hearing Oct. 8, 2026","source_url":"https://www.wabi.tv/2026/10/02/bucksport-town-council-advances-proposed-180-day-moratorium-commercial-data-centers/","source_title":"Bucksport Town Council advances proposed 180-day moratorium on commercial data centers — WABI (Oct. 1, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pa-hb2800-frontier-ai-risk-prevention-2026","title":"Pennsylvania HB 2800 — Frontier AI Risk Prevention: Standards for Frontier Developers on Critical Safety Incidents and Catastrophic Risks (Referred Sept. 23, 2026)","short_title":"PA HB 2800 frontier AI risk prevention","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pennsylvania","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["public-sector","transparency","national-security"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"This Pennsylvania House bill would set standards for developers of the most advanced (frontier) AI models to address critical safety incidents and catastrophic risks. It gives duties to the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency and the Attorney General and includes penalties. It was referred to the House Communications and Technology Committee.","summary_technical":"HB 2800 (PN 3904), 2025-2026 session. Prime sponsor Rep. Melissa Shusterman (D-157) with 15 cosponsors. Frontier developer standards for critical safety incidents and catastrophic risks; duties on PEMA and the Attorney General; penalties. Referred to House Communications & Technology Committee Sept. 23, 2026; no votes recorded.","who_is_protected":"Pennsylvania residents","who_must_comply":"Frontier AI developers","citation":"Pennsylvania HB 2800 — Frontier AI Risk Prevention: Standards for Frontier Developers on Critical Safety Incidents and Catastrophic Risks (Referred Sept. 23, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2025/hb2800","source_title":"Pennsylvania HB 2800 (2025-2026) — Pennsylvania General Assembly","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency; Pennsylvania Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"litig-tn-bradley-county-project-midspan-dc-zoning-2026","title":"Bradley County, TN — Developer of 'Project MidSpan' Sues to Stop Enforcement of County Data Center Zoning Rules Requiring 3,000 Feet From Schools (October 2026)","short_title":"Bradley County TN Project MidSpan data center zoning lawsuit","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Bradley County, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Bradley","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"A New York-based development group that bought about 306 acres near Walker Valley High School has sued Bradley County, Tennessee, asking a judge to stop the county from enforcing new data center zoning rules. The rules require data centers to be 3,000 feet from schools; the proposed Project MidSpan building would be 1,700 feet away. The county mayor told commissioners the county will fight the suit and pay legal costs from the general fund because insurance will not cover them.","summary_technical":"Suit by the owner of the ~306-acre Project MidSpan site (bought for ~$20M in April 2025) challenging Bradley County's recently approved data center zoning actions (3,000-ft school setback); seeks to enjoin enforcement. County Mayor Gary Davis told the County Commission on Monday Oct. 5, 2026 that insurance won't cover fees and the county will hire outside counsel from the general fund. NOT ESTABLISHED: court, case number, filing date, date of the zoning amendments (the underlying Bradley County data center zoning rules are not themselves in the dataset).","who_is_protected":"Bradley County, TN residents","who_must_comply":"Bradley County, TN; Project MidSpan developer","citation":"Bradley County, TN — Developer of 'Project MidSpan' Sues to Stop Enforcement of County Data Center Zoning Rules Requiring 3,000 Feet From Schools (October 2026)","source_url":"https://newschannel9.com/news/local/bradley-county-faces-self-funded-legal-costs-in-data-center-zoning-lawsuit-project-midspanwalker-valley-high-school","source_title":"Bradley County faces self-funded legal costs in data center zoning lawsuit — WTVC NewsChannel 9 (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Bradley County, TN","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"tn-memphis-dc-zoning-ord-5987-2026","title":"Memphis, TN — Data Center Zoning Standards Amending the Unified Development Code Pass First Reading (Oct. 8, 2026)","short_title":"Memphis TN data center zoning ordinance 5987 (first reading)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Memphis, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Shelby County","city":"Memphis","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Memphis is considering its first zoning standards for data centers, added to the city's Unified Development Code. The City Council passed them unanimously on first reading on Oct. 8, 2026; two more readings are needed. A separate one-year moratorium proposal is set for a final vote on Oct. 20.","summary_technical":"Memphis City Council Ord. No. 5987 — amends the Unified Development Code by adopting zoning definitions specific to data centers (WATN); described as new zoning standards for data centers (Tri-State Defender). First reading Thursday Oct. 8, 2026 (unanimous per TSD). Full text not public at time of reporting. Related: Ord. 5982 moratorium (see tn-memphis-dc-moratorium-ord-5982-2026) postponed 7-5 on Oct. 6 to Oct. 20. NOT ESTABLISHED: full text; second-reading date; the second ordinance WREG says passed first reading is not identified.","who_is_protected":"Memphis residents near data centers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators in Memphis","citation":"Memphis, TN Ordinance No. 5987 (data center UDC definitions), first reading Oct. 8, 2026","source_url":"https://tri-statedefender.com/memphis-city-council-approves-data-center-zoning-standards-on-first-vote/10/09/","source_title":"Memphis City Council approves data center zoning standards on first vote — Tri-State Defender (Oct. 9, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Memphis City Council; Memphis and Shelby County Division of Planning and Development","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"nm-colfax-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Colfax County, NM — Board of Commissioners Adopts a One-Year Moratorium on New Data Center Development in Unincorporated Areas (August 2026)","short_title":"Colfax County NM 1-year data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Colfax County, NM","state_abbr":"NM","county":"Colfax County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Colfax County, New Mexico adopted a one-year pause on new data center development in its unincorporated areas in August 2026, amid drought and water concerns. It was the fourth New Mexico county to do so, after Santa Fe, Sierra and Socorro counties. The City of Raton, the county seat, voted against its own moratorium in September.","summary_technical":"Colfax County (NM) BOCC: one-year moratorium on new data center development, unincorporated county only. Advanced Aug. 11, 2026 (Huerfano World Journal, Aug. 20); adopted August 2026 (Santa Fe New Mexican Oct. 6; KKOB Oct. 8). NOT ESTABLISHED: exact adoption date, ordinance/resolution number, effective and expiry dates (CPR Sept. 3 article on adoption returned 403).","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Colfax County, NM","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in unincorporated Colfax County, NM","citation":"Colfax County, NM one-year data center moratorium (unincorporated areas), adopted August 2026","source_url":"https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/business/city-of-raton-colfax-county-take-opposite-stands-on-data-center-moratoriums/article_eb078237-f72d-4626-ab4e-80deabfd8870.html","source_title":"City of Raton, Colfax County take opposite stands on data center moratoriums — Santa Fe New Mexican (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Colfax County Board of Commissioners; county planning/land use","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"litig-ivcm-v-imperial-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, LLC v. Imperial County (Imperial County Super. Ct.) — Judge Sets Aside County Data Center Urgency Moratorium Ordinances 1616 and 1618 for Missing Findings; County Repeals Them (Oct. 6, 2026)","short_title":"IVCM v. Imperial County — data center moratorium set aside","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Imperial County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Imperial County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"A data center developer sued Imperial County, California over its 2026 urgency moratorium on data centers. A Superior Court judge ruled on Sept. 4, 2026 that the county had not made the findings state law requires and ordered the moratorium ordinances set aside. The county repealed them on Oct. 6, 2026; a separate environmental impact report is still required for the developer's project.","summary_technical":"Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, LLC v. Imperial County, Imperial County Superior Court; Judge Jeffrey B. Jones; ruling Sept. 4, 2026: Gov. Code 65858 urgency findings lacking; peremptory writ of mandate to set aside and cease enforcing Ord. 1616 (June 16, 2026) and Ord. 1618 (July 2026 extension). County compliance: repeal by urgency ordinance Oct. 6, 2026. Distinct from the CEQA case requiring an EIR for the 330 MW project (litig-imperial-county-ca-ceqa-330mw-data-center-eir-2026). NOT ESTABLISHED: case number; whether further appeal or challenge to the new moratorium.","who_is_protected":"N/A (litigation)","who_must_comply":"Imperial County","citation":"Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, LLC v. Imperial County (Imperial Cnty. Super. Ct., ruling Sept. 4, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/county-ends-data-center-moratorium-following-court-ruling/article_d76da6c0-b574-4ea9-9fd4-8ef4ebe3309e.html","source_title":"County ends data center moratorium following court ruling — The Desert Review (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Imperial County Superior Court","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ar-decatur-school-district-ai-policy-2026","title":"Decatur School District (Decatur, AR) — School Board Unanimously Adopts an Artificial Intelligence Policy (Sept. 28, 2026)","short_title":"Decatur School District (AR) AI policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Decatur, AR","state_abbr":"AR","county":"Benton County","city":"Decatur","topics":["education","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-09-28","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"The Decatur School District school board adopted an artificial intelligence policy on Sept. 28, 2026. At the same meeting it agreed to join legal action against major tech companies over youth social media addiction. The policy's contents were not available in the source.","summary_technical":"Decatur School District (Westside Eagle Observer coverage area, Benton County, AR) board meeting Sept. 28, 2026: unanimous approval of AI policy; also approved participation in social-media-addiction litigation against tech companies, and fiscal budget. NOT ESTABLISHED: policy number and text (article behind subscriber paywall); state inferred from the outlet (Westside Eagle Observer, Gravette/Decatur, AR) — lead should confirm.","who_is_protected":"Decatur School District students and staff","who_must_comply":"Decatur School District staff and students","citation":"Decatur School District AI policy (adopted Sept. 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.eagleobserver.com/news/2026/oct/06/decatur-school-board-greenlights-taking-part-in/","source_title":"Decatur School Board greenlights taking part in legal action, adopting AI policy and passing fiscal budget — Westside Eagle Observer (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Decatur School District administration","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"litig-dc-blox-v-metro-nashville-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"DC Blox v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville (M.D. Tenn.) — Federal Judge Dismisses Data Center Developer's Challenge to Metro's Moratorium and Zoning Rules, With Leave to Amend (October 2026)","short_title":"DC Blox v. Metro Nashville data center moratorium suit","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Nashville, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Davidson","city":"Nashville","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"A data center company, DC Blox, sued Metro Nashville in federal court in August 2026 over the city's data center moratorium, new data center zoning rules, and the hold placed on its permits for a site next to the Nashville Zoo. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in October 2026 but allowed the company 21 days to file a revised complaint. Metro's moratorium and zoning rules stay in place.","summary_technical":"DC Blox v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County (U.S. District Court; Judge Eli Richardson). Filed Aug. 11-12, 2026 (WSMV says Aug. 12; Axios headline Aug. 11) challenging (1) Metro's temporary data center moratorium (through Dec. 2026), (2) the July 2026 permanent data center zoning restrictions, and (3) Metro's hold on DC Blox's permit applications for its ~23-acre site adjacent to the Nashville Zoo; alleges vested rights, due process, equal protection and takings. Dismissal: counts 5-9 lack of jurisdiction; counts 1, 3-4 failure to state a clear claim; count 2 (class-of-one vs RadiusDC) rejected on merits because RadiusDC's permits were under a different classification not bound by the moratorium. Leave to amend within 21 days. NOT ESTABLISHED: exact order date (first reports Oct. 7, 2026), docket number.","who_is_protected":"Nashville, TN residents","who_must_comply":"Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County","citation":"DC Blox v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County (M.D. Tenn. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wkrn.com/news/local-news/nashville/court-ruling-dc-blox-v-metro-nashville-tn/amp/","source_title":"Federal judge dismisses DC Blox lawsuit over data center regulations, moratorium — WKRN News 2 (Oct. 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"U.S. District Court (Middle District of Tennessee)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"wa-lincoln-county-dc-bess-emergency-moratorium-2026","title":"Lincoln County, WA — Ordinance 26-02: Six-Month Emergency Moratorium on Permit Applications for Data Centers and Battery Energy Storage Systems (Sept. 8, 2026)","short_title":"Lincoln County WA 6-month data center/BESS emergency moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Lincoln County, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"Lincoln","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-08","enacted_date":"2026-09-08","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Lincoln County, Washington's commissioners adopted a six-month emergency moratorium on accepting permit applications for data centers and battery energy storage systems on Sept. 8, 2026. The pause gives the planning commission time to draft zoning rules for these uses.","summary_technical":"Lincoln County (WA) Board of County Commissioners, regular meeting Tuesday Sept. 8, 2026: by unanimous vote authorized preparation of an emergency declaration for a six-month moratorium on data centers and BESS; Ordinance 26-02 imposed a six-month emergency moratorium on the acceptance of permit applications for data centers and/or BESS and directed scheduling of a public hearing (minutes). Public hearing held Monday Oct. 5, 2026 (KXLY). County reports no data center or BESS applications pending. NOT ESTABLISHED: exact expiry date (six months from adoption, approx. March 2027).","who_is_protected":"Lincoln County, WA residents","who_must_comply":"Applicants for data center or battery energy storage system permits in Lincoln County, WA","citation":"Lincoln County, WA, Ordinance 26-02 (six-month emergency moratorium on data center and BESS permit applications, Sept. 8, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.co.lincoln.wa.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_09082026-140","source_title":"Lincoln County Board of Commissioners — Minutes, Regular Meeting Sept. 8, 2026","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Lincoln County Board of County Commissioners; Lincoln County Planning Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"wv-milton-surveillance-technology-ordinance-proposed-2026","title":"Milton, WV — Proposed Surveillance Technology Ordinance Requiring Council Approval, Public Hearings and Use Policies Before the City Acquires ALPRs, Biometric or Other Surveillance Tools (First Reading Oct. 6, 2026)","short_title":"Milton WV proposed surveillance technology oversight ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Milton, WV","state_abbr":"WV","county":"Cabell","city":"Milton","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","biometrics","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Milton, West Virginia is considering an ordinance that would require City Council approval, after a public hearing, before the city acquires or uses surveillance technology such as license plate readers, biometric surveillance, gunshot detection, location tracking or surveillance cameras. Departments would need a council-approved use policy and would file annual reports; police cruiser cameras, body cameras and billing meters are exempt. The council passed it on first reading on Oct. 6, 2026, with a final vote set for Nov. 10.","summary_technical":"City of Milton (WV) proposed surveillance technology ordinance. Defines surveillance technology to include automatic license plate readers, biometric surveillance technology, gunshot detection, location hardware/services and surveillance cameras. City entities must obtain council approval after a public hearing before seeking funds for, acquiring or borrowing, using in a new manner, or entering agreements to acquire/share surveillance technology or data; must submit and publish a surveillance use policy requiring council's express approval; annual public surveillance report per technology; pre-existing nonconforming contracts to be terminated as soon as legally possible; employee penalties. Exemptions: police cruiser cameras, body-worn cameras, emergency audio recording, utility billing meters (Herald-Dispatch). First reading passed unanimously Tuesday Oct. 6, 2026 (WSAZ). Follows an August 2026 council vote in favor of creating an ordinance against Flock or other AI surveillance cameras. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; second-reading date.","who_is_protected":"Milton, WV residents","who_must_comply":"City of Milton, WV departments and officials","citation":"Milton, WV, proposed surveillance technology ordinance (first reading Oct. 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/milton-council-moves-ordinance-to-establish-safeguards-on-surveillance-technology/article_5aff4695-80b0-4a8f-995d-eee6f8c6d39a.html","source_title":"Milton council moves ordinance to establish safeguards on surveillance technology — The Herald-Dispatch (Oct. 8, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Milton City Council","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"sc-mount-pleasant-dc-moratorium-ord-26045-proposed-2026","title":"Mount Pleasant, SC — Ordinance 26045: Proposed 120-Day Temporary Moratorium on Data Center Applications and Permits (First Reading 7-2 Sept. 8, 2026; Final Reading Oct. 13, 2026)","short_title":"Mount Pleasant SC proposed 120-day data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Mount Pleasant, SC","state_abbr":"SC","county":"Charleston","city":"Mount Pleasant","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Mount Pleasant, South Carolina's Town Council is considering a 120-day moratorium on accepting, processing or approving applications and permits for data centers while the town writes zoning rules and a public review process. The council passed it 7-2 on first reading on Sept. 8, 2026. The final reading is scheduled for Oct. 13, 2026.","summary_technical":"Town of Mount Pleasant (SC) Ord. 26045, 'An Ordinance to provide for a temporary moratorium on the acceptance, processing or granting final approval, of applications, permits and other requests for data centers.' Staff (Pagliarini): 120-day moratorium using a definition derived from proposed state legislation; council may extend. First reading Tuesday Sept. 8, 2026: motion Rambo/Chapman, carried 7-2 (Whitaker and Mayor Haynie no) (draft minutes). Final reading on Oct. 13, 2026 Town Council agenda; Planning Committee recommended approval. WCIV (Oct. 5, 2026) reports the Planning Committee reviewed data center zoning/land use Oct. 5.","who_is_protected":"Mount Pleasant, SC residents","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants in Mount Pleasant, SC","citation":"Mount Pleasant, SC, Ord. 26045 (proposed 120-day data center moratorium; final reading Oct. 13, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.tompsc.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_10132026-2283","source_title":"Mount Pleasant Town Council — Agenda, Town Council Meeting Oct. 13, 2026 (Final Reading, Ord. 26045)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Town of Mount Pleasant Town Council; Planning Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pa-ransom-township-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026","title":"Ransom Township (Lackawanna County), PA — Supervisors Adopt Data Center Ordinance: Conditional Use, 40-Ft Height Cap, 8-Acre Lot Area, Noise/Air/Wastewater Standards (Oct. 5, 2026)","short_title":"Ransom Twp PA data center ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Ransom Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Lackawanna","city":"Ransom Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-10-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Ransom Township supervisors in northeastern Pennsylvania adopted an ordinance on Oct. 5, 2026 that sets rules for future data centers. Data centers are a conditional use needing township approval, with a 40-foot height limit, an 8-acre lot area, and standards for buffering, fencing, wastewater, air quality, noise, lighting, and battery and fuel storage. The solicitor said data centers would be allowed only in industrial zones.","summary_technical":"Conditional-use framework; supervisors must issue a written decision within 45 days after the hearing (per article). Standards: max height 40 ft; lot area 8 acres; buffering, fencing, wastewater management, air quality, odor, glare and emissions, battery and fuel storage, parking, noise and vibration, lighting. Solicitor William Rinaldi confirmed industrial-zone only. Context: Scranton Materials' curative-amendment challenge (filed Nov. 2025) for six data centers at its 251-acre quarry; Mudiita Land Venture LLC bought 528.6 acres for a hyperscale campus. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, vote count, effective date.","who_is_protected":"Ransom Township, PA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Ransom Township, PA","citation":"Ransom Township, PA, data center ordinance (adopted Oct. 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/2026/10/06/ransom-twp-supervisors-approve-ordinance-regulating-data-center-development/","source_title":"Ransom Twp. supervisors approve ordinance regulating data center development — Scranton Times-Tribune (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Ransom Township Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pa-hr-637-urge-congress-frontier-ai-regulation-2026","title":"Pennsylvania House Resolution 637 (2025-2026) — Urges Congress to Pass Federal Legislation Regulating Frontier AI Models; Reported From Committee 26-0 (Oct. 7, 2026)","short_title":"PA HR 637 urging federal frontier AI regulation","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pennsylvania","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["transparency","national-security"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Pennsylvania House Resolution 637 urges Congress to pass federal legislation regulating frontier artificial intelligence models. It is non-binding. The House Communications & Technology Committee reported it out 26-0 on Oct. 7, 2026; the full House has not voted.","summary_technical":"HR 637, 2025-2026 session; prime sponsor Rep. Joe Ciresi (D-146); cosponsors Ortitay, Venkat, Verobish, Powell, Sanchez, Parker, Howard, Shusterman, Williams, Bellmon, Cepeda-Freytiz, Hill-Evans. Referred to Communications & Technology Sept. 28, 2026; reported as committed Oct. 7, 2026 (26-0). Non-binding memorializing resolution.","who_is_protected":"No direct effect (non-binding)","who_must_comply":"None (urges Congress)","citation":"Pa. H.R. 637 (2025-2026 Sess.)","source_url":"https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2025/hr637","source_title":"HR 637 — Pennsylvania General Assembly","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Pennsylvania House of Representatives","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ma-beverly-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Beverly, MA — Mayor Cahill Proposes One-Year Zoning Moratorium on Data Center Permits (Council Hearing Nov. 9, 2026)","short_title":"Beverly MA proposed 1-year data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Beverly, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Essex","city":"Beverly","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Beverly's mayor has proposed a one-year zoning moratorium under which the city would not accept, process or approve any data center application, including building permits, special permits and site plan approvals. The City Council plans a public hearing on Nov. 9, 2026, and the Planning Board will also review it. It is not yet law.","summary_technical":"Proposed zoning ordinance (Mayor Cahill letter to City Council): one-year moratorium; city would not accept, process or approve any application for a data center, 'including but not limited to building permits, special permits, site plan approvals or any other zoning ordinance land use.' Stated purpose: study 'novel and complex legal, planning and infrastructure issues' and develop regulations. Council public hearing at Nov. 9, 2026 meeting; Planning Board hearing also required. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance/order number, exact filing date, Planning Board hearing date.","who_is_protected":"Beverly, MA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits in Beverly, MA","citation":"Beverly, MA, proposed one-year data center zoning moratorium (Mayor Cahill; council hearing Nov. 9, 2026)","source_url":"https://patch.com/massachusetts/beverly/second-north-shore-city-mayor-proposes-data-center-ban","source_title":"Second North Shore City Mayor Proposes Data Center Ban — Beverly Patch (Oct. 8, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Beverly City Council; Beverly Planning Board","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"litig-hanton-city-v-smithfield-ri-dc-ban-2026","title":"Hanton City Investments LLC & ROK LLC v. Town of Smithfield (R.I. Super. Ct. 2026) — Developers Sue Over Smithfield's Data Center Zoning Ban and Application Handling","short_title":"Developers' suits challenging Smithfield RI data center ban","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Smithfield, RI","state_abbr":"RI","county":"Providence","city":"Smithfield","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Two property owners who want to build an industrial park with a data center in Smithfield, Rhode Island have sued the town. They say the town's ban on data centers in every zoning district is really an unlawful moratorium that conflicts with its comprehensive plan, and that the town improperly stalled their application.","summary_technical":"Two R.I. Superior Court complaints by Hanton City Investments LLC and ROK LLC (counsel Nick Nybo) concerning a proposed development on the Route 7/116 corridor in the Planned Corporate (PC) district and Economic Growth Overlay District. Claims: (1) the data center ordinance (council vote 4-1 in May 2026; effective June 4, listing data centers 'Not Permitted' in every district as a 'precautionary, interim control') is a de facto moratorium that fails R.I. moratorium requirements and conflicts with the comprehensive plan, and cannot be applied to an application filed before it; (2) the town unlawfully delayed review by issuing repeated certificates of incompleteness. NOT ESTABLISHED: case numbers, filing dates.","who_is_protected":"Smithfield, RI residents (defending the ban)","who_must_comply":"Town of Smithfield, RI","citation":"Hanton City Investments LLC & ROK LLC v. Town of Smithfield (R.I. Super. Ct., filed 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wpri.com/news/local-news/northwest/smithfield-legal-action-data-center-ban-project-review/","source_title":"Smithfield faces legal action over data center ban, project review — WPRI 12 (Oct. 1, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Rhode Island Superior Court","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"litig-uaw-v-state-dept-social-media-surveillance-2026","title":"UAW, CWA & AFT v. U.S. Department of State (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-08566) — Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Challenge to AI-Assisted Social Media Surveillance of Visa Holders (Oct. 1, 2026)","short_title":"UAW v. State Dept — social media surveillance suit survives dismissal","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"S.D.N.Y.","topics":["privacy","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Three labor unions sued the State Department and Homeland Security over a program that uses AI and other automated tools to monitor visa and green card holders' social media for disfavored viewpoints. A federal judge in New York refused to dismiss the case on Oct. 1, 2026, finding the unions had plausibly alleged the program chills their members' speech.","summary_technical":"International Union, UAW v. U.S. Department of State, No. 1:25-cv-08566 (S.D.N.Y., filed Oct. 16, 2025); plaintiffs UAW, CWA, AFT, represented by EFF, Muslim Advocates and Yale's Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic; defendants Departments of State and Homeland Security. Challenges a 'Challenged Surveillance Program' alleged to use AI and automated technologies to surveil social media of lawfully present noncitizens and punish disfavored viewpoints. Oct. 1, 2026: Judge Hellerstein denied the motion to dismiss, holding the credible threat of adverse immigration action could deter a person of ordinary firmness and that the unions' associational injury supports standing.","who_is_protected":"Noncitizen union members and visa/green card holders","who_must_comply":"U.S. Department of State; U.S. Department of Homeland Security","citation":"Int'l Union, UAW v. U.S. Dep't of State, No. 1:25-cv-08566 (S.D.N.Y.) (order denying motion to dismiss, Oct. 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.eff.org/press/releases/victory-court-rejects-government-effort-dismiss-social-media-surveillance-lawsuit","source_title":"Victory! Court Rejects Government Effort to Dismiss Social Media Surveillance Lawsuit — EFF (Oct. 2, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pa-williamsport-dc-curative-zoning-amendment-proposed-2026","title":"Williamsport, PA — City Council Declares 1998 Zoning Ordinance 'Substantively Invalid' for Lacking Data Center Rules and Finalizes Draft Curative Zoning Amendment (October 2026)","short_title":"Williamsport PA data center curative zoning amendment (draft)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Williamsport, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Lycoming","city":"Williamsport","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Williamsport's City Council voted 6-0 to declare its 1998 zoning ordinance invalid because it has no rules for data centers, which pauses such development while the city writes them. The council has now finished a draft amendment that defines data centers and their support infrastructure and sets protections around places like schools, hospitals and homes. The amendment has not been adopted.","summary_technical":"Pennsylvania MPC municipal curative-amendment process: council declared its 1998 zoning ordinance 'substantively invalid' (6-0) for lacking regulations for data centers and power-generating/ancillary infrastructure — not a ban and not a project approval — pausing development while a curative amendment is drafted. Draft amendment defines data centers and accessory uses (air handlers, generators, cooling/water storage, substations) and 'sensitive receptors' (schools, day cares, hospitals, nursing homes, places of worship, parks, residences, etc.). PA law does not allow a total prohibition. No data center application pending in the city. NOT ESTABLISHED: date of the invalidity vote, ordinance number, hearing/adoption schedule.","who_is_protected":"Williamsport, PA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Williamsport, PA","citation":"City of Williamsport, PA, draft curative zoning amendment for data centers (Oct. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.sungazette.com/news/top-news/2026/10/williamsport-city-council-finalizes-draft-zoning-ordinance-for-data-centers/","source_title":"Williamsport City Council finalizes draft zoning ordinance for data centers — Williamsport Sun-Gazette (Oct. 7, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Williamsport City Council; Zoning Officer","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-s-5417-ai-emergency-button-act-2026","title":"United States — S. 5417, AI Emergency Button Act (119th Congress, introduced Sept. 16, 2026)","short_title":"US S. 5417 AI Emergency Button Act (human shutdown mechanisms)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","state_abbr":"US","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"A Senate bill that would require anyone who develops or operates an advanced artificial intelligence system in the United States to build in a way for a human operator to shut it down, with Homeland Security writing the rules. It was introduced on Sept. 16, 2026 and sent to the Commerce Committee. It has not passed either chamber.","summary_technical":"S. 5417 (119th Congress). Sponsor: Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA). Introduced Sept. 16, 2026; referred to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Bill-detail page on GovInfo gives only the long title/purpose; text-level provisions not reviewed. NOT ESTABLISHED: any action after referral.","who_is_protected":"The public","who_must_comply":"Entities that develop or deploy AI systems","citation":"S. 5417, 119th Cong. (2026)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/BILLS-119s5417is","source_title":"S. 5417 — AI Emergency Button Act (GovInfo bill details, introduced version)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-hr-10210-doctors-not-ai-act-2026","title":"United States — H.R. 10210, Doctors Not AI Act of 2026 (119th Congress, introduced Sept. 1, 2026)","short_title":"US H.R. 10210 Doctors Not AI Act (AI in health insurance claim review)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","state_abbr":"US","topics":["healthcare","insurance","automated-decisions"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"A bipartisan House bill that would set rules for how group health plans and health insurers use artificial intelligence when reviewing claims, by amending the Public Health Service Act, ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. It was introduced on Sept. 1, 2026 and sent to three committees. It has not passed either chamber.","summary_technical":"H.R. 10210 (119th Congress). Sponsor: Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH); cosponsors Reps. Buddy Carter (R-GA), Kim Schrier (D-WA), Tom Barrett (R-MI). Introduced Sept. 1, 2026; referred to House Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Workforce. Bill-detail page on GovInfo gives only the long title/purpose; text-level provisions not reviewed. NOT ESTABLISHED: any action after referral.","who_is_protected":"Health plan enrollees and patients","who_must_comply":"Group health plans and health insurance issuers","citation":"H.R. 10210, 119th Cong. (2026)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/BILLS-119hr10210ih","source_title":"H.R. 10210 — Doctors Not AI Act of 2026 (GovInfo bill details, introduced version)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-s-5601-ai-contractor-insider-threat-reporting-2026","title":"United States — S. 5601, Insider Threat Reporting and Security Guidance Act of 2026 (119th Congress, introduced Sept. 29, 2026)","short_title":"US S. 5601 DoD reporting requirements for large AI contractors","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","state_abbr":"US","topics":["national-security","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"A Senate bill that would require the Secretary of Defense to set reporting requirements and voluntary security guidance for large artificial intelligence contractors, focused on insider threats. It was introduced on Sept. 29, 2026 and sent to the Armed Services Committee. It has not passed either chamber.","summary_technical":"S. 5601 (119th Congress). Sponsor: Sen. Jim Banks (R-IN); cosponsor Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). Introduced Sept. 29, 2026; referred to Senate Committee on Armed Services. Bill-detail page on GovInfo gives only the long title/purpose; text-level provisions not reviewed. NOT ESTABLISHED: any action after referral.","who_is_protected":"The public / national security interests","who_must_comply":"Large AI contractors of the Department of Defense","citation":"S. 5601, 119th Cong. (2026)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/BILLS-119s5601is","source_title":"S. 5601 — Insider Threat Reporting and Security Guidance Act of 2026 (GovInfo bill details, introduced version)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"mi-hb-6392-ai-misidentification-liability-2026","title":"Michigan HB 6392 — Civil Liability for Artificial Intelligence Misidentification (introduced Sept. 24, 2026)","short_title":"MI HB 6392 tort liability for AI misidentification","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Michigan","state_abbr":"MI","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement","automated-decisions"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"This Michigan House bill would make companies that provide AI detection tools strictly liable for injury, death or property damage when their tool misidentifies a person or vehicle and police act on that misidentification. Some police and resident reactions would count as foreseeable and would not reduce the provider's liability, and providers could not waive or shift it. It was introduced on Sept. 24, 2026 and sent to the House Judiciary Committee.","summary_technical":"HB 6392 of 2026: 'Torts: liability; liability for artificial intelligence misidentification; establish. Amends 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.101 - 600.9947) by adding sec. 2980.' Introduced/first reading/referred to Judiciary 9/24/2026; electronically reproduced 9/29/2026. NOT ESTABLISHED: covered defendants, damages, defenses (text not reviewed).","who_is_protected":"People misidentified by AI systems in Michigan","who_must_comply":"Parties using AI identification systems (scope per bill text, not reviewed)","citation":"Mich. HB 6392 (2026)","source_url":"https://legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2026-HB-6392","source_title":"House Bill 6392 of 2026 — Michigan Legislature","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","private_right_of_action":true},{"id":"me-paris-dc-moratorium-180-day-2026","title":"Paris, Maine — Select Board Unanimously Approves a 180-Day Data Center Moratorium and Directs the Planning Board to Draft a Ban (Sept. 28, 2026)","short_title":"Paris ME 180-day data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Paris, ME","state_abbr":"ME","county":"Oxford","city":"Paris","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-28","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"The Paris, Maine Select Board voted unanimously on Sept. 28, 2026 to approve a 180-day moratorium on data center development. In a separate motion it told the Planning Board to write an ordinance banning data centers. Residents would have the final vote on that permanent ban.","summary_technical":"Town of Paris (Oxford County), ME Select Board, Sept. 28, 2026: 5-0 approval of a 180-day moratorium on data center development; separate motion directing the Planning Board to develop an ordinance prohibiting data centers, which after Select Board approval would go to a town vote. NOT ESTABLISHED: moratorium ordinance text, whether a town meeting must ratify the moratorium under 30-A M.R.S. §4356, exact expiry date.","who_is_protected":"Paris, ME residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Paris, ME","citation":"Paris, ME, 180-day data center moratorium (Sept. 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://themainemonitor.org/paris-data-center-development-on-hold/","source_title":"Paris Select Board puts data center development on hold — The Maine Monitor (Oct. 2, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Town of Paris Select Board; Planning Board","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"nj-s4754-ai-unauthorized-practice-professions-2026","title":"New Jersey S4754 — Bill to Treat AI-Produced Content as Unauthorized Practice of Licensed Professions (Introduced Oct. 5, 2026)","short_title":"NJ S4754 AI unauthorized practice of professions","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Jersey","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"This New Jersey Senate bill would make content produced by or with the help of AI count as the unauthorized practice of a licensed profession when it would otherwise break state licensing laws. AI developers and deployers could be liable, and AI systems could not use titles implying a professional license. Licensed professionals could still use AI if they tell consumers the content is AI-generated and explain how to reach a human professional.","summary_technical":"S4754 extends existing unauthorized-practice prohibitions to content produced by artificial intelligence or generative AI; developers and deployers liable; bars AI from using terms implying credentials; exception for licensed professionals in good standing who give an AI-content disclaimer and human-contact instructions. Penalty: not more than $10,000 first offense, not more than $20,000 each subsequent offense; enforced by Division of Consumer Affairs and professional boards.","who_is_protected":"New Jersey consumers of professional services","who_must_comply":"Developers and deployers of AI systems; licensed professionals using AI","citation":"NJ S4754 (2026-2027 Session)","source_url":"https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2026/S5000/4754_I1.HTM","source_title":"NJ Legislature — Senate No. 4754 (introduced text)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NJ Division of Consumer Affairs; professional licensing boards","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Up to $10,000 first offense; up to $20,000 each subsequent offense"},{"id":"us-hr9917-ai-kill-switch-act-2026","title":"U.S. H.R. 9917 — AI Kill Switch Act: Large AI Developers Must Maintain Shutdown Capability and Report Incidents to DHS (Introduced July 23, 2026)","short_title":"H.R. 9917 AI Kill Switch Act","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["national-security","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"This House bill would amend the Homeland Security Act to require large AI companies to keep the technical ability to stop, suspend or shut down covered AI systems. Companies would have to report covered incidents to the Department of Homeland Security within 15 days and preserve model weights and telemetry when ordered. It would apply to entities earning at least $500 million a year from such systems that were built with more than $100 million worth of computing power.","summary_technical":"Covered entities must, within 90 days, maintain capabilities to stop inference, terminate/suspend user access and shut down covered AI systems; establish a graduated response framework; report covered incidents within 15 days; preserve weights/telemetry on order; notify operators/users of shutdown orders. Civil penalties up to $2,000,000 per day ($20,000,000 per day for emergency-order violations).","who_is_protected":"U.S. public","who_must_comply":"AI developers with ≥$500M annual AI revenue and covered systems costing >$100M","citation":"H.R. 9917, 119th Congress","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr9917ih/html/BILLS-119hr9917ih.htm","source_title":"GovInfo — H.R. 9917 (Introduced in House) text","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Department of Homeland Security","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Up to $2M/day; up to $20M/day for emergency order violations"},{"id":"us-hr10417-va-ai-transparency-act-2026","title":"U.S. H.R. 10417 — VA AI Transparency Act of 2026: VA Must Disclose When Veterans Interact With AI (Introduced Sept. 16, 2026)","short_title":"H.R. 10417 VA AI Transparency Act","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"This House bill would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to tell veterans, survivors, caregivers, applicants and others when they are interacting with an AI system rather than a human employee. The notice would also state the general purpose of the AI system. Internal AI tools that only help VA staff with administrative or analytical work would be exempt.","summary_technical":"Within 180 days of enactment, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs must ensure disclosure whenever VA uses AI to interact with a covered individual, stating the individual is interacting with an AI system and not a human employee and identifying the system's general purpose; exception for internal administrative/analytical uses.","who_is_protected":"Veterans, survivors, dependents, caregivers, benefit applicants and others dealing with VA","who_must_comply":"U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs","citation":"H.R. 10417, 119th Congress","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr10417ih/html/BILLS-119hr10417ih.htm","source_title":"GovInfo — H.R. 10417 (Introduced in House) text","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Department of Veterans Affairs (congressional oversight)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"mi-mpsc-dte-google-van-buren-contracts-2026","title":"Michigan PSC — Approves DTE Electric Special Contracts for Google Data Center in Van Buren Township With Ratepayer Protections (Case U-22058, Oct. 1, 2026)","short_title":"Michigan PSC DTE–Google data center contracts","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Michigan","state_abbr":"MI","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-01","enacted_date":"2026-10-01","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Michigan's Public Service Commission approved DTE Electric's special power contracts with Google for a planned data center in Van Buren Township, on the condition that other customers do not bear the project's costs. The 20-year deal includes a minimum bill of 80% of contracted capacity and an early-exit payment covering at least 15 years of minimum charges. Google must also pay for up to 1,600 MW of renewable energy and 480 MW of battery storage built by DTE.","summary_technical":"MPSC order in Case No. U-22058 approving a primary supply agreement (20-year term; minimum monthly billing demand 80% of contract capacity; termination payment ensuring at least 15 years of minimum monthly charges) and a clean capacity accelerator agreement (Google funds up to 1,600 MW renewables + 480 MW storage). Service expected Dec. 2027, full load Dec. 2028. Commission states it has no authority over data center siting. AG Nessel had sought 90% minimum billing.","who_is_protected":"DTE Electric residential and business customers","who_must_comply":"DTE Electric; Google LLC","citation":"Michigan PSC Case No. U-22058 (order Oct. 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.michigan.gov/mpsc/commission/news-releases/2026/10/01/mpsc-approves-dte-electric-google-data-center-and-contracts-protects-customers-from-project-cost","source_title":"MPSC approves DTE Electric-Google data center contracts, protects customers from project cost — Michigan PSC news release (Oct. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Michigan Public Service Commission","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-hr-10502-dni-ai-fisa-702-report-2026","title":"H.R. 10502 (119th Congress) — Bill Directing the DNI to Report on Use of AI Systems Under FISA Section 702 (Introduced Sept. 17, 2026)","short_title":"H.R. 10502 AI use under FISA 702 report","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["national-security","law-enforcement","privacy","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"A House bill would require the Director of National Intelligence to tell Congress, within 180 days, how intelligence agencies use artificial intelligence to collect, search and share information gathered under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The report would have to name the AI models used and assess safeguards for compliance with FISA and the Fourth Amendment.","summary_technical":"Requires a DNI report to Congress within 180 days covering: how IC elements use AI systems to acquire, analyze, query, disseminate or otherwise access information under FISA section 702; an evaluation of safeguards ensuring compliance with FISA and the Fourth Amendment; information submitted to the FISC about such AI uses; and identification of the specific AI models used. May include a classified annex. Prepared in coordination with the Attorney General and the CIA, FBI and NSA.","who_is_protected":"People whose communications are collected under FISA Section 702","who_must_comply":"Office of the Director of National Intelligence and intelligence community elements","citation":"H.R. 10502, 119th Cong. (2026)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr10502ih/html/BILLS-119hr10502ih.htm","source_title":"H.R. 10502 (Introduced in House) — GovInfo","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Congress (oversight)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"co-brighton-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Brighton, CO — City Council Gives First-Reading Approval to a One-Year Data Center Moratorium as the 'Silo' Campus Application Is Withdrawn (Oct. 6, 2026)","short_title":"Brighton CO one-year data center moratorium (first reading)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Brighton, CO","state_abbr":"CO","county":"Adams County","city":"Brighton","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Brighton, Colorado's City Council gave initial approval on Oct. 6, 2026 to a one-year moratorium on new data centers, longer than the six-month pause first proposed, so the city can write rules on water, noise, power and other impacts. The vote came the same night officials announced that developers had withdrawn a rezoning application for a 155-acre, eight-building data center campus. A final reading is still required.","summary_technical":"Brighton (Adams/Weld counties, CO) City Council — one-year data center moratorium approved on first/initial reading Tuesday Oct. 6, 2026 (CBS Colorado: 'voted Tuesday night to move forward with a one-year moratorium ... doubling the six-month pause originally proposed'; Denver7: 'initial approval'). Context: the Silo / Willard Property project (Alberta Development Partners and Dewberry; 155 acres; eight two-story buildings of ~315,000 sq ft, ~2.5M sq ft total, near County Road 4 and 50th Avenue) — rezoning application withdrawn (Denver7: Monday afternoon, i.e. Oct. 5). Mayor Pro Tem Peter Padilla: time to examine water, wastewater, conservation, air and noise impacts, power, infrastructure and construction. NOT ESTABLISHED: vote count, final reading date (a triage note cited Oct. 20 from a CBS preview not re-opened in verify), ordinance number.","who_is_protected":"Brighton, CO residents","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants in Brighton, CO","citation":"Brighton, CO proposed one-year data center moratorium ordinance (first reading Oct. 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-brighton-city-council-data-center-moratorium-proposed-project-withdrawn/","source_title":"Brighton council backs year-long data center moratorium after proposed project withdrawn — CBS Colorado (Oct. 7, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Brighton City Council; Brighton community development staff","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"il-charleston-dc-bess-moratorium-2026","title":"Charleston, IL — City Council Unanimously Adopts a One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers and Battery Energy Storage Systems (Oct. 6, 2026)","short_title":"Charleston IL 1-year data center and BESS moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Charleston, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Coles County","city":"Charleston","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-06","enacted_date":"2026-10-06","expires_date":"2027-10-06","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Charleston, Illinois paused zoning approvals, permits, variances and other development approvals for data centers and battery energy storage systems for one year. The council voted unanimously on Oct. 6, 2026, saying it needs time to study power, water, noise, fire safety and stormwater issues. Home battery systems for one- and two-family homes are still allowed.","summary_technical":"Charleston (Coles County, IL) moratorium ordinance, adopted 5-0 Tuesday Oct. 6, 2026: no zoning approvals, permits, variances or other development authorizations for data centers or battery energy storage systems in city limits until Oct. 6, 2027 or adoption of new ordinances, whichever first. Exemption: residential BESS for one- and two-family dwellings. Neighboring Mattoon adopted a one-year moratorium in Sept. 2026 (il-mattoon-dc-moratorium-2026). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number.","who_is_protected":"Charleston, IL residents","who_must_comply":"Data center and battery energy storage developers in Charleston, IL","citation":"Charleston, IL one-year data center and BESS moratorium (adopted Oct. 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.myradiolink.com/2026/10/08/charleston-city-council-approves-data-center-moratorium-on-tuesday/","source_title":"Charleston City Council approves data center moratorium on Tuesday — MyRadioLink/WMCI (Oct. 8, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Charleston, IL","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"fl-volusia-county-dc-ban-ordinance-2026","title":"Volusia County, FL — County Council Passes First Reading (7-0) of an Ordinance Banning Large-Scale (50 MW+) Data Centers in Unincorporated Areas; Final Hearing Oct. 20, 2026","short_title":"Volusia County FL proposed ban on 50MW+ data centers","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Volusia County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Volusia","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Volusia County, Florida is moving an ordinance that would bar the county from reviewing or approving applications, permits or rezonings for large-scale data centers, defined as those with an expected peak load of 50 megawatts or more, in unincorporated areas. The County Council approved it unanimously at the first of two hearings on Oct. 6, 2026, and the final vote is set for Oct. 20.","summary_technical":"Volusia County (FL) Council ordinance prohibiting large-scale data centers (anticipated monthly peak electrical load of 50 MW or more) in unincorporated Volusia County: county will not review or approve any applications, permits, amendments or construction for them (Spectrum News 13). First reading/first public hearing Oct. 6, 2026, 7-0 (Daytona Beach News-Journal via Yahoo). PLDRC review Oct. 15; second and final council hearing Oct. 20, 2026. Takes effect on filing with the Florida Department of State. Councilman Troy Kent cited grid strain, rate inflation, service curtailments. NOT ESTABLISHED in pages re-opened: the date of any earlier application freeze (a draft cited Aug. 17 per WFTV; not re-verified), ordinance number.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Volusia County, FL","who_must_comply":"Large-scale data center developers in unincorporated Volusia County","citation":"Volusia County, FL proposed large-scale data center prohibition ordinance (first reading Oct. 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/council-moves-halt-large-scale-153909138.html","source_title":"Council moves to halt large-scale data centers — Daytona Beach News-Journal via Yahoo News (Oct. 7, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Volusia County Council; county planning staff","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ar-fort-smith-dc-development-ordinance-2026","title":"Fort Smith, AR — Board of Directors Adopts Data Center Ordinance: Planning Commission Review, Board Approval, 500-Ft Setbacks and Utility Capacity Letters (Oct. 5, 2026)","short_title":"Fort Smith AR data center ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Fort Smith, AR","state_abbr":"AR","county":"Sebastian","city":"Fort Smith","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-10-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Fort Smith, Arkansas adopted an ordinance that makes data center projects in industrial zones go through Planning Commission development plan review and then approval by the full city board. Sites must have an eight-foot opaque wall, 500-foot setbacks from every property line, and letters from utilities about capacity and the proposed load. Some directors want tougher rules, including whether water contracts can be used, to be considered later.","summary_technical":"Ordinance requires development plan review by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors approval for data centers in industrial zoning districts; 8-ft opaque wall; 500-ft setbacks from each property line; utility capacity/proposed-load letters. Planning Commission had recommended it unanimously. Effective date not stated in sources.","who_is_protected":"Fort Smith, AR residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Fort Smith industrial districts","citation":"Fort Smith, AR data center development ordinance (adopted Oct. 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://talkbusiness.net/2026/10/fort-smith-board-approves-data-center-ordinance-but-seeks-more-restrictions/","source_title":"Fort Smith board approves data center ordinance but seeks more restrictions — Talk Business & Politics (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Fort Smith Board of Directors; Planning Commission","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-ab1331-workplace-bathroom-surveillance-2026","title":"California AB 1331 — Workplace Surveillance: Ban on Monitoring Employees in Workplace Bathrooms (Signed Sept. 30, 2026; Ch. 851)","short_title":"California AB 1331 workplace bathroom surveillance ban","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["employment","privacy"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-30","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"California's AB 1331 bars employers from using workplace surveillance tools to monitor employees in workplace bathrooms, with limited exceptions. Employees may, in certain circumstances, leave surveillance devices outside the bathroom. The Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors can enforce it, with civil penalties of up to $500 per violation.","summary_technical":"AB 1331 (2025-2026) — chaptered Sept. 30, 2026 as Ch. 851; adds workplace surveillance restrictions to the Labor Code prohibiting monitoring/surveillance of employees in workplace bathrooms except as specified; employee right to leave surveillance devices behind in some cases; civil penalty up to $500 per violation enforced by the Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors; declared a statewide concern applying to charter cities. Effective date not confirmed in pages opened (secondary search snippets say Jan. 1, 2027).","who_is_protected":"California employees","who_must_comply":"California employers using workplace surveillance tools","citation":"Cal. AB 1331 (2025-2026), Stats. 2026, ch. 851","source_url":"https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260ab1331","source_title":"AB 1331 (2025-2026) Workplace surveillance — CalMatters Digital Democracy (Chaptered Sept. 30, 2026, Ch. 851)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"California Labor Commissioner; public prosecutors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalty up to $500 per violation"},{"id":"tx-brownsville-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Brownsville, TX — City Commission Advances 90-Day Moratorium on Data Center Applications After Third Public Hearing; Final Vote Set for November 2026","short_title":"Brownsville TX proposed 90-day data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Brownsville, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Cameron","city":"Brownsville","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Brownsville, Texas is considering a 90-day moratorium that would pause acceptance and processing of new data center applications while the city develops rules for them. The city held the last of three public hearings on Oct. 7, 2026, and a final vote is expected Nov. 3, 2026.","summary_technical":"Brownsville (TX) City Commission — proposed 90-day moratorium on acceptance and processing of new data center applications to allow the city to develop rules and regulations. Third and final public hearing Wednesday Oct. 7, 2026 (KRGV, published Thursday Oct. 8, 2026); commissioners must vote to advance it; final vote Nov. 3, 2026 if it passes. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, any vote count.","who_is_protected":"Brownsville, TX residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and applicants in Brownsville, TX","citation":"Brownsville, TX — City Commission Advances 90-Day Moratorium on Data Center Applications After Third Public Hearing; Final Vote Set for November 2026","source_url":"https://www.krgv.com/news/brownsville-advances-moratorium-on-data-centers","source_title":"Brownsville advances moratorium on data centers — KRGV (Oct. 8, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pa-hb2829-advanced-ai-accountability-innovation-act-2026","title":"Pennsylvania HB 2829 — Pennsylvania Advanced Artificial Intelligence Accountability and Innovation Act: Frontier Developer Safety Frameworks and Transparency (Referred Oct. 5, 2026)","short_title":"PA HB 2829 Advanced AI Accountability and Innovation Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pennsylvania","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["public-sector","transparency","national-security"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"This Pennsylvania House bill would set standards and transparency rules for the safety frameworks of frontier AI developers. It gives duties to the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency and the Attorney General and includes penalties. It was referred to the House Communications and Technology Committee.","summary_technical":"HB 2829 (PN 4002), 2025-2026 session, 'Pennsylvania Advanced Artificial Intelligence Accountability and Innovation Act'. Prime sponsor Rep. Manuel Guzman (D-127); cosponsors Hill-Evans, Burgos, Williams, Sanchez. Standards, protections and transparency for frontier developers' AI frameworks; duties on PEMA and AG; penalties. Referred to House Communications & Technology Committee Oct. 5, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Pennsylvania residents","who_must_comply":"Frontier AI developers","citation":"Pennsylvania HB 2829 — Pennsylvania Advanced Artificial Intelligence Accountability and Innovation Act: Frontier Developer Safety Frameworks and Transparency (Referred Oct. 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2025/hb2829","source_title":"Pennsylvania HB 2829 (2025-2026) — Pennsylvania General Assembly","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency; Pennsylvania Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pa-lowhill-township-dc-tiered-zoning-ord-2026-5-proposed","title":"Lowhill Township, PA — Supervisors Authorize Advertising Ordinance 2026-5, a Four-Tier Data Center Zoning Amendment (September 10, 2026)","short_title":"Lowhill Township PA proposed tiered data center zoning ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lowhill Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Lehigh","city":"Lowhill Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Lowhill Township's supervisors in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania unanimously authorized advertising Ordinance 2026-5, a zoning amendment that sorts data centers into four tiers: residential accessory uses, distributed compute nodes, edge computing, and hyperscale facilities. The township says the tiers give each type a lawful path while matching rules to impact. A public hearing and adoption vote must follow.","summary_technical":"Lowhill Township (Lehigh County, PA) Board of Supervisors — Ordinance No. 2026-5 amending the zoning ordinance with a four-tier data center framework (residential accessory, distributed compute nodes, edge computing, hyperscale) designed to avoid exclusionary-zoning challenges; drafted through three joint meetings with the Planning Commission; unanimous authorization to advertise Sept. 10, 2026. NOT ESTABLISHED: hearing/adoption date.","who_is_protected":"Lowhill Township, PA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and applicants in Lowhill Township, PA","citation":"Lowhill Township, PA — Supervisors Authorize Advertising Ordinance 2026-5, a Four-Tier Data Center Zoning Amendment (September 10, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.lvpnews.com/20261001/board-to-advertise-new-data-center-ordinance/","source_title":"Board to advertise new data center ordinance — Lehigh Valley Press (Oct. 1, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"fl-alachua-dc-moratorium-ord-26-17-2026","title":"Alachua, FL — City Commission Passes First Reading (4-1) of Ordinance 26-17, a 12-Month Moratorium on Data Centers; Final Reading Oct. 26, 2026","short_title":"Alachua FL proposed 12-month data center moratorium (Ord. 26-17)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Alachua, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Alachua County","city":"Alachua","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"The City of Alachua, Florida is considering a 12-month pause on data center development, including accepting applications, while it studies regulations. The commission passed the ordinance on first reading 4-1 on Oct. 5, 2026, with a final vote set for Oct. 26. The draft allows a six-month extension if commissioners decide it is needed.","summary_technical":"City of Alachua (FL) Ordinance 26-17: 12-month moratorium on data center development including acceptance of applications; optional six-month extension. First reading Monday Oct. 5, 2026, 4-1 (Youmas no). Final reading Oct. 26, 2026 (WUFT). Commissioners said no data center applications or NDAs exist in the city. NOT ESTABLISHED: size thresholds/definitions.","who_is_protected":"City of Alachua, FL residents","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants in the City of Alachua, FL","citation":"City of Alachua, FL Ordinance 26-17 (12-month data center moratorium), first reading Oct. 5, 2026","source_url":"https://www.wuft.org/politics/2026-10-06/alachua-city-commission-approves-first-reading-of-12-month-moratorium-on-data-centers","source_title":"Alachua City Commission approves first reading of 12-month moratorium on data centers — WUFT (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Alachua City Commission; planning staff","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"nc-columbus-county-dc-moratorium-120day-2026","title":"Columbus County, NC — Commissioners Unanimously Adopt a 120-Day Moratorium on Data Centers and High-Intensity Computing Facilities (Oct. 5, 2026)","short_title":"Columbus County NC 120-day data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Columbus County, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Columbus County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-05","enacted_date":"2026-10-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Columbus County, North Carolina paused permits, site plans and zoning compliance certificates for new or expanded data centers and similar high-intensity data processing facilities for 120 days. Commissioners approved it unanimously on Oct. 5, 2026; it covers areas outside town limits and the areas where towns exercise planning authority. Staff and the planning board will review setbacks, noise, generators, buffers and utility rules during the pause.","summary_technical":"Columbus County (NC) Board of Commissioners moratorium adopted unanimously Monday Oct. 5, 2026 after public hearing; effective immediately; 120 days unless ended sooner or extended. Scope: data centers and similar high-intensity data processing facilities outside municipal limits and municipal planning-jurisdiction areas; suspends processing of permits, site plans and zoning compliance certificates for new construction, expansion, or increased computing or electrical capacity. Review topics: setbacks, noise, generators, buffers, utility requirements. Expiry ~Feb. 2, 2027 (computed, not stated). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; motion/second (from a page not re-opened).","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Columbus County, NC","who_must_comply":"Data center, crypto-mining and server-farm developers in unincorporated Columbus County, NC","citation":"Columbus County, NC 120-day data center / high-intensity computing moratorium (Oct. 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.nrcolumbus.com/news/columbus-county-approves-120-day-pause-on-data-center-approvals/article_71d606df-a470-499f-9ecc-24c606c1e11f.html","source_title":"Columbus County approves 120-day pause on data center approvals — The News Reporter (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Columbus County Planning Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ny-otsego-county-ai-use-policy-2026","title":"Otsego County, NY — Board of Representatives Unanimously Adopts a County Artificial Intelligence Use Policy (Oct. 7, 2026)","short_title":"Otsego County NY AI use policy","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Otsego County, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"Otsego County","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-10-07","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Otsego County, New York adopted its first policy on how county employees may use artificial intelligence. AI and large language model services are blocked unless the IT department approves them, staff may not use personal or trial accounts, and sensitive information such as criminal history, health records, Social Security numbers, passwords, license plate numbers and attorney-client communications may not be entered into AI tools.","summary_technical":"Otsego County (NY) Board of Representatives, Wednesday Oct. 7, 2026, unanimous (consent agenda): county AI use policy. AI/LLM services blocked unless IT-approved; no personal or trial accounts or sharing with personal accounts; prohibited inputs include criminal history, PHI, SSNs, passwords, attorney-client communications, license plate numbers. NOT ESTABLISHED: resolution number, effective date, full policy text; a draft's 'no sole AI decision-maker' provision was not found in the page re-opened.","who_is_protected":"Otsego County, NY residents and employees","who_must_comply":"Otsego County employees and departments","citation":"Otsego County, NY AI Use Policy (Board of Representatives, Oct. 7, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.thedailystar.com/news/local_news/county-board-passes-artificial-intelligence-use-policy/article_f331b200-e01f-45c0-bc8c-7bda179c83f9.html","source_title":"County board passes artificial intelligence use policy — The Daily Star, Oneonta (Oct. 7, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Otsego County Information Technology Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ne-nehawka-village-dc-ban-2026","title":"Nehawka, Nebraska — Village Board Adopts a Permanent Ban on Data Centers Covering the Village and Its One-Mile Jurisdiction (Reported Oct. 2026)","short_title":"Nehawka NE permanent data center ban","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Nehawka, NE","state_abbr":"NE","county":"Cass","city":"Nehawka","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"strong","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"The village of Nehawka in Cass County, Nebraska has put in place a permanent ban on data centers, covering the village and the area one mile around it. Village leaders said developers had been seeking to buy up nearby land and residents were worried about water and other natural resources.","summary_technical":"Village of Nehawka (Cass County, NE) — permanent data center ban; applies within the village and its one-mile extraterritorial area (Nebraska Public Media, Oct. 5, 2026; co-chair Chad Krueger). A draft also cited WOWT (Aug. 27, 2026) for a broader ban (crypto mining, blockchain computing, power plants) effective 15 days after passage; not re-opened in verify. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, vote count, adoption date.","who_is_protected":"Nehawka, NE residents","who_must_comply":"Data center, crypto-mining and associated power-plant developers in Nehawka and its one-mile ETJ","citation":"Village of Nehawka, NE ordinance banning data centers (2026)","source_url":"https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/eastern-nebraska-village-becomes-first-to-permanently-ban-data-centers/","source_title":"Eastern Nebraska village becomes first to permanently ban data centers — Nebraska Public Media (Oct. 5, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Village of Nehawka Board of Trustees","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ak-anchorage-ao-2026-108-surveillance-tech-alpr-2026","title":"Anchorage, AK — AO 2026-108: Proposed Rewrite of Surveillance Technology Rules Restricting License Plate Readers, Data Retention and Data Sharing (Assembly Vote Expected Oct. 20, 2026)","short_title":"Anchorage AO 2026-108 surveillance technology / ALPR ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Anchorage, AK","state_abbr":"AK","city":"Anchorage","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","data-retention","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Anchorage Assembly members have proposed an ordinance to replace the city's surveillance technology rules. It would add limits on automated license plate readers, real-time crime center operations and live camera monitoring, limit how long surveillance data is kept, bar joining outside surveillance data networks, and require Assembly approval before the city acquires surveillance technology. A vote, alongside a competing proposal from the mayor's administration, is expected Oct. 20, 2026.","summary_technical":"AO 2026-108 (sponsors: Assembly Member McCormick, Vice-Chair Volland, Assembly Member Scout) repeals and replaces Anchorage Municipal Code ch. 3.102: new restrictions on ALPR systems, real-time crime center operations and live camera monitoring; limits on surveillance data retention; prohibition on participation in external surveillance data networks; Assembly approval for acquisition of surveillance technology; audit and enforcement. Public hearing noticed for Sept. 1, 2026 (muni.org). ADN Oct. 6, 2026: two distinct proposals (administration and Assembly members) expected before the Assembly for a vote Oct. 20. A draft also cited an ADN Sept. 16 unanimous postponement and a mayoral substitute AO 2026-108(S); not re-opened in verify.","who_is_protected":"Anchorage, AK residents","who_must_comply":"Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Police Department","citation":"Anchorage Assembly Ordinance AO 2026-108 (2026)","source_url":"https://www.muni.org/PublicNotice/Pages/NOTICE-OF-MUNICIPAL-ASSEMBLY-PUBLIC-HEARINGS-Ordinance-No.-AO-2026-108.aspx","source_title":"Notice of Municipal Assembly Public Hearings — Ordinance No. AO 2026-108 (Municipality of Anchorage)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Anchorage Assembly; Municipality of Anchorage","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"wi-menasha-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Menasha, WI — Common Council Votes 6-2 for a One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers (Oct. 5, 2026)","short_title":"Menasha WI one-year data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Menasha, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Winnebago","city":"Menasha","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-10-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Menasha, Wisconsin's Common Council voted 6-2 on Oct. 5, 2026 to approve a one-year moratorium on data centers. Council members said the pause gives the city time to update its zoning code before any data center proposals come forward.","summary_technical":"City of Menasha (WI) Common Council, Monday Oct. 5, 2026: 6-2 vote approving a one-year moratorium on large-scale data center development (WFRV); WHBY reports the moratorium can be extended another six months if the municipality shows continued work on zoning code development. Mayor Austin Hammond supported. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, exact effective date (publication) and expiry date.","who_is_protected":"Menasha, WI residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Menasha, WI","citation":"Menasha, WI, one-year data center moratorium (Common Council, Oct. 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wearegreenbay.com/news/local-news/menasha-common-council-approves-1-year-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Menasha Common Council approves 1-year data center moratorium — WFRV Local 5 (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Menasha Common Council; Community Development Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"wv-morgantown-face-surveillance-alpr-ordinance-proposed-2026","title":"Morgantown, WV — Proposed Ordinance Banning Face Surveillance and ALPR Cameras on City Property and Requiring Council Approval of Other Surveillance Technology (First Reading Held Without Action, Oct. 6, 2026)","short_title":"Morgantown WV proposed face surveillance/ALPR ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Morgantown, WV","state_abbr":"WV","county":"Monongalia","city":"Morgantown","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement","privacy","data-retention","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Morgantown, West Virginia is considering an ordinance that would bar face surveillance cameras and automated license plate reader cameras on city property, and require City Council approval, with use policies and annual reports, before the city uses other surveillance technology. The council discussed it at first reading on Oct. 6, 2026 but took no action so members can refine the language.","summary_technical":"City of Morgantown (WV) proposed ordinance amending City Code Article 115 (city property) and creating Article 116 'Face Surveillance Systems' and Article 117 'Surveillance Technology'. The city would not install, or allow others to install or maintain, recording devices on city property that engage in face surveillance; same prohibition for ALPR cameras. Other surveillance technology subject to council approval, data collection/retention/access/purging rules, annual departmental reports; existing uses must seek council approval within one year of passage (Dominion Post). Does not govern private property or other agencies' property including state roads (WBOY). First reading tabled Tuesday Oct. 6, 2026; Councilor Abu-Ghannam: 'I would still like to see this in October 20th for the first reading, if possible' (WAJR).","who_is_protected":"Morgantown, WV residents","who_must_comply":"City of Morgantown, WV departments and anyone installing devices on city property","citation":"Morgantown, WV, proposed surveillance systems ordinance (Arts. 116-117; first reading tabled Oct. 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.dominionpost.com/2026/10/07/morgantown-council-weighing-rules-on-surveillance-systems/","source_title":"Morgantown Council weighing rules on 'surveillance systems' — The Dominion Post (Oct. 7, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Morgantown City Council","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"litig-nsi-6-v-benton-county-mo-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"NSI 6 v. Benton County Commission (Mo. Cir. Ct., Benton County) — Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction Blocking the County's Data Center Moratorium (Oct. 6, 2026)","short_title":"NSI 6 v. Benton County, MO — injunction against data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Benton County, MO","state_abbr":"MO","county":"Benton","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"A developer, NSI 6, sued Benton County, Missouri over the data center moratorium of up to a year that the county commission adopted in August 2026. On Oct. 6, 2026 a judge ordered the county not to enforce the moratorium until the case is decided, finding the ordinance cited public-health statutes but rested on no findings or data that data centers pose a health risk. NSI 6 wants to build a data center on 12 acres at U.S. Route 65 and Dam Access Road in Warsaw.","summary_technical":"Benton County Circuit Court; Senior Judge Jacqueline Cook. Preliminary injunction issued Tuesday Oct. 6, 2026 against the Benton County Commission. Court: the commission relied on statutes requiring the ordinance to 'bear a reasonable relation to public health enhancement and disease prevention,' but the ordinance 'relies on no specific findings, no data or facts to support a claim or finding that data centers pose a health risk or potential for disease'; plaintiff showed sufficient probability of success and irreparable harm. County argued the ordinance was not zoning but a due-diligence pause of up to a year (utilities, drainage, stormwater, lighting, noise) and that plaintiff did not exist until after adoption. NOT ESTABLISHED: case number, moratorium adoption date beyond 'August', ordinance number. The moratorium itself is not separately in the dataset.","who_is_protected":"No one on the protective side; this is a challenge to a county data center restriction","who_must_comply":"Benton County Commission (enjoined from enforcing the moratorium)","citation":"NSI 6 v. Benton County Commission (Mo. Cir. Ct., Benton County 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kmmo.com/2026/10/08/preliminary-injunction-granted-against-benton-countys-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Preliminary injunction granted against Benton County's moratorium on data centers — KMMO (Oct. 8, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Benton County Circuit Court, Missouri","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Injunctive relief only"},{"id":"tn-moore-county-dc-moratorium-2yr-2026","title":"Metropolitan Lynchburg-Moore County, TN — Two-Year Data Center Moratorium (Final Approval April 20, 2026); Planning Commission Drafting Rules (Oct. 2026)","short_title":"Moore County TN two-year data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Moore County, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Moore","city":"Lynchburg","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","enacted_date":"2026-04-20","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"The Metro Council of Lynchburg-Moore County, Tennessee gave final approval on April 20, 2026 to a two-year pause on new data centers, crypto mines and similar projects, giving the county time to decide where they may go and under what rules. In October 2026 the Planning and Zoning Commission began drafting those rules, discussing heavy-industrial-only zoning, a water cap, closed-loop cooling, height and setback limits, and noise standards.","summary_technical":"Moore County (TN) Metro Council: two-year moratorium on new data centers, cryptocurrency mining operations and similar high-impact computing facilities (no new applications incl. zoning requests, plats, building permits); P&Z recommended 6-0 on March 3, 2026 (MCO Mar. 4); final approval Monday April 20, 2026 (MCO Apr. 20; vote count not stated — the '9-2' in that article's subhead refers to a pool-repair vote). P&Z working draft (Oct. 6, 2026): I-2 heavy industrial favored over I-1; water capped at 100,000 gallons; closed-loop cooling; 35-ft max height; setbacks; 60 dB ceiling with lower nighttime limit considered. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, effective and expiry dates.","who_is_protected":"Moore County, TN residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Moore County, TN","citation":"Metropolitan Lynchburg-Moore County, TN, two-year data center moratorium (final approval Apr. 20, 2026)","source_url":"https://mcobserver.news/news/moore-county-begins-writing-the-rules-for-data-centers/","source_title":"Moore County begins writing the rules for data centers during moratorium — Moore County Observer (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Metropolitan Lynchburg-Moore County Council; Planning and Zoning Commission","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-sres-896-religious-freedom-ai-transparency-2026","title":"U.S. Senate Resolution 896 (119th Congress) — Sense of the Senate on Religious Freedom, Authoritative Texts and Transparency in AI Systems (Agreed to Sept. 23, 2026)","short_title":"S.Res. 896 religious freedom and AI transparency","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","state_abbr":"US","topics":["transparency","consumer-protection"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-09-23","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"On Sept. 23, 2026 the U.S. Senate agreed to a non-binding resolution on religious freedom and AI. It encourages organizations that build or run AI systems to adopt clear, consistent standards on religious freedom and transparency, and supports AI that answers religious questions thoroughly and fairly. It creates no legal duties.","summary_technical":"S.Res. 896, 119th Cong., 2d Sess. Submitted Sept. 23, 2026 by Mr. Lankford (for himself and Mr. Coons); considered and agreed to the same day. Resolving clauses: (1) affirms religious freedom; (2) recognizes bias against religious groups/persons is harmful; (3) encourages AI developers/operators to adopt clear and consistently applied standards upholding religious freedom and transparency; (4) supports AI responses to religious questions that are 'thorough and fairly representative'; (5) commends consulting primary sources and religious leaders. Sense-of-the-Senate; non-binding.","who_is_protected":"No direct effect (non-binding)","who_must_comply":"None (encourages AI developers)","citation":"S. Res. 896, 119th Cong. (2026) (agreed to)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119sres896ats/html/BILLS-119sres896ats.htm","source_title":"S. Res. 896 (Agreed to Senate) — GovInfo","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"None","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"sc-colleton-county-ace-basin-dc-exclusion-settlement-2026","title":"Colleton County, SC — Lawsuit Settlement Creates a 'Data Center Exclusion Area' Covering Most of the ACE Basin (Announced October 2026; Map Goes to Planning Commission and Council)","short_title":"Colleton County SC ACE Basin data center exclusion area (settlement)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Colleton County, SC","state_abbr":"SC","county":"Colleton","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"To settle a lawsuit by two landowners, Colleton County agreed to create a 'Data Center Exclusion Area' where data centers would be prohibited, covering most of the county's share of the ACE Basin (about 62% of the county, per SELC). The map still has to go through the planning commission and county council to become part of the comprehensive plan.","summary_technical":"Settlement of Singleton & Crosby v. Colleton County (filed January 2026 by SELC; challenged zoning changes allowing Zoning Board of Appeals approval of data centers in rural areas). Terms reported: Data Center Exclusion Area covering ecologically sensitive areas along the Ashepoo, Combahee and Edisto rivers, including the 850-acre Ashepoo headwaters parcel where the Eagle Rock data center complex was proposed in December 2025; SELC gets an advisory role. Context: county adopted a moratorium on data center approvals in July 2026 (lawsuit paused six months), then approved a Digital Infrastructure Overlay District and partially repealed the moratorium west of I-95 and in industrial areas. NOT ESTABLISHED: settlement signing date, case number, adoption dates.","who_is_protected":"Colleton County, SC residents and the ACE Basin","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Colleton County, SC","citation":"Settlement, Singleton & Crosby v. Colleton County (SELC), Data Center Exclusion Area (Oct. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.live5news.com/2026/10/05/settlement-bans-data-center-development-across-most-colleton-countys-ace-basin/","source_title":"Settlement bans data center development across most of Colleton County's ACE Basin — Live 5 News (Oct. 5, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Colleton County Council; Colleton County Planning Commission","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ny-south-bristol-dc-ai-facility-ban-local-law-proposed-2026","title":"Town of South Bristol, NY — Proposed Local Law Prohibiting Data Centers and 'Artificial Intelligence Computing Facilities' (Public Hearing Oct. 12, 2026)","short_title":"South Bristol NY proposed data center / AI facility ban","level":"city","jurisdiction":"South Bristol, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"Ontario","city":"South Bristol","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"South Bristol, a town on Canandaigua Lake, is considering a local law that would ban data centers and 'artificial intelligence computing facilities,' plus the structures and infrastructure needed to run them, anywhere in the town. The Town Board holds a public hearing on Oct. 12, 2026 before any vote.","summary_technical":"Proposed Local Law of 2026 amending the Town of South Bristol Zoning Law to add definitions of 'Data Center' and 'Artificial Intelligence Computing Facility' and to prohibit use of land in the town for either 'and for any associated accessory structures, uses, and infrastructure necessary for the operation' of them. Public hearing Monday Oct. 12, 2026, 6:00 p.m., South Bristol Town Hall, 6500 Gannett Hill Road – West (notice by Town Clerk Judy Voss, by resolution of the Town Board). Text: https://southbristolny.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Local-Law-Amending-Zoning-Re-Data-Centers.pdf (linked, not read). NOT ESTABLISHED: local law number, adoption vote.","who_is_protected":"South Bristol, NY residents; Canandaigua Lake watershed","who_must_comply":"Data center and AI computing facility developers in South Bristol, NY","citation":"Town of South Bristol, NY, proposed Local Law of 2026 amending Zoning Law re data centers and AI computing facilities","source_url":"https://southbristolny.gov/event/public-hearing-south-bristol-town-board-2/","source_title":"Public Hearing – South Bristol Town Board: Proposed Local Law Amending Zoning Re Data Centers (Town of South Bristol)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Town of South Bristol Town Board; Code Enforcement","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ny-west-seneca-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Town of West Seneca, NY — Town Board Passes One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers (4-0, Oct. 5, 2026)","short_title":"West Seneca NY 1-year data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"West Seneca, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"Erie","city":"West Seneca","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-10-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"West Seneca's Town Board voted 4-0 on Oct. 5, 2026 to pass a one-year moratorium on data centers while it develops standards covering energy, water use and noise. Spectrum News reports the moratorium expires at the end of August 2027. The town follows a similar pause in the Town of Tonawanda.","summary_technical":"Town of West Seneca (Erie County, NY) Town Board, one-year moratorium on data centers, adopted 4-0 Monday Oct. 5, 2026 (Spectrum News, published Oct. 6, 2026 7:49 AM); Spectrum says it expires at the end of August 2027. Supervisor Gary Dickson: time to develop standards on energy, water usage and noise. NOT ESTABLISHED: local law number, filing/effective date, size thresholds, exemptions.","who_is_protected":"West Seneca, NY residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in the Town of West Seneca, NY","citation":"Town of West Seneca, NY, one-year data center moratorium (Town Board, Oct. 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/buffalo/news/2026/10/06/west-seneca-passes-one-year-moratorium-on-data-centers","source_title":"West Seneca passes 1-year moratorium on data centers — Spectrum News Buffalo (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Town of West Seneca Town Board","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"mt-butte-silver-bow-dc-temporary-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Butte-Silver Bow, MT — Draft Temporary Data Center Moratorium Under Judiciary Committee Review (On Hold; Next Review Oct. 14, 2026)","short_title":"Butte-Silver Bow MT draft temporary data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Butte-Silver Bow, MT","state_abbr":"MT","county":"Silver Bow","city":"Butte","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Butte-Silver Bow's county attorney has drafted a temporary moratorium that would bar data center construction, expansion or approval while commissioners consider permanent zoning rules for hyperscale data centers. A council committee reviewed it in September but put it on hold; it is due back on Oct. 14. It would take one council vote to start a six-month pause, extendable twice by a year.","summary_technical":"Draft ordinance (County Attorney Matt Enrooth, at the Council of Commissioners' early-September direction): prohibits data center construction, expansion or approval while permanent zoning is studied; 'hyperscale' thresholds (electric use, water use, size) intentionally left blank; per Enrooth, one approving vote puts it in effect for six months, with two optional one-year extensions (max 2.5 years). Judiciary committee review began Sept. 23, 2026; committee voted to hold it pending the Montana Supreme Court appeal (406 People First initiative; ballot question not on 2026 ballot). Next committee review Oct. 14, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Butte-Silver Bow, MT residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Butte-Silver Bow, MT","citation":"Butte-Silver Bow, MT, draft temporary data center moratorium (judiciary committee, Sept.–Oct. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/big-sky/with-no-ballot-question-butte-will-begin-crafting-potential-temporary-data-center-ban/article_32a2ddb5-c891-551c-9eef-18ec57e5851a.html","source_title":"With no ballot question, Butte will begin crafting potential temporary data center ban — Bozeman Daily Chronicle / Montana Standard (Oct. 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Butte-Silver Bow Council of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-hr-10567-ai-emergency-button-act-2026","title":"United States — H.R. 10567, AI Emergency Button Act (119th Congress, introduced Sept. 24, 2026)","short_title":"US H.R. 10567 AI Emergency Button Act (House companion)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","state_abbr":"US","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"A House bill, matching Senate bill S. 5417, that would require entities to build human-controlled shutdown mechanisms into all artificial intelligence systems. It was introduced on Sept. 24, 2026 and sent to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. It has not passed either chamber.","summary_technical":"H.R. 10567 (119th Congress). Sponsor: Rep. Thomas H. Kean Jr. (R-NJ). Introduced Sept. 24, 2026; referred to House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Bill-detail page on GovInfo gives only the long title/purpose; text-level provisions not reviewed. NOT ESTABLISHED: any action after referral.","who_is_protected":"The public","who_must_comply":"Entities that develop or deploy AI systems","citation":"H.R. 10567, 119th Cong. (2026)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/BILLS-119hr10567ih","source_title":"H.R. 10567 — AI Emergency Button Act (GovInfo bill details, introduced version)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-hr-10146-ai-advertising-disclosure-act-2026","title":"United States — H.R. 10146, AI Advertising Disclosure Act (119th Congress, introduced Aug. 24, 2026)","short_title":"US H.R. 10146 AI Advertising Disclosure Act (sponsored content in AI tools)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","state_abbr":"US","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"A House bill that would require a covered AI tool to disclose when it provides sponsored content, such as paid advertising inside a chatbot's answers. It was introduced on Aug. 24, 2026 and sent to the Energy and Commerce Committee. It has not passed either chamber.","summary_technical":"H.R. 10146 (119th Congress). Sponsor: Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI); cosponsor Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC). Introduced Aug. 24, 2026; referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Bill-detail page on GovInfo gives only the long title/purpose; text-level provisions not reviewed. NOT ESTABLISHED: any action after referral.","who_is_protected":"Users of AI tools","who_must_comply":"Providers of covered AI tools","citation":"H.R. 10146, 119th Cong. (2026)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/BILLS-119hr10146ih","source_title":"H.R. 10146 — AI Advertising Disclosure Act (GovInfo bill details, introduced version)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pa-hb-2786-school-ai-policy-2026","title":"Pennsylvania HB 2786 — Responsible Artificial Intelligence Policies for Schools (Public School Code amendment; reported as amended Oct. 6, 2026)","short_title":"PA HB 2786 school AI policy requirement","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pennsylvania","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["education","children"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"A Pennsylvania House bill that would amend the Public School Code to require artificial intelligence policies for schools (sponsor memo: 'Establishing Responsible Artificial Intelligence Policies for Schools'). The House Education Committee amended it and reported it out 14-12 on Oct. 6, 2026. It has not passed the House.","summary_technical":"HB 2786 (2025-26 session), Public School Code of 1949 amendment 'in student supports, providing for artificial intelligence policy.' Referred to Education Sept. 25, 2026 (PN 3929); amendment A04448 adopted 26-0 and reported as amended (PN 4006) 14-12 on Oct. 6, 2026; first consideration; laid on the table. NOT ESTABLISHED: the specific policy elements required (text not reviewed).","who_is_protected":"Pennsylvania public school students","who_must_comply":"Pennsylvania public school entities","citation":"Pa. HB 2786 (2025-26 Sess.)","source_url":"https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2025/hb2786","source_title":"HB 2786 bill information — Pennsylvania General Assembly","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ut-eo-2026-08-pro-human-ai-state-government-2026","title":"Utah Executive Order 2026-08 — Establishing Utah's Pro-Human Approach to Artificial Intelligence in State Government (Oct. 6, 2026)","short_title":"Utah EO 2026-08 pro-human AI in state government","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-06","enacted_date":"2026-10-06","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"EO 2026-08 (signed Oct. 6, 2026; effective immediately). §3: agencies shall avoid AI technologies that do not adhere to Pro-Human AI Initiative principles (human-guided, human-enhancing). §4: DGO to set guardrails/technical safeguards against cyberattacks and unauthorized or rogue AI agents; assist agencies in deploying AI 'while ensuring human-in-the-loop review for determinations affecting individual rights'; use the State-Endorsed Digital Identity (SEDI) Framework. §5: agencies must ensure AI literacy training, and 'maintain transparency regarding its use of AI technology by documenting how AI systems, including their inputs, outputs, and roles in decision-making, are integrated into Agency processes that impact the public.' §6: DTS training strategy and uniform AI implementation standards. §7: DGO progress report to the Governor by July 1, 2027 and annually. Excludes higher education, State Board of Education, independent entities, AG, Auditor, Treasurer, legislative and judicial branches.","who_is_protected":"Utah residents dealing with state executive agencies","who_must_comply":"Utah executive-branch agencies (excluding higher ed, State Board of Education, independent entities, AG, Auditor, Treasurer, Legislature, courts)","citation":"Utah Exec. Order No. 2026-08 (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://governor.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026.10.06-Pro-Human-AI-Executive-Order-1.pdf","source_title":"Executive Order 2026-08 — Establishing Utah's Pro-Human Approach to Artificial Intelligence in State Government","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Utah Department of Government Operations; Division of Technology Services","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ga-lovejoy-dc-ban-2026","title":"Lovejoy, Georgia (Clayton County) — City Council Defines 'Data Center' in Its Zoning Code and Bans Them Citywide (Sept. 21, 2026)","short_title":"Lovejoy GA citywide data center ban","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lovejoy, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Clayton","city":"Lovejoy","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"strong","enacted_date":"2026-09-21","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"On Sept. 21, 2026 the Lovejoy, Georgia City Council added a definition of 'data center' to its zoning code and then banned data centers in the city. The council had unanimously approved a rezoning for a possible data center in December 2025, but that roughly $1 billion project was later withdrawn.","summary_technical":"Lovejoy (Clayton County, GA) City Council, Monday Sept. 21, 2026: zoning code amendment defining 'data center' followed immediately by a prohibition (AJC, Oct. 2, 2026). History: unanimous December 2025 rezoning to allow a potential data center (Stillwater Technology Park, ~$1B) after a late-2024 annexation request; project later withdrawn. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, vote count, effective date.","who_is_protected":"Lovejoy, GA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Lovejoy, GA","citation":"Lovejoy, GA, zoning amendment banning data centers (Sept. 21, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.ajc.com/business/2026/10/lovejoy-data-center-ban/","source_title":"How one Georgia city went from considering a data center to banning them — Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Oct. 2, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Lovejoy","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"nj-s4758-ai-companion-human-notification-2026","title":"New Jersey S4758 — AI Companion Operators Must Notify Users They Are Not Talking to a Human (Introduced Oct. 5, 2026)","short_title":"NJ S4758 AI companion disclosure","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Jersey","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency","children"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"This New Jersey Senate bill would require companies that offer AI companions to clearly tell users, at the start of each interaction, that they are not talking to a human. The notice would have to repeat at least every three hours during continued use. Violations would carry a $15,000 civil penalty each.","summary_technical":"S4758 requires an 'operator' of an AI companion to provide clear and conspicuous notification, verbally or in writing, at the beginning of any AI companion interaction that the user is not communicating with a human, repeated at least every three hours for continued interactions. Civil penalty of $15,000 per violation under the Penalty Enforcement Law; Superior Court and municipal court jurisdiction.","who_is_protected":"Users of AI companion products in New Jersey","who_must_comply":"Operators providing AI companions to users","citation":"NJ S4758 (2026-2027 Session)","source_url":"https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2026/S5000/4758_I1.HTM","source_title":"NJ Legislature — Senate No. 4758 (introduced text)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Civil action under NJ Penalty Enforcement Law (Superior Court / municipal court)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"$15,000 civil penalty per violation"},{"id":"us-hr10670-china-firewall-act-2026","title":"U.S. H.R. 10670 — China FIREWALL Act of 2026: Ban Chinese AI Models on Federal Devices and in Procurement (Introduced Oct. 1, 2026)","short_title":"H.R. 10670 China FIREWALL Act","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["national-security","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"This House bill would bar federal executive agencies from using or buying AI applications developed or provided by a 'foreign entity of concern,' including software built on such a company's foundation model. The Office of Management and Budget would have 60 days after enactment to issue removal standards. Exceptions would be allowed for law enforcement, national security and security research, with risk-mitigation documentation.","summary_technical":"OMB Director to develop standards requiring removal of any 'covered application' (AI application developed/provided by a foreign entity of concern, or software using such a foundation model) from agency IT within 60 days of enactment; procurement prohibited; exceptions for law enforcement, national security and security researchers with documented risk mitigation.","who_is_protected":"Federal information systems","who_must_comply":"Federal executive agencies","citation":"H.R. 10670, 119th Congress","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr10670ih/html/BILLS-119hr10670ih.htm","source_title":"GovInfo — H.R. 10670 (Introduced in House) text","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of Management and Budget","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-hr10418-va-claims-ai-accountability-act-2026","title":"U.S. H.R. 10418 — VA Claims AI Accountability Act: Human Review Required for Automated Disability Claims Decisions (Introduced Sept. 16, 2026)","short_title":"H.R. 10418 VA Claims AI Accountability Act","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"This House bill would have the VA build a technology platform to modernize disability claims processing, with limits on automation. Any automated claims analysis would require human review of each claimed condition, and VA employees would keep final approval of claims decisions. The VA's Chief AI Officer would set an AI governance framework, and the program would end on Oct. 1, 2028.","summary_technical":"Requires VA to establish and operate a claims modernization platform; automation of claims analysis/determination must include human review of individual conditions; employees retain final approval; Chief AI Officer governance framework separating standard automation from AI; annual reporting incl. AI confidence scores, quarterly briefings, GAO evaluation; sunset Oct. 1, 2028.","who_is_protected":"Veterans filing disability claims","who_must_comply":"U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs","citation":"H.R. 10418, 119th Congress","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr10418ih/html/BILLS-119hr10418ih.htm","source_title":"GovInfo — H.R. 10418 (Introduced in House) text","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Department of Veterans Affairs (congressional oversight; GAO evaluation)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"nj-a5607-chatbot-privacy-2026","title":"New Jersey A5607 — Proposed Content and Data Privacy Requirements for Chatbot Providers (Introduced Oct. 5, 2026)","short_title":"NJ A5607 chatbot privacy bill","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Jersey","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["privacy","children","consumer-protection","data-retention"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"A New Jersey Assembly bill would limit what chatbot companies can do with users' data. Providers could not use chat histories for targeted advertising, train on minors' data without parental consent, or keep conversations longer than two years unless the law requires it, and users could download their chat histories. The bill would also treat chatbots as products for liability purposes and set $5,000 penalties per violation, with a private right to sue.","summary_technical":"A5607 (2026-2027 session), \"An Act establishing content and data privacy requirements for chatbot providers and supplementing Title 56.\" Bars processing personal information beyond user input without consent, use of chat histories for targeted advertising, training on minors' data without parental approval, and retention of conversations beyond two years unless legally required; requires public privacy disclosures, chat-history portability, security measures and monthly safety assessments; classifies chatbots as products under product-liability law; $5,000 penalty per violation; private action for actual or statutory damages plus attorney fees.","who_is_protected":"Chatbot users in New Jersey, including minors","who_must_comply":"Chatbot providers","citation":"N.J. A5607 (2026-2027)","source_url":"https://pub.njleg.gov/bills/2026/A6000/5607_I1.HTM","source_title":"New Jersey Assembly No. 5607 (introduced text) — NJ Legislature","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"$5,000 per violation; actual or statutory damages plus attorney fees in a civil action"},{"id":"oh-pierce-township-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Pierce Township (Clermont County), OH — Data Center Zoning Moratorium (Res. 2026-002, Feb. 11, 2026), Extended Through May 31, 2027","short_title":"Pierce Township OH data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Pierce Township, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Clermont","city":"Pierce Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-02-11","expires_date":"2027-05-31","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Pierce Township in Clermont County, Ohio has stopped accepting or issuing zoning permits and other approvals for data centers while it writes rules for them. Trustees adopted an eight-month moratorium in February 2026 and in September extended it through May 31, 2027, after a company pitched a data center near the former Beckjord power plant.","summary_technical":"Resolution No. 2026-002 (Board of Trustees, Feb. 11, 2026), on a 4-0 Zoning Commission recommendation of Feb. 3, 2026: no zoning permits, zoning certificates, site plan approvals or other development approvals for data center uses may be accepted, processed or issued; 8-month term; staff and Zoning Commission directed to prepare zoning text/map amendments; adopted on first reading under ORC 504.10. Extended in September 2026 through May 31, 2027 (WVXU Sept. 9; FOX19 Sept. 10). Zoning Commission community meeting Oct. 6, 2026; staff considering a separate data center zoning district requiring a rezoning for each project (WVXU Oct. 7).","who_is_protected":"Pierce Township, OH residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers","citation":"Pierce Township (Clermont County, OH) Resolution No. 2026-002 (Feb. 11, 2026), as extended","source_url":"https://piercetownship.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Res-Imposing-Moratorium-Data-Centers-kb-edits.pdf","source_title":"Pierce Township Resolution Imposing a Moratorium on Data Centers (adopted Feb. 11, 2026) — Pierce Township, OH","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Pierce Township Board of Trustees; Zoning Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-dixon-dc-bess-45-day-moratorium-2026","title":"Dixon, California — City Council Unanimously Adopts a 45-Day Moratorium on New Data Center and Battery Storage Applications (Sept. 30, 2026)","short_title":"Dixon CA 45-day data center and BESS moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Dixon, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Solano","city":"Dixon","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-30","enacted_date":"2026-09-30","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"The Dixon, California City Council voted unanimously at a special meeting on Sept. 30, 2026 to pause approval of new land-use applications for data centers and battery energy storage systems for 45 days. The pause covers data centers of at least 5,000 square feet or 2 megawatts. No such projects are proposed in Dixon, and council members said the pause will likely be extended while the city studies the issue.","summary_technical":"Dixon (Solano County) City Council special meeting Wed. Sept. 30, 2026: unanimous 45-day moratorium on new land-use applications for data centers (>=5,000 sq ft or >=2 MW, plus associated on-site energy infrastructure) and battery energy storage systems. No data center or BESS projects currently proposed in Dixon. Options after study: added permitting, environmental review, or prohibition. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; whether adopted as an urgency ordinance under Gov. Code 65858; exact expiry date.","who_is_protected":"Dixon, CA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center and battery storage developers seeking land-use approvals in Dixon, CA","citation":"Dixon, CA, 45-day data center/BESS moratorium (Sept. 30, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.dailyrepublic.com/news/dixon-council-puts-data-centers-bess-applications-on-hold/article_19af7454-0369-40bd-a243-b50cf547291b.html","source_title":"Dixon council puts data centers, BESS applications on hold — Daily Republic (Oct. 2, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Dixon City Council; Community Development","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"co-grand-junction-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026","title":"Grand Junction, CO — City Council Passes First Reading of a One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers of 1 MW or More; Public Hearing and Final Vote Oct. 21, 2026","short_title":"Grand Junction CO proposed 1-year data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Grand Junction, CO","state_abbr":"CO","county":"Mesa County","city":"Grand Junction","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Grand Junction, Colorado is considering a one-year pause on accepting, processing or approving applications for data centers with an electrical load of one megawatt or more, while staff write zoning rules. The council approved the ordinance on first reading on Oct. 7, 2026 and scheduled a public hearing and final vote for Oct. 21. Mesa County adopted its own 12-month moratorium on Sept. 29.","summary_technical":"Grand Junction (CO) proposed ordinance: one-year moratorium; city may not accept, process, review or approve data center applications (principal use, accessory use, or development component) and departments may not do pre-application activity. 'Data center' = structure housing IT equipment whose primary function is delivery of IT services with projected/designed/requested load of 1 MW or more. First reading Wednesday Oct. 7, 2026 (KKCO/Sentinel 'Wednesday night', articles dated Oct. 8-9); final hearing Oct. 21, 2026; effective 30 days after final approval and publication; not retroactive. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; first-reading vote count.","who_is_protected":"Grand Junction, CO residents","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants in Grand Junction, CO","citation":"Grand Junction, CO proposed one-year data center moratorium ordinance (first reading Oct. 7, 2026; hearing Oct. 21, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/western_colorado/city-data-center-moratorium-gets-public-hearing-date/article_fb7c264e-8022-43d5-91bd-6cb6dde1e733.html","source_title":"City data center moratorium gets public hearing date — The Daily Sentinel (Oct. 9, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Grand Junction City Council; city community development staff","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-san-joaquin-county-dc-urgency-moratorium-2026","title":"San Joaquin County, CA — Board of Supervisors Unanimously Adopts a 45-Day Urgency Moratorium on Land Use Approvals for New Large Data Centers (Oct. 6, 2026)","short_title":"San Joaquin County CA 45-day data center urgency moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"San Joaquin County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"San Joaquin County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-06","enacted_date":"2026-10-06","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"San Joaquin County, California paused general plan and zoning amendments, use permits, variances, maps and building or grading permits for new large data centers in unincorporated areas for 45 days. Supervisors adopted the urgency ordinance 5-0 on Oct. 6, 2026 and may extend it while staff study water, power, noise and safety impacts. Small data infrastructure for hospitals, schools, businesses, telecom, emergency communications and utilities is exempt.","summary_technical":"San Joaquin County (CA) interim urgency ordinance (Gov. Code 65858) adopted 5-0 Tuesday Oct. 6, 2026: 45-day moratorium on general plan/zoning amendments, use permits, variances, parcel and final maps, building and grading permits for qualifying data centers, unincorporated county. Exempt: smaller-scale data infrastructure serving hospitals, schools, individual businesses, telecom facilities, government emergency communications, public utilities. Staff to report within six months; extension possible. No current large AI data center proposals in unincorporated county. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; size threshold; expiry date as stated (45 days computed ~Nov. 20, 2026).","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated San Joaquin County, CA","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants in unincorporated San Joaquin County, CA","citation":"San Joaquin County, CA 45-day urgency data center moratorium (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://stocktonia.org/news/business/2026/10/07/san-joaquin-county-halts-new-data-center-approvals-amid-water-power-concerns/","source_title":"San Joaquin County halts new data center approvals amid water, power concerns — Stocktonia (Oct. 7, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"San Joaquin County Community Development Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"or-hillsboro-dc-permanent-limits-proposed-2026","title":"Hillsboro, OR — City Council Holds First Reading of Permanent Data Center Limits (Ban in Most Zones, Acreage Caps, 1,000-ft School Buffer), Oct. 6, 2026","short_title":"Hillsboro OR proposed permanent data center limits","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Hillsboro, OR","state_abbr":"OR","county":"Washington","city":"Hillsboro","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Hillsboro, Oregon is moving to set permanent limits on data centers while its 120-day moratorium remains in place. The first phase would ban data centers in most zones, cap the acreage they can use in two industrial zones and keep them 1,000 feet from schools; a later phase would add height limits, setbacks, green building standards and buffers from parks. The City Council held a first reading on Oct. 6, 2026 and takes up the second reading on Oct. 20.","summary_technical":"Two-phase code amendment. Phase one (first reading Oct. 6, 2026): prohibits data centers in most zoning categories, caps acreage in two industrial zones, 1,000-ft setback from schools. Phase two (later): construction standards — height, setbacks, green building standards, buffers next to parks and natural areas. Companion to the existing 120-day moratorium (or-hillsboro-dc-battery-moratorium-2026, expires Nov. 24, 2026). KGW headline reports the proposal would reduce potential sites to 30 acres (article not opened).","who_is_protected":"Hillsboro, OR residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Hillsboro","citation":"City of Hillsboro, OR data center development code amendments (first reading Oct. 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://katu.com/news/local/hillsboro-weighs-two-phase-data-center-limits-as-moratorium-continues","source_title":"Hillsboro weighs two-phase data center limits as moratorium continues — KATU (Oct. 7, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Hillsboro Planning Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"al-baldwin-county-rezoning-dc-renewable-moratorium-2026","title":"Baldwin County, AL — County Commission Approves 180-Day Moratorium on Rezoning Requests and New Data Center and Renewable Energy Projects (October 6, 2026)","short_title":"Baldwin County AL 180-day rezoning/data center/renewable moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Baldwin County, AL","state_abbr":"AL","county":"Baldwin","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-06","enacted_date":"2026-10-06","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"The Baldwin County Commission in Alabama unanimously approved a 180-day pause on rezoning requests and on new data center and renewable energy projects in the county's zoned unincorporated areas on Oct. 6, 2026. Commissioners said staff were overwhelmed with rezoning cases and the county lacks a planning director and an updated master plan. The pause took effect when the commission approved it.","summary_technical":"Baldwin County (AL) Commission — 180-day moratorium on rezoning requests and new data center and renewable energy projects in county-zoned areas; motion by District 1 Commissioner Jeb Ball; unanimous; effective upon passage of the resolution (1819 News). Exceptions: single-family residential building permits on existing individually owned lots not requiring rezoning; previously approved data center and renewable energy projects. NOT ESTABLISHED: resolution number; exact end date (180 days from Oct. 6, 2026 would be about April 4, 2027, not stated in sources).","who_is_protected":"Baldwin County, AL residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and applicants in Baldwin County, AL","citation":"Baldwin County, AL — County Commission Approves 180-Day Moratorium on Rezoning Requests and New Data Center and Renewable Energy Projects (October 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://gulfcoastmedia.com/stories/baldwin-county-commission-approves-180-day-moratorium-on-rezoning-data-centers-and-renewable,351953","source_title":"Baldwin County Commission approves 180-day moratorium on rezoning, data centers and renewable energy projects — Gulf Coast Media (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Baldwin County Commission; Baldwin County Planning and Zoning","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"wv-charleston-dc-ordinance-proposed-2026","title":"Charleston, WV — Councilmember Emmett Pepper Introduces Ordinance to Regulate Data Centers Below the HB 2014 Threshold (October 5, 2026)","short_title":"Charleston WV proposed data center ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Charleston, WV","state_abbr":"WV","county":"Kanawha","city":"Charleston","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"A Charleston, West Virginia city council member introduced an ordinance to regulate future data centers. It focuses on noise limits, distance from homes, schools and churches, community benefit agreements, and a public process with notice and input. It targets smaller data centers, because state law (HB 2014) exempts those using 90 megawatts or more from local zoning.","summary_technical":"Charleston (WV) City Council — ordinance introduced Monday Oct. 5, 2026 by Councilmember Emmett Pepper (with co-sponsors) regulating data centers: noise, separation from homes/schools/churches, community benefit agreements (e.g., energy-cost assistance), transparent process with public input. Applies below the 90 MW threshold above which WV HB 2014 (2025) preempts local zoning. No data centers currently proposed in Charleston. NOT ESTABLISHED: bill number, committee referral, vote schedule.","who_is_protected":"Charleston, WV residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and applicants in Charleston, WV","citation":"Charleston, WV — Councilmember Emmett Pepper Introduces Ordinance to Regulate Data Centers Below the HB 2014 Threshold (October 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://wchstv.com/news/local/charleston-councilman-proposes-ordinance-to-regulate-future-data-centers","source_title":"Charleston councilman proposes ordinance to regulate future data centers — WCHS (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"nj-s4701-gai-accountability-act-2026","title":"New Jersey S4701 — GAI Accountability Act: Civil Penalties for Generative AI Platforms That Engage in or Facilitate Crimes, Including Child Exploitation (Introduced Oct. 1, 2026)","short_title":"NJ S4701 GAI Accountability Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Jersey","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["children","consumer-protection","ai-images"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"This New Jersey Senate bill would make owners and operators of generative AI platforms used in New Jersey liable when the platform does something that would be a crime if a person did it, such as creating child sexual abuse material, or gives information that helps someone commit a crime. The Attorney General could seek civil penalties of $20,000 per violation. Operators could defend themselves by showing reasonable efforts to prevent violations.","summary_technical":"S4701 (222nd Legislature), Senate companion to A5090 (legiscan-current-nj-a5090). Civil liability for GAI platform owners/operators that fail to prevent the platform from engaging in conduct that would be a crime if done by a human (murder, assault, theft, child endangerment, CSAM creation) or providing information facilitating crimes (excluding information otherwise publicly available); reasonable-efforts defense; AG enforcement, $20,000 per violation; effective four months after enactment. Introduced and referred to Senate Economic Growth Committee Oct. 1, 2026.","who_is_protected":"New Jersey residents","who_must_comply":"Owners and operators of generative AI platforms accessible to New Jersey residents","citation":"New Jersey S4701 — GAI Accountability Act: Civil Penalties for Generative AI Platforms That Engage in or Facilitate Crimes, Including Child Exploitation (Introduced Oct. 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2026/S5000/4701_I1.HTM","source_title":"New Jersey S4701 (introduced text) — NJ Legislature","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New Jersey Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"litig-az-marana-dc-referenda-court-of-appeals-2026","title":"Marana, AZ — Arizona Court of Appeals (Div. Two) Upholds Rejection of Two Referendum Petitions Against Data Center Rezonings (CV20260174, Oct. 1, 2026)","short_title":"Marana AZ data center referenda appeal","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Marana, AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Pima","city":"Marana","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the rejection of two referendum petitions that sought to put Marana's January 2026 data center rezonings to a public vote. The petitions had circulated copies of the ordinances missing required property-description exhibits, which the town clerk had supplied. The court held that proponents must strictly comply regardless of whose mistake caused the error, leaving the rezonings in place.","summary_technical":"Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, No. CV20260174 (decided Oct. 1, 2026, unanimous three-judge panel), affirming Pima County Superior Court. Referendum petitions on Marana Town Council's January 2026 zoning approvals for a data center project failed strict compliance (incomplete ordinance text without exhibits containing legal descriptions incl. water-rights information). Also held that only individual signers, not the committee, can withdraw signatures. Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry appeared as amicus.","who_is_protected":"Marana, AZ residents","who_must_comply":"Town of Marana; referendum proponents","citation":"Marana, AZ — Arizona Court of Appeals (Div. Two) Upholds Rejection of Two Referendum Petitions Against Data Center Rezonings (CV20260174, Oct. 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://chamberbusinessnews.com/2026/10/01/arizona-appeals-court-upholds-rejection-of-marana-data-center-referenda/","source_title":"Arizona appeals court upholds rejection of Marana data center referenda — Chamber Business News (Oct. 1, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ok-cheyenne-arapaho-tribes-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes (OK) — Tribal Council of Citizens Votes 261-83 for a Three-Year Moratorium on Data Center Construction on Tribal Lands (October 2026)","short_title":"Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes (OK) 3-year data center moratorium","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes (OK)","state_abbr":"OK","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-10-03","enacted_date":"2026-10-03","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Citizens of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes in Oklahoma voted at their annual Tribal Council meeting to bar data center construction on tribal lands for three years. Members cited water use, environmental effects, uncertain economic benefits and a lack of transparency about possible projects. Governor Reggie Wassana said no data center agreement had been signed and that he respected the council's decision.","summary_technical":"Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes (Concho, OK) annual Tribal Council (general council of enrolled citizens), Saturday Oct. 3, 2026 (articles published Oct. 6 say 'Saturday'): moratorium on data center construction on tribal lands, three years (News 9: until October 2029). Vote 261 yes / 83 no / 7 abstain; 351 of 478 eligible voted. NOT ESTABLISHED: resolution number; exact text; whether it covers fee land within the reservation.","who_is_protected":"Cheyenne and Arapaho tribal citizens and tribal lands and water","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking to build on Cheyenne and Arapaho tribal lands; the tribal executive branch","citation":"Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribal Council vote, three-year data center moratorium on tribal lands (Oct. 3, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.news9.com/oklahoma-city-news/oklahoma-cheyenne-arapaho-data-center-moratorium","source_title":"Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes pass data center ban — News 9 (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes (tribal government)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"wa-ellensburg-dc-emergency-moratorium-2026","title":"Ellensburg, WA — City Council Unanimously Adopts a Six-Month Emergency Moratorium on Data Center Permits and Land Use Applications (Oct. 5, 2026)","short_title":"Ellensburg WA 6-month emergency data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Ellensburg, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"Kittitas County","city":"Ellensburg","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-05","enacted_date":"2026-10-05","expires_date":"2027-04-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Ellensburg, Washington stopped accepting, processing or approving building permits and land use applications for data centers for six months. The council adopted the emergency moratorium unanimously on Oct. 5, 2026; it runs through April 5, 2027 while the city writes zoning rules, since its code has no definition for data centers. Cle Elum and Kittitas County adopted similar pauses earlier in 2026.","summary_technical":"Ellensburg (Kittitas County, WA) emergency moratorium adopted Oct. 5, 2026 (unanimous): no acceptance, processing or approval of data center building permits and land use applications; effective immediately; through April 5, 2027. Basis: current code lacks a distinct data center use (Community Development Director Dan Carlson). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number; date of the follow-up public hearing.","who_is_protected":"Ellensburg, WA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants in Ellensburg, WA","citation":"Ellensburg, WA six-month emergency data center moratorium (Oct. 5, 2026 – Apr. 5, 2027)","source_url":"https://www.nbcrightnow.com/news/city-of-ellensburg-agrees-to-pause-new-data-center-permits-for-6-months/article_399129a1-166d-4b0f-abaf-60eaafd10c24.html","source_title":"City of Ellensburg agrees to pause new data center permits for 6 months — Nonstop Local News (Oct. 9, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Ellensburg Community Development Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-imperial-county-dc-second-45day-moratorium-2026","title":"Imperial County, CA — Supervisors Repeal Court-Voided Moratorium Ordinances 1616/1618 and Adopt a Second 45-Day Urgency Data Center Moratorium (Oct. 6, 2026)","short_title":"Imperial County CA second 45-day data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Imperial County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Imperial County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-06","enacted_date":"2026-10-06","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"After a judge ruled that Imperial County's first data center moratorium lacked the findings California law requires, supervisors repealed it on Oct. 6, 2026 and the same day adopted a new 45-day urgency moratorium by a 5-0 vote. The new pause bars approval of data center facilities in unincorporated Imperial County. The county cited new information on pending projects, Colorado River supply cuts and a court ruling requiring an environmental impact report for one project.","summary_technical":"Imperial County (CA) BOCS, Tuesday Oct. 6, 2026: (1) urgency ordinance repealing Ord. 1616 (June 16, 2026 moratorium) and Ord. 1618 (July extension) per peremptory writ in Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, LLC v. Imperial County (Judge Jeffrey B. Jones, Sept. 4, 2026 ruling: required Gov. Code findings not made); (2) after public hearing, new 45-day interim urgency ordinance (5-0) prohibiting data center facility approvals in unincorporated county, excluding Mesquite Lake Specific Plan area. Findings cited: new information on pending/proposed facilities; Interior Dept. Colorado River delivery guidelines; court finding that an EIR was required for the Imperial Data Center project; General Plan amendments before the Data Center Advisory Committee. NOT ESTABLISHED: new ordinance number; expiry date as stated (45 days computed ~Nov. 20, 2026).","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Imperial County, CA","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants in unincorporated Imperial County, CA (outside Mesquite Lake Specific Plan area)","citation":"Imperial County, CA second 45-day urgency data center moratorium (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://calexicochronicle.com/2026/10/07/county-board-adopts-second-45-day-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"County Board Adopts Second 45-Day Data Center Moratorium — Calexico Chronicle (Oct. 7, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Imperial County Planning and Development Services","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"va-loudoun-zoning-admin-rt28-dc-determination-2026","title":"Loudoun County, VA — Zoning Administrator Rules Data Centers Are Not a By-Right Principal Use Under the 1972 Zoning Ordinance (Rt. 28 Tax District), Reversing a 2000 Interpretation (July 2026)","short_title":"Loudoun VA zoning administrator: data centers not by-right under 1972 ordinance","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Loudoun County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Loudoun County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-30","enacted_date":"2026-07-30","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Loudoun County's zoning administrator has ruled that data centers are not allowed as a main use by right on land still governed by the county's 1972 zoning ordinance in the Route 28 Tax District, reversing a 2000 interpretation that let them be built like offices. The ruling means projects there, including Amazon's proposed data centers on George Washington University's former Ashburn campus, need approval from the Board of Supervisors. The county is also moving to shift those properties to its 2023 zoning ordinance.","summary_technical":"Loudoun County (VA) Zoning Administrator determination/opinion, July 2026: under the 1972 Zoning Ordinance (applicable to Rt. 28 Tax District parcels), 'Data center is not a permitted principal use'; data processing appears only as accessory/subordinate to permitted principal uses in the PD-RD district. Reverses a 2000 zoning administrator ruling permitting by-right data centers where offices are allowed. Applied to Amazon's July 2026 application for four buildings (805,000 sq ft; staff estimate up to 885,000 gal/day water, up to 217 MW) on the 120-acre GWU Science and Technology campus bought for $427M. County-initiated conversion of Rt. 28 properties to the 2023 ordinance before Planning Commission October 2026. NOT ESTABLISHED: exact determination date/number; any appeal to the BZA (Patch says scope for the Rt. 28 district was initially unclear).","who_is_protected":"Loudoun County, VA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers on Rt. 28 Tax District parcels governed by the 1972 Zoning Ordinance","citation":"Loudoun County Zoning Administrator opinion on data centers under the 1972 Zoning Ordinance (July 2026)","source_url":"https://www.loudounnow.com/news/county-zoning-chief-says-amazon-needs-board-approval-for-gwu-data-centers/article_45b14f11-4905-428d-951f-55adeba1ea65.html","source_title":"County Zoning Chief Says Amazon Needs Board Approval for GWU Data Centers — Loudoun Now (Oct. 8, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Loudoun County Department of Building and Development / Zoning Administrator","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"mi-fairgrove-twp-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Fairgrove Township, MI — Township Board Adopts a One-Year Moratorium on Data Center Approvals (Sept. 21, 2026)","short_title":"Fairgrove Township MI 1-year data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Fairgrove Township, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Tuscola","city":"Fairgrove Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-21","enacted_date":"2026-09-21","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Fairgrove Township in Tuscola County, Michigan has paused data center approvals for one year. The township board adopted the moratorium on Sept. 21, 2026. During the pause the township will not accept or approve zoning, site plan or building applications for data centers.","summary_technical":"Fairgrove Township Board (Tuscola County, MI), Monday Sept. 21, 2026 — one-year moratorium on the 'acceptance, processing, review, approval, issuance or granting of zoning applications, special land use applications, site plan approvals, zoning permits, building permits, rezonings, variances or other approvals related to the establishment, construction, expansion or operation of data centers.' NOT ESTABLISHED: vote count, ordinance number, exact expiration (one year from adoption implied, not stated as a date).","who_is_protected":"Fairgrove Township, MI residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Fairgrove Township, MI","citation":"Fairgrove Township, MI data center moratorium (Sept. 21, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.tuscolatoday.com/news/fairgrove-township-places-moratorium-on-data-centers/article_434ea64b-0476-49eb-800e-c80d06637877.html","source_title":"Fairgrove Township places moratorium on data centers — Tuscola Today (Oct. 3, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Fairgrove Township Board","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"litig-hilton-v-noem-ice-observer-surveillance-me-2026","title":"Hilton v. Noem (D. Me.) — Immigration-Arrest Observers Challenge ICE/HSI Photographing, Photo Queries and Palantir Case-Management Records Created About Them","short_title":"Hilton v. Noem — ICE observer surveillance suit (Maine)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"Maine","state_abbr":"ME","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement","privacy","biometrics","national-security"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"People who watched and recorded immigration arrests in Maine have sued Homeland Security officials in federal court. Court records described by Biometric Update say an agent photographed them, ran their photos through a DHS query tool and entered records about them into a Palantir-built case management system, and the government acknowledged one plaintiff's record later led to extra screening at the Canadian border. The plaintiffs want the records archived and kept from being used against them.","summary_technical":"Hilton v. Noem, U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. Plaintiffs include Carlyn Williams and Polyxenia Pantos; defendants DHS/ICE officials. Claims: First Amendment retaliation/chilling of protected observation; photographing of observers and searches of their photos via a DHS 'Mobile Query' tool (article does not specify the application); creation of Investigative Case Management (ICM, Palantir) records by an HSI agent ('J.C.') on eight observers during Operation Catch of the Day (Jan. 2026); ICM information associated with enhanced border screening of Williams in March 2026. Relief sought: archiving/sequestration of records and bar on use. Government response filed Sept. 18, 2026. NOT ESTABLISHED: filing date, case number (article cites CourtListener docket id 72313728), judge.","who_is_protected":"People observing or recording immigration enforcement in Maine","who_must_comply":"U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Homeland Security Investigations","citation":"Hilton v. Noem (D. Me. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.biometricupdate.com/202610/ice-observer-lawsuit-shows-how-palantir-records-can-feed-border-screening-analytics","source_title":"ICE observer lawsuit shows how Palantir records can feed border screening, analytics — Biometric Update (Oct. 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"U.S. District Court for the District of Maine","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pa-luzerne-county-dc-zoning-amendment-proposed-2026","title":"Luzerne County, PA — Planning Commission Unanimously Recommends Data Center Zoning Ordinance Amendments to County Council (Oct. 8, 2026)","short_title":"Luzerne County PA proposed data center zoning amendments","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Luzerne County, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Luzerne","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Luzerne County, Pennsylvania has drafted zoning amendments that set rules for three sizes of data centers, including setbacks from property lines, homes, schools and other sensitive sites, noise limits at property lines and closed-loop cooling. The county planning commission unanimously recommended the amendments to County Council on Oct. 8, 2026. County Council must still vote.","summary_technical":"Luzerne County (PA) zoning ordinance amendment establishing standards for Hyperscale (>=100,000 sq ft, up to 200 MW), Major (20,000-100,000 sq ft, up to 100 MW) and Edge/Minor (<20,000 sq ft, up to 20 MW) data centers. Setbacks: 1,000 ft from property lines for hyperscale/major principal buildings, 750 ft accessory, 500/300 ft for edge/minor (Citizens' Voice); 1,250 ft from sensitive receptors, reducible to 1,000 ft (down from an earlier 2,000 ft draft); sound not to exceed 55 dB(A) and 65 dB(C) at the property line (Dallas Post). Planning Commission vote: unanimous, Thursday Oct. 8, 2026. Next: County Council (no date set). Applies in 19 municipalities that rely on county zoning (Dallas Post).","who_is_protected":"Luzerne County, PA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Luzerne County municipalities governed by county zoning","citation":"Luzerne County, PA, proposed zoning ordinance amendment on data centers (Planning Commission recommendation Oct. 8, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.citizensvoice.com/2026/10/09/luzerne-county-planners-recommend-data-center-zoning-amendments/","source_title":"Luzerne County planners recommend data center zoning amendments — The Citizens' Voice (Oct. 9, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Luzerne County Council; Luzerne County Planning and Zoning","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"md-montgomery-county-bill-8-26-algorithmic-rent-ban-proposed-2026","title":"Montgomery County, MD — Bill 8-26 to Ban Algorithmic Rent-Setting Devices and Rental Price Coordination (Committee Recommends Passage Oct. 5, 2026)","short_title":"Montgomery County MD Bill 8-26 algorithmic rent ban","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Montgomery County, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Montgomery","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Montgomery County, Maryland's Bill 8-26 would ban landlords from using algorithmic devices to set rents or other lease terms and would prohibit rental price coordination. A council committee amended it and unanimously recommended passage on Oct. 5, 2026. The full County Council is expected to vote later in the fall.","summary_technical":"Montgomery County (MD) Bill 8-26 (lead sponsor Jawando; cosponsors Evans, Mink): prohibits use of algorithmic devices to establish rents or rental terms and prohibits price coordination involving rental housing. Planning, Housing and Parks Committee amended it to align with the City of Rockville's recently adopted law and unanimously recommended passage Monday Oct. 5, 2026. Office of Legislative Oversight flagged limited/mixed research and enforcement challenges. NOT ESTABLISHED: introduction date; full Council vote date.","who_is_protected":"Renters in Montgomery County, MD","who_must_comply":"Residential landlords and rent-setting software providers in Montgomery County, MD","citation":"Montgomery County, MD, Bill 8-26 (algorithmic rent-setting ban; committee recommendation Oct. 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://mocoshow.com/2026/10/05/montgomery-county-committee-backs-ban-on-algorithmic-rent-pricing/","source_title":"Montgomery County Committee Backs Ban on Algorithmic Rent Pricing — The MoCo Show (Oct. 5, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Montgomery County Council; county consumer/housing agencies (not established)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ga-pembroke-dc-moratorium-180day-2026","title":"Pembroke, GA — 180-Day Moratorium on Data Center Development While the City Writes Land-Use Rules (in effect October 2026)","short_title":"Pembroke GA 180-day data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Pembroke, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Bryan","city":"Pembroke","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Pembroke, Georgia has a 180-day moratorium on data center development while city staff, the city attorney and the Planning Commission write land-use rules. The review covers water and wastewater capacity, electricity demand, noise, lighting, public safety and effects on nearby property, and will separate large data centers from smaller technology infrastructure. The mayor said the pause was put in place before any proposal arrived, not in response to one.","summary_technical":"180-day moratorium on data center development; about 160 days remained as of WTOC's Oct. 8, 2026 report (citing Mayor Tiffany Zeigler's Facebook post). Review topics: water/wastewater capacity, electricity demand, noise, lighting, public safety, infrastructure, nearby properties; distinguish large-scale data centers from infrastructure supporting local businesses, communications providers and health care. Any ordinance changes go through public hearings; none scheduled. NOT ESTABLISHED: adoption date, vote, ordinance/resolution number, exact expiry.","who_is_protected":"Pembroke, GA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Pembroke, GA","citation":"Pembroke, GA, 180-day data center moratorium (2026)","source_url":"https://www.wtoc.com/2026/10/08/pembroke-reviewing-data-center-rules-during-180-day-moratorium/","source_title":"Pembroke to review data center rules during 180-day moratorium — WTOC (Oct. 8, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Pembroke Mayor and Council; Planning Commission","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pa-hr-653-ai-workforce-data-study-2026","title":"Pennsylvania House Resolution 653 (2025-2026) — Directs the Joint State Government Commission to Study What Data Is Needed to Evaluate AI's Impact on the Workforce","short_title":"PA HR 653 AI workforce data study","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pennsylvania","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["employment","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Pennsylvania House Resolution 653 would direct the Joint State Government Commission to study and report on what data the state needs to collect to measure how artificial intelligence affects the workforce. It was referred to the House Labor & Industry Committee on Oct. 9, 2026.","summary_technical":"HR 653, 2025-2026 session. Prime sponsor Rep. Tim Brennan (D-29). Referred to Labor & Industry Oct. 9, 2026. No votes recorded. session_end_date set to Nov. 30, 2026 (end of the two-year PA session) — confirm.","who_is_protected":"Pennsylvania workers (study only)","who_must_comply":"Joint State Government Commission","citation":"Pa. H.R. 653 (2025-2026 Sess.)","source_url":"https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2025/hr653","source_title":"HR 653 — Pennsylvania General Assembly","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Pennsylvania House of Representatives","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"litig-puct-v-texas-ag-dc-survey-records-2026","title":"Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Office of the Attorney General (Travis County District Court) — PUC Sues to Block Release of Data Center Energy and Water Survey Records (Oct. 2026)","short_title":"PUCT v. Texas AG — data center survey records","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["data-centers","transparency"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"The Public Utility Commission of Texas has sued the Attorney General's office to stop the release of records from a state survey of data centers and crypto mines. The Attorney General ruled twice that the information, including the county where each facility operates and its water planning area, must be released under the Public Information Act. The commission says combining location with energy and water data would help someone planning an attack.","summary_technical":"Plaintiff: PUCT. Defendant: Office of the Attorney General (Ken Paxton). Court: Travis County district court (Texas Scorecard: 200th District Court). Records: responses to the energy and water use survey sent to 377 facilities in 2025 (90 responded by Aug. 2026) — electricity demand, water use, cooling technology, infrastructure; disputed fields are county and regional water planning area. AG issued two rulings that PUCT had not shown the information identifies technical vulnerabilities covered by the Homeland Security exception; six PIA requests at issue (Scorecard). Context: Gov. Abbott's directive for agency reviews of data center power and water use (see tx-gov-abbott-dc-audit-directive-2026). NOT ESTABLISHED: cause number, exact filing date (outlets give inconsistent weekday/date).","who_is_protected":"Public requesters seeking data center records (transparency interest)","who_must_comply":"PUCT and Office of the Attorney General","citation":"Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Office of the Attorney General (Tex. Dist. Ct., Travis County 2026)","source_url":"https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/06/texas-data-center-lawsuit-paxton-water/","source_title":"PUC sues Paxton's office over release of data center records — The Texas Tribune (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Travis County District Court, Texas","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Declaratory/injunctive relief"},{"id":"tn-shelby-county-dc-moratorium-ordinance-proposed-2026","title":"Shelby County, TN — Commissioner Brooks Introduces Ordinance for an Up-to-12-Month Data Center Moratorium in Unincorporated Shelby County (Introduced Oct. 7, 2026)","short_title":"Shelby County TN proposed data center moratorium ordinance","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Shelby County, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Shelby","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"A Shelby County commissioner introduced an ordinance that would halt data center development in unincorporated Shelby County for up to 12 months, or until the county adopts zoning rules for data centers. It would also create data center zoning definitions, require development agreements covering infrastructure, aquifer water, energy use and noise, and set up a study committee. It still needs readings by the full commission.","summary_technical":"Shelby County Board of Commissioners ordinance (sponsor Henri E. Brooks): moratorium on data center development in unincorporated Shelby County for up to 12 months, until repealed, or until 'adoption of comprehensive zoning regulations governing' data centers; uniform rules for large-load data centers, multi-tiered facility classification, required development agreement (public infrastructure, aquifer protection, energy usage, noise); study committee. Introduced in general government committee Wed. Oct. 7, 2026 (an attempted Sept. 23 introduction did not meet procedure); graduated without recommendation to the next full commission meeting for first reading. Does not apply inside Memphis (County Attorney Greg Barnes). NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, first-reading date.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Shelby County, TN","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in unincorporated Shelby County, TN","citation":"Shelby County, TN, proposed data center moratorium ordinance (introduced Oct. 7, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/shelby-county-commission-introduces-own-165039757.html","source_title":"Shelby County Commission introduces own data center development moratorium ordinance — WATN Local 24 via Yahoo (Oct. 7, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Shelby County Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-south-el-monte-dc-urgency-moratorium-2026","title":"South El Monte, CA — City Council Adopts 45-Day Urgency Moratoriums on Data Center and Battery Storage Land Use Applications (5-0, Oct. 6, 2026)","short_title":"South El Monte CA 45-day data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"South El Monte, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Los Angeles","city":"South El Monte","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-06","enacted_date":"2026-10-06","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"South El Monte adopted a 45-day pause on accepting or approving land use applications for new data centers, alongside a separate pause for battery storage facilities. The council said it will consider banning both outright at a future meeting.","summary_technical":"Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 1299-U pursuant to Gov. Code § 65858: temporary 45-day moratorium 'prohibiting approval and acceptance of new Data Center land use applications' while the City evaluates land use classifications and development standards (agenda item 10.d, Oct. 6, 2026 council meeting; CEQA exemption § 15061(b)(3)). Companion Urgency Ordinance No. 1300-U (BESS). Adopted 5-0 (Streetsblog LA). A 65858 interim ordinance lapses 45 days after adoption unless extended; expires_date left null because no page states the end date. No data centers currently proposed in the city.","who_is_protected":"South El Monte, CA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking land use approvals in South El Monte, CA","citation":"City of South El Monte, CA, Urgency Ordinance No. 1299-U (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://la.streetsblog.org/2026/10/08/south-el-monte-puts-45-day-moratorium-on-data-center-and-battery-facility-development","source_title":"South El Monte Puts 45 Day Moratorium on Data Center and Battery Facility Development — Streetsblog LA (Oct. 8, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of South El Monte City Council; Planning Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-bipartisan-american-affordability-jobs-act-2026","title":"United States — Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (Capito/Lee/Whitehouse/Heinrich): Senate Permitting Reform Bill With a Federal Power Act 'Ratepayer Protection for Data Center' Section (Introduced Sept. 30, 2026)","short_title":"Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (data center ratepayer section)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"A bipartisan Senate permitting bill would speed federal environmental reviews for energy and infrastructure projects and also require large data centers to pay the full extra cost utilities incur to serve them. Under its data center section, none of those costs could be shifted onto other customers, and the data center would keep paying them even if it leaves early. It is a proposal, not law.","summary_technical":"Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (119th Cong., 2d Sess.; S. number blank in the released text). Permitting reform (NEPA, CWA, ESA, NHPA etc.). Data center provision: adds Federal Power Act Part II sec. 228 'Ratepayer Protection for Data Center and High-Density Computing Load' — 'covered load' = load from data centers/high-density computing facilities (incl. AI training or inference, cloud, crypto mining) at a site or commonly controlled sites >= 20 MW (or expected at full buildout); 'Ratepayer protection floor': no portion of 'incremental cost' (generation, storage, transmission, distribution costs avoided had the load not been served) may be allocated to or recovered from other customers; FERC/States may recover surplus and credit other customers; continuing recovery on exit; financial assurance before construction of upgrades. Separate 'data center entity' definition for EIA load reporting.","who_is_protected":"Electric ratepayers nationwide","who_must_comply":"Electric utilities; data centers and high-density computing facilities with >= 20 MW load","citation":"Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026, 119th Cong. (Senate, introduced Sept. 30, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.energy.senate.gov/press/dem/heinrich-lee-capito-and-whitehouse-introduce-bipartisan-american-affordability-and-jobs-act-of-2026/","source_title":"Heinrich, Lee, Capito, and Whitehouse Introduce Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 — Senate ENR Committee (Sept. 30, 2026)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; State utility commissions","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"sc-york-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"York County, SC — County Council Adopts Nine-Month Moratorium on New Data Centers in Unincorporated Areas (6-0, July 13, 2026; Extension Under Consideration)","short_title":"York County SC nine-month data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"York County, SC","state_abbr":"SC","county":"York","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-13","enacted_date":"2026-07-13","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"York County, South Carolina paused new data center development in its unincorporated areas for nine months starting July 13, 2026, into April 2027, while staff study noise, groundwater, utility rates and energy impacts. Projects with civil site plan approval before the vote are exempt. The council can extend the pause by resolution.","summary_technical":"York County Council ordinance, final reading July 13, 2026 (6-0), effective on adoption: county will not accept site plans or issue special exceptions, conditional use permits or other land use/development approvals for new data centers (Chapter 155 definition, which includes cryptocurrency mining) in unincorporated areas; pending applications held in abeyance; exemption for developments with civil site plan approval before the effective date (limited to approved scope). Staff to set a study plan (noise, groundwater, utility rates, energy infrastructure, waste heat, adjacent properties), recommend independent experts, and return with zoning text amendments. Runs nine months from adoption (into April 2027) unless extended by council resolution. Preceded by the pending-ordinance doctrine invoked Feb. 6, 2026; first reading in June 2026. NOT ESTABLISHED: ordinance number, exact expiration date, outcome of extension discussion.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated York County, SC","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in unincorporated York County, SC","citation":"York County, SC, nine-month data center moratorium ordinance (adopted July 13, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wrhi.com/2026/07/york-county-council-approves-nine-month-data-center-moratorium-214184","source_title":"York County Council approves nine month data center moratorium — WRHI (July 14, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"York County Council; York County Planning and Development Services","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-s-5471-ai-systems-transparency-act-2026","title":"United States — S. 5471, AI Systems Transparency Act (119th Congress, introduced Sept. 23, 2026)","short_title":"US S. 5471 AI Systems Transparency Act","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","state_abbr":"US","topics":["transparency","consumer-protection"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"A bipartisan Senate bill, the AI Systems Transparency Act, would require disclosure of certain information about artificial intelligence systems. Sen. Chris Coons introduced it on Sept. 23, 2026 with Sens. Katie Britt, Brian Schatz and James Lankford, and it was sent to the Commerce Committee. The detailed requirements were not reviewed from the bill text.","summary_technical":"S. 5471 (119th Congress). Sponsor: Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-DE); cosponsors Sens. Katie Britt (R-AL), Brian Schatz (D-HI), James Lankford (R-OK). Introduced Sept. 23, 2026; referred to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Bill-detail page on GovInfo gives only the long title/purpose; text-level provisions not reviewed. NOT ESTABLISHED: any action after referral.","who_is_protected":"The public","who_must_comply":"Developers or providers of covered AI systems","citation":"S. 5471, 119th Cong. (2026)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/BILLS-119s5471is","source_title":"S. 5471 — AI Systems Transparency Act (GovInfo bill details, introduced version)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-hr-9862-responsible-ai-for-veterans-act-2026","title":"United States — H.R. 9862, Responsible Artificial Intelligence for Veterans Act of 2026 (119th Congress, introduced July 22, 2026)","short_title":"US H.R. 9862 Responsible AI for Veterans Act (independent evaluation of VHA AI)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","state_abbr":"US","topics":["healthcare","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"A House bill that would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to seek an agreement with a federally funded research and development center for an independent evaluation of the artificial intelligence systems used by the Veterans Health Administration. It was introduced on July 22, 2026 and sent to the Veterans' Affairs Committee. It has not passed either chamber.","summary_technical":"H.R. 9862 (119th Congress). Sponsor: Rep. Gregory F. Murphy (R-NC). Introduced July 22, 2026; referred to House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Bill-detail page on GovInfo gives only the long title/purpose; text-level provisions not reviewed. NOT ESTABLISHED: any action after referral.","who_is_protected":"Veterans receiving VHA care","who_must_comply":"Department of Veterans Affairs / Veterans Health Administration","citation":"H.R. 9862, 119th Cong. (2026)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/BILLS-119hr9862ih","source_title":"H.R. 9862 — Responsible Artificial Intelligence for Veterans Act of 2026 (GovInfo bill details, introduced version)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pa-hb-2787-ban-ai-school-mental-health-2026","title":"Pennsylvania HB 2787 — Prohibition of Artificial Intelligence for School-Based Mental Health and Counseling (reported Oct. 6, 2026)","short_title":"PA HB 2787 ban on AI for school mental health services","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pennsylvania","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["education","children","healthcare"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"A Pennsylvania House bill that would amend the Public School Code to prohibit the use of artificial intelligence for school-based mental health and counseling services for students. The House Education Committee reported it out 26-0 on Oct. 6, 2026. It has not passed the House.","summary_technical":"HB 2787 (2025-26 session), Public School Code of 1949 amendment 'in school safety and security, providing for prohibition of artificial intelligence for school-based mental health and counseling.' Referred to Education Sept. 24, 2026; reported as committed 26-0 on Oct. 6, 2026; first consideration; laid on the table. NOT ESTABLISHED: exceptions and enforcement (text not reviewed).","who_is_protected":"Pennsylvania public school students","who_must_comply":"Pennsylvania public school entities","citation":"Pa. HB 2787 (2025-26 Sess.)","source_url":"https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2025/hb2787","source_title":"HB 2787 bill information — Pennsylvania General Assembly","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"fl-osceola-county-large-ai-dc-application-deferral-2026","title":"Osceola County, FL — Board of County Commissioners Defers All Action on Large-Scale AI Data Centers; Applications Will Not Be Reviewed Pending the State SB 484 Study (Statement Oct. 2, 2026)","short_title":"Osceola County FL large-scale AI data center application deferral","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Osceola County, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Osceola","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Osceola County, Florida commissioners unanimously agreed at a June 2026 workshop to defer any action on large-scale AI data center proposals. In an Oct. 2, 2026 statement the county said any applications submitted will not be considered for review until the state finishes a study of large data centers required by Florida's SB 484, due July 1, 2027, and possibly longer. This is a board position announced by the county rather than an adopted moratorium ordinance.","summary_technical":"Osceola County BOCC: unanimous June 2026 workshop consensus to defer action on large-scale data center proposals; County statement PR26-32 (Oct. 2, 2026): 'any applications submitted will not be considered for review, consistent with the Board's position.' Tied to CS/CS/SB 484 (Ch. 2026-65), which requires an OPPAGA study of large-scale data centers due July 1, 2027; the Board may wait beyond that date. Positively Osceola reports the large-scale threshold as at least 50 MW monthly peak load (SB 484 definition). NOT ESTABLISHED: an ordinance or resolution number; exact June workshop date.","who_is_protected":"Osceola County, FL residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of large-scale AI data centers in Osceola County, FL","citation":"Osceola County, FL, Statement PR26-32 (Oct. 2, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.osceola.org/News/PR26-32-Statement-on-Large-Scale-AI-Data-Centers","source_title":"County Issues Statement on Large-Scale AI Data Centers — Osceola County (PR26-32, Oct. 2, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Osceola County Board of County Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ks-emporia-high-impact-dc-ban-ballot-2026","title":"Emporia, Kansas — Citizen-Initiated Ordinance to Prohibit 'High-Impact Data Centers' on the Nov. 3, 2026 Ballot","short_title":"Emporia KS high-impact data center ban ballot question","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Emporia, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Lyon","city":"Emporia","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Emporia, Kansas voters will decide on Nov. 3, 2026 whether to adopt a citizen-proposed ordinance prohibiting 'high-impact data centers' in the city. The proposal covers facilities mainly used to house and run computer servers that need more than 10 megawatts of electricity at peak or more than 100,000 gallons of water a day. A companion petition question concerns battery energy storage systems.","summary_technical":"Citizen-initiated ordinance submitted by Emporia Neighbors United; signatures verified by the county clerk; placed on the ballot by court order; Nov. 3, 2026 election, city voters only. 'High-impact data center' = primary use housing and operating computer servers AND >10 MW peak electricity or >100,000 gallons/day water. The Gazette notes a drafting error (penalty cross-reference to 'Article 15' instead of 'Section 11'). NOT ESTABLISHED: exact ballot wording; text of the BESS question.","who_is_protected":"Emporia, KS residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Emporia, KS (if approved)","citation":"Emporia, KS, initiated ordinance on high-impact data centers (Nov. 3, 2026 ballot)","source_url":"https://www.emporiagazette.com/free/article_cdeb2c50-72ea-4e45-bc47-a76fbf2a39b8.html","source_title":"Because You Asked: Your questions about Emporia's data center vote answered — Emporia Gazette (Sept. 30, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Emporia","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"nj-a5496-ai-mortgage-lending-bias-audit-2026","title":"New Jersey A5496 — Bias Audits and Applicant Notice for AI Mortgage Lending Tools (Introduced Sept. 14, 2026)","short_title":"NJ A5496 AI mortgage tool bias audits","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Jersey","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"This New Jersey Assembly bill would regulate AI tools used in residential mortgage lending decisions. Vendors would need a bias audit within the past year before selling a tool and would have to provide annual audits; lenders would have to post a summary of the latest audit and tell every applicant that an AI tool will be used. Lenders could only input quantifiable metrics, not categories of persons, into the tool.","summary_technical":"A5496 covers developers/vendors of 'A.I. mortgage loan tools' and residential mortgage lenders, originators and underwriters. Requires bias audit in the year before sale plus an annual bias audit service at no extra cost; tool notice; lender website summary of most recent audit; applicant notice; input limited to quantifiable metrics. Civil penalties: vendor up to $1,500 first violation (with daily increases); lender up to $500 first violation.","who_is_protected":"New Jersey residential mortgage applicants","who_must_comply":"AI mortgage tool developers/vendors; residential mortgage lenders, originators and underwriters","citation":"NJ A5496 (2026-2027 Session)","source_url":"https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2026/A5500/5496_I1.HTM","source_title":"NJ Legislature — Assembly No. 5496 (introduced text)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Vendor: up to $1,500 first violation; lender: up to $500 first violation (per introduced text)"},{"id":"us-hr10719-protecting-kids-human-like-chatbots-act-2026","title":"U.S. H.R. 10719 — Protecting Kids from Human-Like Chatbots Act: Non-Personified Default and Parental Controls for Minors (Introduced Oct. 1, 2026)","short_title":"H.R. 10719 Protecting Kids from Human-Like Chatbots Act","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["children","consumer-protection"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"This House bill would require AI chatbots to have a 'non-personified' default setting that clearly identifies the chatbot as AI, turned on for users the provider knows or has reason to know are minors. Providers would have to offer parental controls and could not use design tricks to push minors to turn those settings off. The FTC and state attorneys general could enforce it, with each affected minor counted as a separate violation.","summary_technical":"Developers must build a technically separable non-personified default setting active from first interaction unless age determination shows the user is not a minor; providers must activate it for known/likely minors, maintain a parental controls framework, and avoid dark patterns. Violations treated as unfair or deceptive acts under the FTC Act; state parens patriae actions; effective one year after enactment.","who_is_protected":"Minors using AI chatbots","who_must_comply":"AI chatbot developers and providers","citation":"H.R. 10719, 119th Congress","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr10719ih/html/BILLS-119hr10719ih.htm","source_title":"GovInfo — H.R. 10719 (Introduced in House) text","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal Trade Commission; state attorneys general","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"FTC Act penalties; each affected minor a separate violation"},{"id":"us-s5225-k12-ai-literacy-readiness-act-2026","title":"U.S. S. 5225 — K–12 AI Literacy and Readiness Act of 2026 (Senate Companion; Introduced Aug. 4, 2026)","short_title":"S. 5225 K–12 AI Literacy and Readiness Act","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["education","children"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"This Senate bill would let states and school districts use existing federal K-12 education funds for teaching students to use AI safely and responsibly. It would also allow the funds to pay for training teachers, administrators, librarians and support staff on AI. It is the Senate version of House bill H.R. 8747.","summary_technical":"Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to include AI instruction and AI professional development as permissible uses of funds across four ESEA funding streams for SEAs and LEAs. Companion to H.R. 8747 (legiscan-current-us-hb8747).","who_is_protected":"K-12 students","who_must_comply":"State and local education agencies using ESEA funds (permissive)","citation":"S. 5225, 119th Congress","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119s5225is/html/BILLS-119s5225is.htm","source_title":"GovInfo — S. 5225 (Introduced in Senate) text","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"nj-s4712-ai-compute-tax-workforce-fund-2026","title":"New Jersey S4712 — Proposed 10% Tax on AI Computer Processing to Fund an \"AI Workforce Impact Transition Fund\" (Introduced Oct. 1, 2026)","short_title":"NJ S4712 AI processing tax for displaced workers","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Jersey","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["employment"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"A New Jersey Senate bill would put a 10% tax on computer processing done by artificial intelligence systems for New Jersey businesses or by processors located in the state. The money would go to a new fund for workers who lose their jobs to AI, paying for career training, grants and high school dual-enrollment programs.","summary_technical":"S4712 (2026-2027 session): imposes a 10% tax on AI computer processing services, calculated on token value (units of processing) and differently for contracted vs. controlled processors; applies to processors in NJ and those performing work for in-state businesses; record-keeping duties for AI processors and qualified AI businesses; revenues dedicated to the \"AI Workforce Impact Transition Fund\" administered for displaced workers (career training, grants to organizations, dual enrollment); administrative costs capped at 10%; annual report by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development. \"Displaced worker\" = employment terminated or expected to become obsolete within 12 months due to AI system operation.","who_is_protected":"Workers in New Jersey displaced by artificial intelligence","who_must_comply":"AI processors and qualified AI businesses","citation":"N.J. S4712 (2026-2027)","source_url":"https://pub.njleg.gov/bills/2026/S5000/4712_I1.HTM","source_title":"New Jersey Senate No. 4712 (introduced text) — NJ Legislature","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New Jersey Division of Taxation; Department of Labor and Workforce Development (fund)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pa-reading-dc-curative-amendment-moratorium-2026","title":"Reading, PA — City Council Invokes Curative Amendment, Pausing AI Data Center Zoning Applications for 180 Days (July 13, 2026)","short_title":"Reading PA 180-day data center application pause","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Reading, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Berks","city":"Reading","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-13","enacted_date":"2026-07-13","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Reading, Pennsylvania has paused zoning permit applications for artificial intelligence data centers for 180 days while it writes rules for them. City Council voted unanimously on July 13, 2026 to invoke Pennsylvania's curative amendment process. A proposed amendment would limit data centers to the heavy manufacturing district with conditional use approval by council.","summary_technical":"Resolution under the Pennsylvania MPC municipal curative amendment process (53 P.S. 10609.2) declaring the zoning ordinance defective as it relates to AI data centers; during the 180-day period no data center zoning permit applications are considered. Councilman Jaime Baez proposed limiting data centers to the heavy manufacturing district by conditional use; Planning Commission reviewing the draft ordinance. 180 days from July 13 is about Jan. 9, 2027 (computed, not stated).","who_is_protected":"Reading, PA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants in Reading","citation":"City of Reading, PA curative amendment resolution re: data centers (July 13, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wfmz.com/news/area/berks/reading-area/reading-city-council-puts-180-day-moratorium-on-applications-for-artificial-intelligence-data-centers/article_a15c029b-f14e-415d-aeb0-d92457c1e785.html","source_title":"Reading City Council puts 180-day moratorium on applications for artificial intelligence data centers — WFMZ (July 13, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Reading Zoning Office","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"co-berthoud-dc-suspension-ord-1391-2026","title":"Berthoud, CO — Emergency Ordinance 1391 Suspends Applications for Large (10 MW+) Data Centers for One Year (September 2026)","short_title":"Berthoud CO one-year large data center application suspension (Ord. 1391)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Berthoud, CO","state_abbr":"CO","county":"Larimer","city":"Berthoud","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-22","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Berthoud, Colorado's Board of Trustees took up an emergency ordinance in September 2026 that stops the town from accepting, processing or approving applications for large data centers for one year. A large data center means one expected to use 10 megawatts or more of power. The town plans to use the time to write data center rules covering location, size, power and water use.","summary_technical":"Town of Berthoud (CO) Ordinance No. 1391, Series 2026, 'An Emergency Ordinance of the Town of Berthoud Temporarily Suspending the Acceptance, Processing and Approval of Applications for Large Data Centers in the Town' (Board of Trustees consent agenda item 1.c, Tue Sept. 22, 2026). Sec. 1: the Town shall not accept, process or approve applications for any large data center (site plan, zoning, use, building permit or other development applications) for one year from the ordinance's effective date. Sec. 2: 'large data center' = facility primarily storing/processing/transmitting data, supporting cloud computing or AI/ML, projected to use 10+ MW total capacity or demand (including cooling and other equipment). Recitals cite drought conditions and possible 2027 state legislation. Staff memo described the purpose as an 18-month suspension, but the ordinance text says one year. Adoption: Denver7 (Oct. 6, 2026) says Berthoud 'approved a 12-month moratorium on large data centers' later in September. NOT ESTABLISHED: the recorded vote, the signed ordinance, and the exact effective and expiry dates (no minutes published yet).","who_is_protected":"Berthoud, CO residents","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking approvals for data centers of 10 MW or more in Berthoud, CO","citation":"Town of Berthoud, CO, Ordinance No. 1391 (Series 2026), emergency one-year suspension of large data center applications","source_url":"https://berthoudco.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=4448,plainText=false)","source_title":"Town of Berthoud Board of Trustees Sept. 22, 2026 agenda packet — Ordinance No. 1391 (Series 2026) staff memo and text","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Town of Berthoud Board of Trustees; Community Development","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"mn-northfield-dc-ord-1098-setback-proposed-2026","title":"Northfield, MN — Council Passes First Reading of Ordinance 1098, Cutting the Data Center Park/Trail Setback From 3,950 to 200 Feet (Oct. 6, 2026)","short_title":"Northfield MN Ord. 1098 data processing facility standards (first reading)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Northfield, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Rice","city":"Northfield","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Northfield, Minnesota's City Council voted 7-0 on Oct. 6, 2026 to move forward an ordinance that would shrink the required distance between data centers and parks or trails from about three-quarters of a mile to 200 feet. The council also asked staff to study tiered data center rules that look at water use and other impacts, not just power use. The ordinance needs a second vote before it takes effect.","summary_technical":"City of Northfield (MN), Ordinance 1098, 'Approving Text Amendments Related to Use-Specific Standards for Data Processing Facilities in the Land Development Code' (Oct. 6, 2026 council agenda item 14, first reading). Per Southern Minn (Oct. 6, 2026), the council voted 7-0 to reduce the setback between data-processing facilities and existing or planned parks, trails or recreational features from 3,950 feet (set in a 2024 ordinance, which also requires a 200-foot residential setback, 17 performance standards and a conditional use permit triggered by any water use) to 200 feet; a separate unanimous motion directed staff to explore the planning commission's recommended tiered framework. The Planning Commission held the public hearing Aug. 20, 2026 (Legistar file 26-426) and had separately recommended an outright prohibition, which was outside the noticed hearing. NOT ESTABLISHED: second-reading date and effective date.","who_is_protected":"Northfield, MN residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of data processing facilities in Northfield, MN","citation":"Northfield, MN, Ordinance 1098 (data processing facility use-specific standards), first reading Oct. 6, 2026","source_url":"https://northfield.legistar1.com/northfield/meetings/2026/10/3135_A_City_Council_26-10-06_Meeting_Agenda.pdf","source_title":"City of Northfield City Council Oct. 6, 2026 meeting agenda — item 14, First Reading of Ordinance 1098","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Northfield City Council; Community Development Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"me-north-berwick-dc-prohibition-referendum-2026","title":"North Berwick, ME — November 2026 Referendum on a Zoning Amendment to Define and Permanently Prohibit Data Centers of 25,000+ Sq Ft","short_title":"North Berwick ME data center ban referendum (Nov. 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"North Berwick, ME","state_abbr":"ME","county":"York","city":"North Berwick","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"North Berwick, Maine voters will decide in November 2026 whether to change the town's zoning ordinance to define data centers and ban them permanently. The ban would apply to data center facilities of 25,000 square feet or more. The Select Board chose to send the question to voters instead of adopting a temporary moratorium.","summary_technical":"Town of North Berwick (ME) referendum question approved for the November 2026 ballot by the Select Board at its Tuesday (Aug. 18, 2026) meeting: 'Shall an ordinance entitled \"Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Define and Prohibit Data Centers\" be enacted?' The amendment defines data centers as any facility, structure or equipment that functions primarily 'to house networked computers, and/or network equipment, systems, servers, appliances, data and transaction processing equipment and associated infrastructure' and applies to an aggregate data center area of 25,000 sq ft or more. Officials decided in June 2026 to skip a temporary moratorium. Context: Gov. Mills vetoed statewide moratorium LD 307 (me-ld307-data-center-moratorium-vetoed). NOT ESTABLISHED: the Select Board vote count.","who_is_protected":"North Berwick, ME residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers of 25,000 sq ft or more in North Berwick, ME","citation":"North Berwick, ME, referendum on 'Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Define and Prohibit Data Centers' (November 2026 ballot)","source_url":"https://www.pressherald.com/2026/08/19/north-berwick-to-ask-voters-about-data-center-ban-comprehensive-plan-change/","source_title":"North Berwick to ask voters about data center ban, comprehensive plan change — Portland Press Herald (Aug. 19, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of North Berwick (Select Board; code enforcement)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"courtlistener-73496043","title":"Gagleard v. Perplexity AI, Inc. (3:26-cv-05949)","short_title":"3:26-cv-05949","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"District Court, N.D. California","topics":["automated-decisions"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Gagleard v. Perplexity AI, Inc. — 360 P.I.: Other","summary_technical":"28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract · filed 2026-06-17","who_is_protected":"Case parties — see docket for full details.","who_must_comply":"Case parties — see docket for full details.","citation":"District Court, N.D. California — 3:26-cv-05949","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73496043/gagleard-v-perplexity-ai-inc/","source_title":"CourtListener docket — 3:26-cv-05949","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"fr-hhs-2026-10602","title":"AI-Enabled Optimization of Early-Phase Clinical Trials Pilot Program; Request for Information; Extension of Comment Period (HHS — Notice)","short_title":"2026-10602","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["automated-decisions"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-05-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-29","summary_plain":"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is extending the comment period for the notice entitled \"AI-Enabled Optimization of Early-Phase Clinical Trials Pilot Program; Request for Information\" that appeared in the Federal Register of April 29, 2026. In the notice, FDA requested comments to solicit input on a proposed pilot program to assess how artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled technologies can improve efficiency, speed, and quality of decision- making in early phase clinical trials. The Agency is taking this action in response to a request for an extension to allow interested p","summary_technical":"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is extending the comment period for the notice entitled \"AI-Enabled Optimization of Early-Phase Clinical Trials Pilot Program; Request for Information\" that appeared in the Federal Register of April 29, 2026. In the notice, FDA requested comments to solicit input on a proposed pilot program to assess how artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled technologies can improve efficiency, speed, and quality of decision- making in early phase clinical trials. The Agency is taking this action in response to a request for an extension to allow interested persons additional time to submit comments.","who_is_protected":"See Federal Register notice — auto-imported, specifics pending verification.","who_must_comply":"See Federal Register notice — auto-imported, specifics pending verification.","citation":"HHS 2026-10602","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/28/2026-10602/ai-enabled-optimization-of-early-phase-clinical-trials-pilot-program-request-for-information","source_title":"Federal Register — HHS — 2026-10602","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"HHS"},{"id":"fr-nist-2026-10779","title":"NIST Artificial Intelligence Consortium (NIST — Notice)","short_title":"2026-10779","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-05-29","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, previously announced the formation of the Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute Consortium (\"AISIC\") through a publication dated November 2, 2023 (88 FR 75276). AISIC brought together more than 280 organizations to develop science-based and empirically backed guidelines and standards for artificial intelligence (AI) measurement, laying a foundation for global AI metrology. Through this succeeding notice, NIST is announcing the retitling of AISIC as the NIST Artificial Intelligen","summary_technical":"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, previously announced the formation of the Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute Consortium (\"AISIC\") through a publication dated November 2, 2023 (88 FR 75276). AISIC brought together more than 280 organizations to develop science-based and empirically backed guidelines and standards for artificial intelligence (AI) measurement, laying a foundation for global AI metrology. Through this succeeding notice, NIST is announcing the retitling of AISIC as the NIST Artificial Intelligence Consortium (\"Consortium\"), revising the scope of the Consortium's research, and reissuing its invitation to organizations to submit letters of interest in order to collaborate with NIST, non-profit organizations, industry leaders, universities, and other agencies of the Federal Government in addressing the challenges associated with the development and deployment of AI-based innovations. In sup","who_is_protected":"See Federal Register notice — auto-imported, specifics pending verification.","who_must_comply":"See Federal Register notice — auto-imported, specifics pending verification.","citation":"NIST 2026-10779","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/29/2026-10779/nist-artificial-intelligence-consortium","source_title":"Federal Register — NIST — 2026-10779","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NIST"},{"id":"fr-fcc-2026-11353","title":"Reforming the High-Cost Program for an All-IP Future, Connect America Fund: A National Broadband Plan for Our Future High-Cost Universal Support (FCC — Proposed Rule)","short_title":"2026-11353","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["automated-decisions"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-06-05","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that kicks off a process to examine how the Commission can make some of its high-cost mechanisms even more efficient and effective into the future. Ensuring a predictable High-Cost Program for years to come--call it High-Cost Modernization--will provide continuing support for our Build America Agenda, supercharge American leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) by efficiently supporting the broadband-capable networks upon which AI-enhanced applications and services will","summary_technical":"In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that kicks off a process to examine how the Commission can make some of its high-cost mechanisms even more efficient and effective into the future. Ensuring a predictable High-Cost Program for years to come--call it High-Cost Modernization--will provide continuing support for our Build America Agenda, supercharge American leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) by efficiently supporting the broadband-capable networks upon which AI-enhanced applications and services will be delivered and accessed, and will help accelerate the transition to Internet Protocol (IP) networks.","who_is_protected":"See Federal Register notice — auto-imported, specifics pending verification.","who_must_comply":"See Federal Register notice — auto-imported, specifics pending verification.","citation":"FCC 2026-11353","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/06/05/2026-11353/reforming-the-high-cost-program-for-an-all-ip-future-connect-america-fund-a-national-broadband-plan","source_title":"Federal Register — FCC — 2026-11353","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"unclear","enforcement_agency":"FCC"},{"id":"fr-ed-2026-10347","title":"Final Priority and Definitions-Secretary's Supplemental Priority and Definitions on Promoting Patriotic Education (ED — Notice)","short_title":"2026-10347","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["employment","automated-decisions","education"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-05-22","last_verified_date":"2026-06-26","summary_plain":"The Department of Education (Department) announces a final priority and definitions for use in currently authorized discretionary grant programs or programs that may be authorized in the future. The Secretary may choose to use the entire priority for a grant program or a particular competition or use one or more of the priority's component parts. The final priority and definitions augment the initial set of three Secretary's Supplemental Priorities on Evidence-Based Literacy, Educational Choice, and Returning Education to the States published as final priorities on September 9, 2025 (90 FR 435","summary_technical":"The Department of Education (Department) announces a final priority and definitions for use in currently authorized discretionary grant programs or programs that may be authorized in the future. The Secretary may choose to use the entire priority for a grant program or a particular competition or use one or more of the priority's component parts. The final priority and definitions augment the initial set of three Secretary's Supplemental Priorities on Evidence-Based Literacy, Educational Choice, and Returning Education to the States published as final priorities on September 9, 2025 (90 FR 43514); the Secretary's Supplemental Priority on Meaningful Learning Opportunities, published as a final priority on February 12, 2026 (91 FR 6625); the Secretary's Supplemental Priority on Advancing Artificial Intelligence in Education, published as a final priority on April 13, 2026 (91 FR 18774); and the Secretary's Supplemental Priority and Definitions on Career Pathways and Workforce Readiness, ","who_is_protected":"See Federal Register notice — auto-imported, specifics pending verification.","who_must_comply":"See Federal Register notice — auto-imported, specifics pending verification.","citation":"ED 2026-10347","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/22/2026-10347/final-priority-and-definitions-secretarys-supplemental-priority-and-definitions-on-promoting","source_title":"Federal Register — ED — 2026-10347","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"unclear","enforcement_agency":"ED"},{"id":"fr-gsa-2026-12205","title":"General Services Acquisition Regulation; Acquisition of Information and Communication Technology; Notice of Listening Sessions and Request for Comments (GSA — Proposed Rule)","short_title":"2026-12205","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["automated-decisions"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-06-17","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The General Services Administration (GSA) is seeking public comment on the draft of a new General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) clause regarding basic safeguarding of data within Large Language Model Artificial Intelligence Systems (LLMs). Due to the complexity of the issue, GSA is publishing this notification and draft clause to gather feedback from stakeholders before taking future action (e.g., deviation and/or formal rulemaking).","summary_technical":"The General Services Administration (GSA) is seeking public comment on the draft of a new General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) clause regarding basic safeguarding of data within Large Language Model Artificial Intelligence Systems (LLMs). Due to the complexity of the issue, GSA is publishing this notification and draft clause to gather feedback from stakeholders before taking future action (e.g., deviation and/or formal rulemaking).","who_is_protected":"See Federal Register notice — auto-imported, specifics pending verification.","who_must_comply":"See Federal Register notice — auto-imported, specifics pending verification.","citation":"GSA 2026-12205","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/06/17/2026-12205/general-services-acquisition-regulation-acquisition-of-information-and-communication-technology","source_title":"Federal Register — GSA — 2026-12205","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"GSA"},{"id":"fr-hhs-2026-08281","title":"AI-Enabled Optimization of Early-Phase Clinical Trials Pilot Program; Request for Information (HHS — Notice)","short_title":"2026-08281","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["healthcare"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-04-29","last_verified_date":"2026-06-29","summary_plain":"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is issuing this request for information to solicit input on a proposed pilot program to assess how artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled technologies can improve efficiency, speed, and quality of decision- making in early phase clinical trials. Early-phase clinical trials represent a critical bottleneck in drug development, often characterized by high uncertainty, limited patient populations, and inefficient decision- making processes. This pilot program aims to explore how advances in AI and data science can improve trial efficiency, enhance","summary_technical":"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is issuing this request for information to solicit input on a proposed pilot program to assess how artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled technologies can improve efficiency, speed, and quality of decision- making in early phase clinical trials. Early-phase clinical trials represent a critical bottleneck in drug development, often characterized by high uncertainty, limited patient populations, and inefficient decision- making processes. This pilot program aims to explore how advances in AI and data science can improve trial efficiency, enhance safety monitoring, facilitate dose selection decisions, and enable more informed early go/no-go decisions (e.g., a regulatory decision as to whether a Phase 1 study may proceed) while maintaining FDA's rigorous scientific and regulatory standards and promoting trustworthy AI systems. The pilot program will be guided by principles aligned with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NI","who_is_protected":"See Federal Register notice — auto-imported, specifics pending verification.","who_must_comply":"See Federal Register notice — auto-imported, specifics pending verification.","citation":"HHS 2026-08281","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/04/29/2026-08281/ai-enabled-optimization-of-early-phase-clinical-trials-pilot-program-request-for-information","source_title":"Federal Register — HHS — 2026-08281","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"HHS"},{"id":"fr-ed-2026-07087","title":"Final Priority and Definitions-Secretary's Supplemental Priority and Definitions on Advancing Artificial Intelligence in Education (ED — Rule)","short_title":"2026-07087","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["employment","automated-decisions","education"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-04-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"The Department of Education (Department) announces one priority and related definitions for use in currently authorized discretionary grant programs or programs that may be authorized in the future. The Secretary may choose to use an entire priority for a grant program or a particular competition or use one or more of the priority's component parts. This priority and definitions augment the initial set of three Secretary's Supplemental Priorities on Evidence- Based Literacy, Educational Choice, and Returning Education to the States published as final priorities on September 9, 2025; the additi","summary_technical":"The Department of Education (Department) announces one priority and related definitions for use in currently authorized discretionary grant programs or programs that may be authorized in the future. The Secretary may choose to use an entire priority for a grant program or a particular competition or use one or more of the priority's component parts. This priority and definitions augment the initial set of three Secretary's Supplemental Priorities on Evidence- Based Literacy, Educational Choice, and Returning Education to the States published as final priorities on September 9, 2025; the additional Secretary's Supplemental Priorities on Meaningful Learning Opportunities, published as a final priority on February 12, 2026, and Career Pathways and Workforce Readiness, published as a final priority elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register; and the additional proposed Secretary's Supplemental Priority on Promoting Patriotic Education, published as a proposed priority on September 17,","who_is_protected":"See Federal Register notice — auto-imported, specifics pending verification.","who_must_comply":"See Federal Register notice — auto-imported, specifics pending verification.","citation":"ED 2026-07087","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/04/13/2026-07087/final-priority-and-definitions-secretarys-supplemental-priority-and-definitions-on-advancing","source_title":"Federal Register — ED — 2026-07087","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"ED"},{"id":"fr-ed-2026-07084","title":"Final Priority and Definitions-Secretary's Supplemental Priority and Definitions on Career Pathways and Workforce Readiness (ED — Rule)","short_title":"2026-07084","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["employment","automated-decisions","education"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-04-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-26","summary_plain":"The Department of Education (Department) announces a final priority and definitions for use in currently authorized discretionary grant programs or programs that may be authorized in the future. The Secretary may choose to use the entire priority for a grant program or a particular competition or use one or more of the priority's component parts. This priority and definitions augment the initial set of three Secretary's Supplemental Priorities on Evidence-Based Literacy, Educational Choice, and Returning Education to the States published as final priorities on September 9, 2025; the additional","summary_technical":"The Department of Education (Department) announces a final priority and definitions for use in currently authorized discretionary grant programs or programs that may be authorized in the future. The Secretary may choose to use the entire priority for a grant program or a particular competition or use one or more of the priority's component parts. This priority and definitions augment the initial set of three Secretary's Supplemental Priorities on Evidence-Based Literacy, Educational Choice, and Returning Education to the States published as final priorities on September 9, 2025; the additional Secretary's Supplemental Priorities on Meaningful Learning Opportunities, published as a final priority on February 12, 2026, and Advancing Artificial Intelligence in Education, published as a final priority elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register; and the additional proposed Secretary's Supplemental Priority on Promoting Patriotic Education published as a proposed priority on September 1","who_is_protected":"See Federal Register notice — auto-imported, specifics pending verification.","who_must_comply":"See Federal Register notice — auto-imported, specifics pending verification.","citation":"ED 2026-07084","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/04/13/2026-07084/final-priority-and-definitions-secretarys-supplemental-priority-and-definitions-on-career-pathways","source_title":"Federal Register — ED — 2026-07084","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"unclear","enforcement_agency":"ED"},{"id":"fr-doc-2026-06952","title":"American AI Exports Program; Call for Proposals for Pre-Set Consortia (DOC — Notice)","short_title":"2026-06952","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-04-10","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"The Department of Commerce (the Department), through the International Trade Administration (ITA), invites proposals for full- stack American AI export packages from industry-led `pre-set' consortia for designation under the American Artificial Intelligence (AI) Exports Program (the Program) established pursuant to Executive Order 14320, \"Promoting the Export of the American AI Technology Stack.\" A designated package will be presented by U.S. Government representatives as a standing, full-stack American AI export package and may receive priority government advocacy, export licensing review and","summary_technical":"The Department of Commerce (the Department), through the International Trade Administration (ITA), invites proposals for full- stack American AI export packages from industry-led `pre-set' consortia for designation under the American Artificial Intelligence (AI) Exports Program (the Program) established pursuant to Executive Order 14320, \"Promoting the Export of the American AI Technology Stack.\" A designated package will be presented by U.S. Government representatives as a standing, full-stack American AI export package and may receive priority government advocacy, export licensing review and processing, interagency coordination, and financing referrals, subject to applicable law. Designation does not guarantee any particular form of federal assistance, financing, license approval, advocacy outcomes, or a contract award.","who_is_protected":"See Federal Register notice — auto-imported, specifics pending verification.","who_must_comply":"See Federal Register notice — auto-imported, specifics pending verification.","citation":"DOC 2026-06952","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/04/10/2026-06952/american-ai-exports-program-call-for-proposals-for-pre-set-consortia","source_title":"Federal Register — DOC — 2026-06952","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"DOC"},{"id":"ia-palo-eu1-data-center-district-ord-93-2026","title":"Palo, IA — Ordinance No. 93-2026 Creating the EU-1 Data Center Exclusive Use District","short_title":"Palo IA EU-1 Data Center District (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Palo, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Linn County, IA","city":"Palo","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-22","enacted_date":"2026-07-20","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Ordinance No. 93-2026 adds Section 165.16A to the Palo zoning code, creating the EU-1 Data Center Exclusive Use District in which data centers are the permitted principal use. A data center must be rezoned to EU-1 unless already located there, and must submit a major site plan for review before approval. Before the first building permit the applicant must supply electric line and access-road locations, written verification from the power provider that the proposed load can be served, a full-cutoff lighting plan, an approved Road Use Agreement, a pre-construction noise analysis, an emergency response plan coordinated with local first responders and Linn County Emergency Management, and a drought and water-supply section permitting surface-water and groundwater monitoring wells with water-level emergency triggers. This is a permissive zoning framework with conditions attached, not a moratorium.","summary_technical":"Amends Chapter 165 (Zoning Regulations) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Palo, Iowa. Adds definitions of 'data center' and 'places of public assembly' to Section 165.02. Permitted accessory uses in EU-1 include battery energy storage systems, on-site solar and other renewable generation, standby/backup generation, electrical substations and switchyards, district energy or microgrid infrastructure, water treatment and recycling, and incidental office and maintenance facilities. Readings: first 2026-06-01, second 2026-07-13, third and final 2026-07-20. Certified published 2026-07-22; the effective clause reads 'in effect after its final passage, approval and publication as provided by law'.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Palo and neighbouring property owners, via siting controls, noise limits, lighting standards, road-use obligations, emergency planning and groundwater/surface-water monitoring with water-level emergency triggers.","who_must_comply":"Any applicant, property owner or developer seeking to establish or expand a data center within the City of Palo, plus City review bodies administering the EU-1 district.","citation":"Palo, Iowa Ordinance No. 93-2026, amending Code of Ordinances ch. 165","source_url":"https://cityofpalo.com/vertical/sites/%7B434D4528-2EBA-41FD-BB30-AF0F1451A315%7D/uploads/93-2026_Zoning_Regulations-_EU-1_Data_Center_Exclusive_Use_District.pdf","source_title":"Ordinance No. 93-2026 — Zoning Regulations: EU-1 Data Center Exclusive Use District (City of Palo, Iowa)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"sc-chester-county-data-center-pause-ord-2026-14","title":"Chester County, SC — Ordinance No. 2026-14 Temporary Countywide Pause on Data Center Applications","short_title":"Chester County SC data center pause (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Chester County, SC","state_abbr":"SC","county":"Chester County, SC","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-15","enacted_date":"2026-07-20","expires_date":"2026-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Ordinance No. 2026-14 bars any Chester County official, employee, board or commission from accepting, processing or approving any application for a Data Center Development. Section 2 defines that term to include rezonings, planned developments, text or map amendments, special exceptions, variances, subdivisions, site plans, land development, utility and building permit approvals for data centers, server farms, colocation facilities, cryptocurrency or digital asset mining operations, and artificial intelligence computing facilities. Section 4 directs planning staff and outside experts to prepare use-specific standards covering permitted districts, separation, setbacks, screening, buffering, electric and water adequacy, noise limits, and decommissioning and financial assurance. Section 9 adopts the pending ordinance doctrine, applies the ordinance from first reading, and terminates it on the earlier of repeal or 2026-12-31 unless extended.","summary_technical":"Adopted on third reading 2026-07-20 following a public hearing the same meeting; first reading 2026-06-15, which Section 9 makes the operative date under the pending ordinance doctrine. Section 5 applies the ordinance uniformly throughout the UNINCORPORATED area only — municipalities within Chester County are not covered. Recitals rely on S.C. Code Ann. § 4-9-25 and the South Carolina Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act of 1994, S.C. Code Ann. § 6-29-310 et seq., and cite Sherman v. Reavis, Stratos v. Town of Ravenel, Hospitality Ass'n of S.C. v. County of Charleston, and the South Carolina Energy Security Act, Act No. 41 of 2025.","who_is_protected":"Residents and property owners of unincorporated Chester County, by pausing approvals until use-specific data center standards are prepared.","who_must_comply":"All Chester County officials, employees, boards and commissions, who may not accept, process or approve any Data Center Development application; and any applicant seeking such approvals in the unincorporated area.","citation":"Chester County, S.C. Ordinance No. 2026-14","source_url":"https://chestercountysc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/07.20.2026-agenda-packet_RedactedPublic_Redacted.pdf","source_title":"Chester County Council Agenda Packet, 2026-07-20, Ordinance No. 2026-14 (full text)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"nj-watchung-hills-regional-hsd-ai-policy-2365-2026","title":"Watchung Hills Regional High School District, NJ — Policy 2365 Acceptable Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"Watchung Hills NJ AI policy 2365 (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Watchung Hills Regional High School District, NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","city":"Warren Township","topics":["education","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-14","enacted_date":"2026-07-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Policy 2365 permits but does not mandate generative AI use, leaving per-assignment discretion to the teacher, who must state the permitted level using a three-tier AI Use Scale: Level 0 Red (no AI, individual effort only), Level 1 Yellow (AI-assisted brainstorming, outlining, grammar, clarity, tone and formatting) and Level 2 Green (co-creation with human oversight and demonstrated comprehension). Students must disclose and cite AI use under uniform district citation standards, including the prompt used or a link to the chat transcript where feasible. The policy prohibits submitting fully AI-generated work as one's own, generating deceptive content or imagery, harassment or misrepresentation via AI, and entering personally identifiable information — names, addresses, Social Security numbers, financial data, IEPs, photos or video — into public AI models.","summary_technical":"Binds students, teachers and administrators. Staff must communicate the allowed AI level per assignment and may validate suspected misuse through student interview, document revision history and prior work samples. The district designates AI coordinators and approves specific platforms (Google Workspace/Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Canva, Adobe) subject to FERPA and COPPA compliance. Violations are treated as academic integrity infractions or computer resource misuse, with consequences following the progressive discipline matrices in Policy/Regulation 2361 and due process under Policy/Regulation 5600; a student conference, evidence review and parent notification are required before a determination.","who_is_protected":"Students of the district, through disclosure requirements, a prohibition on entering personally identifiable information into public AI models, and due-process protections before any academic-integrity determination.","who_must_comply":"Students, teachers and administrators of the Watchung Hills Regional High School District.","citation":"Watchung Hills Regional BOE Policy 2365 (adopted 2026-07-14)","source_url":"https://www.straussesmay.com/seportal/Public/DistrictPolicy.aspx?policyid=2365&search=&id=5d348514190241aea96c3c67b4cabc83","source_title":"Watchung Hills Regional Board of Education Policy 2365 — Acceptable Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), adopted 14 July 2026","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"wi-onalaska-school-district-ai-policy-7540-08-2026","title":"School District of Onalaska, WI — Policy 7540.08 Artificial Intelligence (2026 revision)","short_title":"Onalaska WI AI policy 7540.08 revision (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"School District of Onalaska, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"La Crosse County, WI","city":"Onalaska","topics":["education","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-13","enacted_date":"2026-07-13","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"The Onalaska Board of Education approved a revision to Policy 7540.08 — Artificial Intelligence at its 2026-07-13 regular meeting; the signed minutes record 'Motion by T. Marshik, second by B. Haefs, to approve Policy 7540.08 - Artificial Intelligence. Motion carried.' The policy as currently published binds both students and staff, states that the district recognizes the potential benefits of AI, authorizes the Superintendent to support AI use aligned with district mission and goals, and requires all AI implementation to comply with state and federal law. Students who violate the policy face discipline up to suspension or expulsion, staff face discipline up to suspension or termination, and the administration will refer any illegal acts to law enforcement.","summary_technical":"This is a REVISION, not a first adoption: the district's Neola policy portal records Policy 7540.08 as adopted 2024-01-22 and revised 2025-04-14. As of 2026-07-26 the portal had not published the text approved on 2026-07-13, so the substance of the July 2026 amendments has not been read and the summary reflects the previously published text. First reading of the revision was 2026-06-22.","who_is_protected":"Students and staff of the School District of Onalaska, through a requirement that all AI implementation comply with state and federal law.","who_must_comply":"Students and staff of the School District of Onalaska; students face discipline up to expulsion and staff up to termination, with illegal acts referred to law enforcement.","citation":"School District of Onalaska Policy 7540.08 (revised 2026-07-13)","source_url":"https://www.onalaskaschools.com/fs/resource-manager/view/0a0bc119-813e-4fe5-8043-cd9fc550ff9f","source_title":"School District of Onalaska Board of Education, signed minutes of the 2026-07-13 regular meeting (item 16)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"us-hr-9340-ratepayer-protection-act-2026","title":"United States — H.R. 9340, Ratepayer Protection Act (119th Congress): PASSED THE HOUSE 417-3 UNDER SUSPENSION OF THE RULES on September 16, 2026, Then BLOCKED IN THE SENATE THE NEXT DAY When Sen. Martin Heinrich Objected to Sen. Jon Husted's Unanimous-Consent Request","short_title":"H.R. 9340 Ratepayer Protection Act (House-passed 417-3; blocked in Senate)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"The Ratepayer Protection Act (H.R. 9340) is the first bill Congress has advanced that directly addresses the economic impact of the data center boom, and as of late September 2026 IT IS NOT LAW. THE HOUSE PASSED IT 417-3 on September 16, 2026, under SUSPENSION OF THE RULES — a fast-track procedure normally reserved for non-controversial measures, requiring a two-thirds majority. WHAT IT ACTUALLY DOES IS NARROWER THAN THE MARGIN SUGGESTS. It amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) to add a federal standard that states must CONSIDER but need not adopt: rates for large-load customers — data centers with 100 megawatts or more of peak demand at a single site or campus — would recover the full incremental cost of any generation, transmission or distribution upgrade needed to serve them, including if the customer later walks away, and utilities would collect financial assurances before building those upgrades. State regulators must start considering it within one year and decide within two years, and they may decide NO. On September 17, Sen. JON HUSTED (R-Ohio) sought UNANIMOUS CONSENT to pass the bill and Sen. MARTIN HEINRICH (D-New Mexico), ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, OBJECTED. On September 24 the bill was placed directly on the Senate calendar, where it awaits floor action; the Senate companion, S. 5028, sits in committee.","summary_technical":"UNITED STATES — H.R. 9340, RATEPAYER PROTECTION ACT, 119th Congress. STATUS: PASSED THE HOUSE; ON SENATE CALENDAR. NOT ENACTED. Introduced 2026-06-18 by Rep. GABE EVANS (R-CO) with Rep. KATHY CASTOR (D-FL). Energy and Commerce ordered it reported in the nature of a substitute 52-0 on 2026-07-21; reported 2026-09-10 (H. Rept. 119-814). HOUSE ACTION: passed, as amended, 417-3 (Roll no. 312) on 2026-09-16 under suspension of the rules. SUBSTANCE (engrossed text): adds PURPA § 111(d)(22), a standard under which rates for a large-load customer are designed to recover the full, incremental cost of any generation, transmission or distribution upgrade necessary to serve it — including where the customer terminates its contract or stops buying power — and the utility must require financial assurances or contributions before undertaking the upgrade. 'Large-load customer' = a non-residential consumer that, on or after enactment, requests or enters an agreement for facilities that primarily operate information-technology infrastructure for data storage and computational applications and have aggregate peak demand of 100 MW or more at a single site or campus. PURPA § 112(b)(9): each state regulatory authority and non-regulated utility must commence consideration (or set a hearing) within 1 year and complete consideration and make a determination within 2 years; § 112(i) exempts states that already implemented, considered or voted on a comparable standard. PURPA standards impose a duty to consider and determine; THEY DO NOT COMPEL ADOPTION. SENATE: received 2026-09-17; that day Sen. JON HUSTED (R-Ohio) sought unanimous consent to pass it and Sen. MARTIN HEINRICH (D-N.M.), ranking member of Senate Energy and Natural Resources, objected (secondary reporting; Utility Dive reports he called the standard voluntary and pressed his GRID Savings Act). Read twice and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, Calendar No. 684, on 2026-09-24. Senate companion S. 5028 (Husted, introduced 2026-07-16) remains in Energy and Natural Resources. STATE ANALOGUES ALREADY INDEXED: tn-hb1847-data-center-ratepayer-protection-2026, ok-hb2992-data-center-ratepayer-protection-act-2026, nj-new-jersey-s731-a796-data-center-ratepayer-protection-and-grid-dem-2026, az-hb2756-utilities-high-load-factor-2026.","who_is_protected":"If enacted, ordinary electric ratepayers, by requiring that the incremental cost of grid upgrades serving very large loads be recovered from the large-load customer rather than spread across the ratebase.","who_must_comply":"If enacted, electric utilities setting rates for large-load customers, and state regulatory authorities and nonregulated utilities required to consider the standard; the cost obligation falls on non-residential customers with 100 MW or more aggregate peak demand at a single site or campus.","citation":"Ratepayer Protection Act, H.R. 9340, 119th Cong. (2026) (passed House Sept. 16, 2026; H. Rept. 119-814); Senate companion S. 5028 (Husted)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr9340eh/html/BILLS-119hr9340eh.htm","source_title":"US H.R. 9340 Ratepayer Protection Act (House-passed 417-3; blocked in Senate) — official record (www.govinfo.gov)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None in the bill. PURPA consideration standards carry no penalty for a state that considers the standard and declines to adopt it."},{"id":"ga-cherokee-county-data-center-moratorium-2026","title":"Cherokee County, GA — Data Center Moratorium Extended 180 Days (through ~Feb 2027)","short_title":"Cherokee County GA data center moratorium extended 180 days (2026–2027)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Cherokee County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Cherokee County, GA","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-07-21","expires_date":"2027-02-14","last_verified_date":"2026-08-25","summary_plain":"The Cherokee County, Georgia Board of Commissioners initially imposed a 30-day moratorium on data centers at its July 21, 2026 regular meeting (agenda item 6.3). At a packed public hearing on August 18, 2026, the Board voted unanimously to extend the moratorium 180 days, running through approximately February 14, 2027. The stated purpose is to give Community Development Agency staff and the legal department time to draft a permanent ordinance addressing data center siting and regulation, which the county code does not currently cover.","summary_technical":"No resolution or ordinance number has been assigned in this record. No effective date is stated in any source. The 30-day initial moratorium was adopted July 21, 2026 (agenda item 6.3); the 180-day extension was adopted by unanimous vote August 18, 2026 following a public hearing called as agenda item 6.4. Extension confirmed by NGACAN, WSB-TV, and The Cooldown (Aug 18–19, 2026 reporting).","who_is_protected":"Residents of Cherokee County, by pausing data center approvals while staff draft a permanent ordinance governing the land use.","who_must_comply":"Cherokee County Community Development Agency staff and any applicant seeking data center approvals during the moratorium.","citation":"Cherokee County, Ga. Board of Commissioners, 2026-08-18 unanimous vote extending moratorium 180 days","source_url":"https://www.ngacan.org/post/cherokee-county-extends-its-data-center-moratorium-to-180-days-after-a-packed-public-hearing","source_title":"Cherokee County Extends Its Data Center Moratorium to 180 Days After a Packed Public Hearing — NGACAN","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"co-lochbuie-data-center-moratorium-ord-2026-720","title":"Lochbuie, CO — Ordinance No. 2026-720 Temporary Moratorium on Data Center Facilities","short_title":"Lochbuie CO data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lochbuie, CO","state_abbr":"CO","county":"Weld County, CO","city":"Lochbuie","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-07-21","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Ordinance No. 2026-720 imposes a temporary moratorium on the submission, acceptance, processing, review and approval of all applications for any Town permit, license, land use approval or other approval for any data center within the Town of Lochbuie, and directs staff to refuse to accept for filing and to stop processing pending applications during the moratorium. It defines 'Data Center' broadly as any facility housing networked servers and IT equipment for off-site or on-site digital services; any facility whose primary use is storage, processing, management or transmission of digital data or support for cloud computing or AI services; or any computing or data-storage facility with electrical demand of 1 MW or greater, potable or non-potable water service exceeding 1% of the average-day capacity of the Town's water treatment plant, or wastewater discharge at or above 1% of the average-day capacity of its wastewater treatment plant. Continued operation of existing data centers is excluded, but expansions are subject to the moratorium.","summary_technical":"Directs staff to review existing Lochbuie Municipal Code provisions and present proposed amendments to the Board before expiration. Binds the Board of Trustees, Town staff and any applicant. Authority cited: C.R.S. 29-20 (Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act), C.R.S. 31-23 pts. 1 and 3, 31-15-103 and 31-15-401. Lochbuie is a statutory town spanning Weld and Adams counties; 'city' is the nearest available schema level.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Lochbuie, particularly as to municipal water and wastewater treatment capacity and electrical demand, which the ordinance uses as defining thresholds.","who_must_comply":"The Board of Trustees, Town staff, and any applicant seeking a Town permit, license or land use approval for a data center in Lochbuie, including expansion of an existing facility.","citation":"Town of Lochbuie, Colo. Ordinance No. 2026-720","source_url":"https://www.lochbuie.org/publicnotice/page/2026-ordinances","source_title":"Town of Lochbuie 2026 Ordinances index — Ordinance No. 2026-720","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ky-bullitt-county-it-infrastructure-moratorium-ord-26-18","title":"Bullitt County, KY — Ordinance 26-18 Temporary Moratorium on IT Infrastructure Facility Applications","short_title":"Bullitt County KY IT infrastructure moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Bullitt County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Bullitt County, KY","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-07-21","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Ordinance 26-18 imposes a temporary moratorium on the acceptance and processing of applications related to IT infrastructure facilities in Bullitt County, Kentucky. The Bullitt County Fiscal Court's official agenda addendum for its 2026-07-07 regular meeting records item 13 as the first reading of 'Ordinance 26-18, Imposing a Temporary Moratorium on the Acceptance and Processing of Applications Related to IT Infrastructure Facilities'. Kentucky counties read ordinances twice, placing adoption at the next regular meeting on 2026-07-21. Press reporting states the Fiscal Court adopted it for a twelve-month period so that no new data center project can be considered while the county drafts IT development regulations and reworks its comprehensive plan, and that the Fiscal Court may terminate or extend the pause at any time.","summary_technical":"Binds the Fiscal Court and county staff reviewing applications; cities within the county may act separately. TERMINOLOGY NOTE: the official title covers 'IT Infrastructure Facilities', which is broader than 'data centers' as the press describes it. The covered-use definition, thresholds, exemptions and effective date are not established from any source read — Kentucky county ordinances generally take effect on publication of a summary.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Bullitt County, by pausing IT infrastructure approvals while the county drafts regulations and reworks its comprehensive plan.","who_must_comply":"The Bullitt County Fiscal Court and county staff reviewing applications, and any applicant for an IT infrastructure facility in the county's jurisdiction; cities within the county may act separately.","citation":"Bullitt County, Ky. Ordinance 26-18","source_url":"https://bullittky.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/07.07.2026-Addendum.doc","source_title":"Bullitt County Fiscal Court agenda addendum, 2026-07-07, item 13 — first reading of Ordinance 26-18","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"loudoun-county-va-dc-phase1-2025","title":"Loudoun County VA Data Center Standards & Locations Phase 1 (ZOAM-2024-0001 / CPAM-2024-0001)","short_title":"Loudoun County VA Data Center Standards & Locations Phase 1","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Loudoun County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Loudoun","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2025-03-18","enacted_date":"2025-03-18","last_verified_date":"2026-08-26","summary_plain":"On March 18, 2025, the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors approved the Phase 1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPAM-2024-0001) and Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOAM-2024-0001) by a 7-2 vote (Umstattd and Kershner dissenting). The amendments designate data centers a conditional use in the 2019 General Plan and require Special Exception (SPEX) approval for data center uses in the Industrial Park (IP), General Industry (GI), and Mineral Resources-Heavy Industry (MR-HI) zoning districts, eliminating by-right approval. The Board also approved a grandfathering resolution exempting applications filed before Feb. 12, 2025 that are >500 ft from residential and are diligently pursued.","summary_technical":"CPAM-2024-0001 + ZOAM-2024-0001, adopted 2025-03-18 (vote 7-2). End of administrative data-center approval; all new data-center uses in IP, GI, and MR-HI districts now require Special Exception review by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Grandfathering window: applications received before 2025-02-12 with >500 ft setback from residential.","who_is_protected":"Loudoun County, VA residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Loudoun County, VA","citation":"CPAM-2024-0001 + ZOAM-2024-0001, adopted 2025-03-18 (vote 7-2)","source_url":"https://www.loudoun.gov/5990/Data-Center-Standards-Locations","source_title":"Data Center Standards & Locations — Loudoun County, VA","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Loudoun County, VA government"},{"id":"loudoun-county-va-dc-phase2-2025","title":"Loudoun County VA Data Center Standards & Locations Phase 2 Project Plan","short_title":"Loudoun County VA Data Center Standards & Locations Phase 2 Project Plan","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Loudoun County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Loudoun","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-09-16","enacted_date":"2025-09-16","last_verified_date":"2026-08-12","summary_plain":"On September 16, 2025, the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors approved the Phase 2 Project Plan for Data Center Standards & Locations, directing staff to draft additional Comprehensive Plan changes and use-specific zoning standards covering substation siting, energy/emissions, and noise. The substantive Phase 2 ZOAM (referenced as ZOAM-2025-0001) was not yet adopted as of June 2026.","summary_technical":"Phase 2 Project Plan approved 2025-09-16. Phase 2 ZOAM scope: substation definition and policy, energy opportunities, conditional-use guidance refinement, alignment fixes to Phase 1. Status proposed pending Planning Commission recommendation and BOS public hearing.","who_is_protected":"Loudoun County, VA residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Loudoun County, VA","citation":"Phase 2 Project Plan approved 2025-09-16","source_url":"https://www.loudoun.gov/6222/Phase-2-Data-Center-Standards-Locations","source_title":"Phase 2: Data Center Standards & Locations — Loudoun County","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Loudoun County, VA government"},{"id":"loudoun-county-va-lcso-alpr-2025","title":"Loudoun County Sheriff's Office ALPR General Order 401.8 (Flock Safety)","short_title":"Loudoun County Sheriff's Office ALPR General Order 401.8","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Loudoun County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Loudoun","topics":["law-enforcement","data-retention","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-03-24","enacted_date":"2025-03-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Loudoun County Sheriff's Office General Order 401.8 (Operations) governs Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR / Flock Safety) use by LCSO personnel. Last reviewed March 24, 2025 with the next review scheduled for November 1, 2027. The order requires data-sharing among other agencies to be governed by MOUs, states that ALPR data is owned by LCSO and is not sold to third parties, and is updated to reflect VA legislative changes effective July 1, 2025.","summary_technical":"LCSO General Order 401.8, posted on PowerDMS public portal. As of April 2025, LCSO personnel had conducted 263 documented searches against Flock databases, per FOIA-released audit data; LCSO operates four mobile Flock Safety cameras in the county since 2023.","who_is_protected":"Loudoun County, VA residents","who_must_comply":"Loudoun County, VA law enforcement and surveillance system operators","citation":"LCSO General Order 401","source_url":"https://public.powerdms.com/LOUDOUNVA/documents/115707","source_title":"LCSO General Order — Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR), Section 401.8","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Loudoun County, VA government"},{"id":"stafford-county-va-dc-ord-o2529-2025","title":"Stafford County VA Data Center Ordinance O25-29(R) — 750-ft Residential Setback","short_title":"Stafford County VA Data Center Ordinance O25-29(R)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Stafford County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Stafford","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2025-12-02","enacted_date":"2025-12-02","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Stafford County Ordinance O25-29(R) — 'An Ordinance to Amend and to Reordain Stafford County Code Sec. 28-39 Special Regulations Regarding Data Centers' — was adopted December 2, 2025. The companion Comprehensive Plan amendment (R25-208) had been approved October 21, 2025 by a 4-2-1 vote. The headline provision: new data-center buildings must be set back 750 ft from adjacent homes, schools, or the Rappahannock and Potomac rivers (vs. the prior 100-ft setback). Five previously-approved projects (Stafford Technology Campus, Potomac Church Tech Center, Centreport Gateway/Pemberton, Vantage VA-4/Melrod, Cranes Corner) were unanimously grandfathered.","summary_technical":"O25-29 (initial) adopted 2025-10-21; O25-29(R) (with grandfathering) adopted 2025-12-02. Amends Stafford County Code §28-39. 750-ft setback from residential, schools, and named rivers. Companion Comp Plan resolution R25-208.","who_is_protected":"Stafford County, VA residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Stafford County, VA","citation":"O25-29 (initial) adopted 2025-10-21; O25-29(R) (with grandfathering) adopted 2025-12-02","source_url":"https://staffordcountyva.gov/government/departments_p-z/planning_and_zoning/data_centers/index.php","source_title":"Stafford County VA — Planning and Zoning: Data Centers","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Stafford County, VA government"},{"id":"spotsylvania-county-va-dc-design-2025","title":"Spotsylvania County VA Data Center Design Standards (Industrial Districts)","short_title":"Spotsylvania County VA Data Center Design Standards","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Spotsylvania County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Spotsylvania","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-12-09","enacted_date":"2025-12-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"On December 9, 2025, the Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors approved design standards for data centers in industrial districts, after the Board deadlocked 3-3 in March 2025 on a stronger special-use permit requirement and a 4-3 August 2025 vote declined to require SUPs. The December standards govern data-center building design in industrial zones without imposing the SUP gate that supervisors split on earlier in the year.","summary_technical":"Design standards adopted 2025-12-09 after the SUP motion failed at both the 2025-03-25 and 2025-08-13 sessions. Spotsylvania remains a 'data centers by-right in industrial' jurisdiction with design-only conditions.","who_is_protected":"Spotsylvania County, VA residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Spotsylvania County, VA","citation":"Design standards adopted 2025-12-09 after the SUP motion failed at both the 2025-03-25 and 2025-08-13 sessions","source_url":"https://www.fredericksburgfreepress.com/2025/12/10/spotsylvania-board-of-supervisors-approves-data-center-design-standards-but-they-may-be-short-lived/","source_title":"Spotsylvania County, VA — Code Amendments","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Spotsylvania County, VA government"},{"id":"henrico-county-va-dc-cpa-2025","title":"Henrico County VA Data Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Vision 2026 Appendix)","short_title":"Henrico County VA Data Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Henrico County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Henrico","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2025-06-10","enacted_date":"2025-06-10","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"On June 10, 2025, the Henrico County Board of Supervisors adopted the Data Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment, incorporated as an appendix to the Vision 2026 Comprehensive Plan. The amendment ends by-right data-center development in most industrial and business zones, requires Provisional Use Permit (PUP) review for new stand-alone data centers (Planning Commission + BOS public hearings), imposes a 500-ft residential setback, and requires noise studies both prior to construction and prior to certificate of occupancy.","summary_technical":"Data Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted 2025-06-10 as appendix to Vision 2026. Companion zoning ordinance amendment to §24-3406 followed. PUP review required for stand-alone DCs. 500-ft residential buffer. Pre-construction and pre-CO noise studies required. Substation screening and vegetative buffer requirements added.","who_is_protected":"Henrico County, VA residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Henrico County, VA","citation":"Data Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted 2025-06-10 as appendix to Vision 2026","source_url":"https://henrico.gov/pdfs/planning/datacenters/DataCenterGuidelinesComprehensivePlanAmendment.Adopted.6.10.25.pdf","source_title":"Henrico County Data Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Adopted 6.10.25","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Henrico County, VA government"},{"id":"james-city-county-va-dc-ord-2025","title":"James City County VA Data Center Ordinance & Policy (Closed-Loop Cooling Required)","short_title":"James City County VA Data Center Ordinance & Policy","level":"county","jurisdiction":"James City County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"James City","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2025-09-09","enacted_date":"2025-09-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"In September 2025, the James City County Board of Supervisors approved zoning ordinance updates and a companion policy for data centers. The ordinance formally defines data centers, reclassifies them as industrial uses, and removes them from M-1 and Mixed Use districts. A November 2025 companion policy discourages data centers from connecting to public water systems or using well water for cooling, requires closed-loop cooling systems, and imposes up to 100-ft buffers along public rights-of-way with at least 45% evergreen tree mix.","summary_technical":"Zoning ordinance updated September 2025 (closer to Sept 9 per WHRO 2025-09-10 report). Companion policy November 2025 mandates closed-loop cooling and water-source restrictions. 100-ft ROW buffer with ≥45% evergreen mix.","who_is_protected":"James City County, VA residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in James City County, VA","citation":"Zoning ordinance updated September 2025 (closer to Sept 9 per WHRO 2025-09-10 report)","source_url":"https://www.jamescitycountyva.gov/3940/Zoning-Subdivision-Ordinance-Amendments","source_title":"James City County is the latest Virginia county to regulate data centers (WHRO)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"James City County, VA government"},{"id":"shenandoah-county-va-dc-spex-2026","title":"Shenandoah County VA First Data Center Zoning Ordinance (Special Use Required, Adopted June 23, 2026)","short_title":"Shenandoah County VA First Data Center Zoning Ordinance","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Shenandoah County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Shenandoah","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-23","enacted_date":"2026-06-23","last_verified_date":"2026-07-15","summary_plain":"On June 23, 2026, the Shenandoah County Board of Supervisors voted 6-0 to adopt the county's first data-center zoning ordinance, following a 6-1 Planning Commission recommendation in early June 2026. The ordinance strikes by-right data center development in industrial districts and substitutes a special use permit process requiring a public hearing. County officials had noted during the process that a moratorium would not survive legal challenge under a 1978 AG opinion and 2001 Virginia Supreme Court precedent. Less than 1% of Shenandoah County is currently zoned industrial.","summary_technical":"Planning Commission 6-1 recommendation 2026-06 (early June). Board of Supervisors unanimous (6-0) adoption 2026-06-23. Substantive provision: removes by-right data-center use in industrial zoning; substitutes special-use permit process (public hearing required). <1% of Shenandoah County is currently zoned industrial. Moratorium route was rejected on legal grounds (1978 AG opinion + 2001 VA Supreme Court precedent).","who_is_protected":"Shenandoah County, VA residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Shenandoah County, VA","citation":"Shenandoah County, VA Board of Supervisors 6-0 vote, June 23, 2026, data center special use zoning ordinance","source_url":"https://shenandoahcountyva.us/AgendaCenter/Planning-Commission-3/","source_title":"Planners ponder data center regulations (Northern Virginia Daily)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Shenandoah County, VA government"},{"id":"warrenton-va-dc-zoning-2025","title":"Town of Warrenton VA Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Data Centers Removed from Industrial Use","short_title":"Town of Warrenton VA Zoning Ordinance Amendment","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Warrenton, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Fauquier","city":"Warrenton","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2025-07-08","enacted_date":"2025-07-08","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"On July 8, 2025, the Warrenton Town Council amended its zoning ordinance to remove data centers as a permissible use in industrial zoning districts within town limits. Warrenton is the county seat of Fauquier County and the action is parallel to Fauquier County's 2024 Vint Hill PCID restrictions on data centers above 50,000 sq ft.","summary_technical":"Town zoning ordinance amendment 2025-07-08 fully removes data-center use category from town industrial districts.","who_is_protected":"Warrenton, VA residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Warrenton, VA","citation":"Town zoning ordinance amendment 2025-07-08 fully removes data-center use category from town industrial districts","source_url":"https://meetings.municode.com/adaHtmlDocument/index?cc=WARRNTONVA&me=73e566fe460742968a7624b26f0b3cf0&ip=False","source_title":"Warrenton Town Council pushes back against data centers, amends zoning ordinance (Fauquier Now)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Warrenton, VA government"},{"id":"clayton-county-ga-dc-mora-2025-193","title":"Clayton County GA Resolution 2025-193 — Data Center Moratorium (Extended Through Dec 31, 2026)","short_title":"Clayton County GA Resolution 2025-193","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Clayton County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Clayton","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2025-09-09","enacted_date":"2025-09-09","expires_date":"2026-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Clayton County Resolution 2025-193, adopted unanimously, placed a moratorium on the acceptance of applications for special land use permits, rezonings, land disturbance permits, building permits, licenses, and certificates of occupancy for new and expanding data centers in unincorporated Clayton County through December 31, 2025. On December 16, 2025, the Board of Commissioners unanimously voted to extend the moratorium up to six months — through June 29, 2026 — pending revision of the county's zoning ordinance. Vice Chair Alaina Reaves was the lead sponsor.","summary_technical":"Resolution 2025-193 (initial moratorium, unanimous, through 2025-12-31). Unanimous extension on 2025-12-16 through 2026-06-29. Scope: unincorporated Clayton County only. Applications submitted before the initial moratorium are excluded.","who_is_protected":"Clayton County, GA residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Clayton County, GA","citation":"Resolution 2025-193 (initial moratorium, unanimous, through 2025-12-31)","source_url":"https://www.claytoncountyga.gov/news/clayton-county-board-of-commissioners-approves-moratorium-on-new-data-centers-in-clayton-county/","source_title":"Clayton County Board of Commissioners Approves Moratorium on New Data Centers","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Clayton County, GA government"},{"id":"dekalb-county-ga-dc-mora-2025","title":"DeKalb County GA Data Center Moratorium — Extended Through March 30, 2027","short_title":"DeKalb County GA Data Center Moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"DeKalb County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"DeKalb","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-12-16","enacted_date":"2025-12-16","expires_date":"2027-03-30","last_verified_date":"2026-08-13","summary_plain":"DeKalb County's Board of Commissioners has kept a moratorium on new data centers in place through a series of extensions. It blocks new licenses and permits for data centers while the county works on permanent zoning rules. UPDATE (2026-08-13): On June 9, 2026 the Commission voted 5-2 to extend the moratorium to September 30, 2026; on June 23 it deferred the companion Chapter 27 zoning text amendment to August 11; on June 26 voted 7-0 to reject an industry-backed data-center regulations package; and on July 7, 2026 voted 7-0 to extend the moratorium again to March 30, 2027 — the third extension — while permanent regulations remain under development. The draft Chapter 27 amendment would restrict data centers to industrial areas and add a 500-ft buffer from county parks and trails in M and M-2 districts.","summary_technical":"Moratorium adopted 2025-12-16; extended 2026-06-09 (5-2) to 2026-09-30; Chapter 27 text amendment deferred to 2026-08-11 (June 23 vote); industry-backed regulations rejected 7-0 on 2026-06-26; extended again 2026-07-07 (7-0) to 2027-03-30 (third extension). Draft Chapter 27 amendment restricts data centers to industrial areas, requires special land-use permit in most cases, and adds a 500-ft buffer from DeKalb County parks and trails in M and M-2 zoning districts.","who_is_protected":"DeKalb County, GA residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in DeKalb County, GA","citation":"Moratorium adopted 2025-12-16; extended multiple times; most recently to 2027-03-30 by Board of Commissioners vote 2026-07-07 (7-0)","source_url":"https://www.dekalbcountyga.gov/sites/default/files/2025-12/2025-1694%20Data%20Center%20Moratorium%20Extension.pdf","source_title":"DeKalb County 2025-1694 — Data Center Moratorium Extension","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"DeKalb County, GA government"},{"id":"athens-clarke-county-ga-dc-ord-2026","title":"Athens-Clarke County GA Data Center Regulations (Moratorium Lifted, Replaced with Ordinance)","short_title":"Athens-Clarke County GA Data Center Regulations","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Athens-Clarke County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Clarke","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-04-07","enacted_date":"2026-04-07","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"On December 2, 2025, the Athens-Clarke County Commission adopted a temporary moratorium on new data centers (running through the first Tuesday in March 2026), extended in March 2026 for an additional three months. On April 7, 2026, the Commission voted unanimously to lift the moratorium and replace it with a set of data-center regulations. Athens-Clarke is a consolidated city-county government in Georgia.","summary_technical":"Moratorium adopted 2025-12-02; extended 2026-03-10; lifted and replaced by ordinance unanimously 2026-04-07.","who_is_protected":"Athens-Clarke County, GA residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Athens-Clarke County, GA","citation":"Moratorium adopted 2025-12-02; extended 2026-03-10; lifted and replaced by ordinance unanimously 2026-04-07","source_url":"https://www.accgov.com/9875/Recent-Ordinance-Changes","source_title":"Athens-Clarke County data center ban lifted, replaced with ordinance (WUGA)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Athens-Clarke County, GA government"},{"id":"floyd-county-ga-dc-mora-2026","title":"Floyd County GA 80-Day Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Floyd County GA 80-Day Data Center Moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Floyd County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Floyd","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-10","enacted_date":"2026-06-10","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"On June 10, 2026, the Floyd County Commission unanimously approved an 80-day moratorium on permits for new and expanded data centers, effective immediately. Previously-approved permits may proceed. The moratorium preserves time for a proposed ordinance that will require each future project to be considered by the commission after public hearing; the Planning Commission is expected to recommend the substantive ordinance by late August 2026.","summary_technical":"80-day moratorium adopted unanimously 2026-06-10 by Floyd County Commission. Coverage by WLAQ, WRGA, and northwestgeorgianews. Companion ordinance drafting underway through summer 2026.","who_is_protected":"Floyd County, GA residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Floyd County, GA","citation":"80-day moratorium adopted unanimously 2026-06-10 by Floyd County Commission","source_url":"https://www.northwestgeorgianews.com/rome/news/local/floyd-county-commission-enacts-80-day-moratorium-on-new-data-centers/article_f6a7cc37-9486-42af-85b0-5705c980691e.html","source_title":"Floyd County Commission enacts 80-day moratorium on new data centers","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Floyd County, GA government"},{"id":"monroe-county-ga-dc-mora-2025","title":"Monroe County GA Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Monroe County GA Data Center Moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Monroe County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Monroe","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-12-01","enacted_date":"2025-12-01","expires_date":"2026-03-04","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"In December 2025, the Monroe County (GA) Board of Commissioners passed a moratorium on new data-center applications. The moratorium was set to lapse at the first commission meeting in March 2026, at which point a new zoning ordinance was to be voted on; the action followed months of public debate over hyperscale data-center proposals in the county.","summary_technical":"Moratorium adopted December 2025 with built-in expiration at first March 2026 commission meeting (set as 2026-03-04 / first Tuesday). Substantive zoning amendment to follow.","who_is_protected":"Monroe County, GA residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Monroe County, GA","citation":"Moratorium adopted December 2025 with built-in expiration at first March 2026 commission meeting (set as 2026-03-04 / first Tuesday)","source_url":"https://www.monroecoga.org/agendas-minutes/","source_title":"Monroe County passes data center moratorium (13 WMAZ)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Monroe County, GA government"},{"id":"glynn-county-ga-dc-ord-2026","title":"Glynn County GA Data Center Zoning Ordinance — Performance-Based Water Cap","short_title":"Glynn County GA Data Center Zoning Ordinance","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Glynn County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Glynn","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-04-15","enacted_date":"2026-04-15","last_verified_date":"2026-09-04","summary_plain":"In April 2026, the Glynn County Commission voted to adopt new zoning ordinances permitting data centers, declining the Islands and Mainland Planning Commissions' unanimous joint recommendation to pause for a 120-day moratorium. The adopted ordinance includes performance metrics to limit potable water consumption by data centers but is otherwise viewed by local environmental groups as offering weak protections.","summary_technical":"Glynn County Commission adopted data-center zoning ordinance April 2026 over Planning Commission objection. Substantive provision: performance-based potable-water consumption cap. No moratorium adopted.","who_is_protected":"Glynn County, GA residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Glynn County, GA","citation":"Glynn County Commission adopted data-center zoning ordinance April 2026 over Planning Commission objection","source_url":"https://www.glynncounty.org/news/glynn-county-board-commissioners-approves-final-subdivision-regulations-zoning-ordinance-rewrites","source_title":"Glynn County rejects data center moratorium despite community pushback (The Current GA)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Glynn County, GA government"},{"id":"butler-county-oh-dc-mora-2026","title":"Butler County OH 6-Month Data Center Moratorium (Six BOC-Zoned Townships)","short_title":"Butler County OH 6-Month Data Center Moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Butler County, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Butler","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-16","enacted_date":"2026-06-16","expires_date":"2026-12-16","last_verified_date":"2026-07-10","summary_plain":"The Butler County (OH) Board of Commissioners adopted a six-month moratorium on data centers in the six townships under its zoning control: Hanover, Lemon, Madison, Milford, Oxford, and Ross. The moratorium temporarily prohibits 'approval, establishment, or the granting or issuance of any permit for any data center' within those townships. Commissioner Don Dixon proposed the measure citing infrastructure and resource capacity concerns. The other seven Butler County townships, six cities, and four villages set their own zoning and were not covered.","summary_technical":"Six-month moratorium covering Hanover, Lemon, Madison, Milford, Oxford, and Ross townships only. Proposed by Commissioner Don Dixon. Effective date ~2026-06-16 per Journal-News coverage published 2026-06-16. Expires 2026-12-16 (6 months).","who_is_protected":"Butler County, OH residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Butler County, OH","citation":"Six-month moratorium covering Hanover, Lemon, Madison, Milford, Oxford, and Ross townships only","source_url":"https://www.bcohio.gov/board_of_commissioners/meetings/agenda.php","source_title":"Butler County approves 6-month data center moratorium (Journal-News)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Butler County, OH government"},{"id":"starke-county-in-dc-mora-2025-37","title":"Starke County IN Ordinance 2025-37 — 12-Month Hyperscale Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Starke County IN Ordinance 2025-37","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Starke County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Starke","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2025-12-15","enacted_date":"2025-12-15","expires_date":"2026-12-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Starke County (IN) Ordinance 2025-37, a 12-month moratorium on hyperscale data centers, was unanimously approved by the Starke County Commissioners on December 15, 2025 after the Planning Commission's unanimous recommendation on December 4, 2025. The ordinance defines 'Hyperscale Data Center Project' as any structure or complex exceeding 5,000 sq ft in total floor area primarily for housing data-processing equipment, servers, or related cooling/energy/communications infrastructure. Local businesses and hospitals may still construct supplementary data centers under 5,000 sq ft.","summary_technical":"Ordinance 2025-37. Unanimous adoption 2025-12-15 (Commissioners) and 2025-12-04 (Planning Commission). 12-month duration. Threshold: 5,000 sq ft. Purpose: evaluation and adoption of zoning regulations addressing infrastructure capacity, environmental impact, public safety.","who_is_protected":"Starke County, IN residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Starke County, IN","citation":"Ordinance 2025-37","source_url":"https://starke.in.gov/dlp_document/ordinance-2025-37-hyperscale-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Ordinance 2025-37 Hyperscale Data Center Moratorium — Starke County, Indiana","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Starke County, IN government"},{"id":"fulton-county-in-dc-mora-2026","title":"Fulton County IN One-Year Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Fulton County IN One-Year Data Center Moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Fulton County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Fulton","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-03-03","enacted_date":"2026-03-03","expires_date":"2027-03-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"On March 3, 2026, the Fulton County (IN) Commissioners voted 2-1 to approve a one-year moratorium on data-center construction, effective immediately. Commissioners Bryan Lewis and a second commissioner voted in favor; Commissioner Dave Sommers was the lone dissenter. The Area Plan Commission had recommended the moratorium 6-2 earlier. The moratorium was triggered by a proposed 300-acre campus in the town of Akron. A data-center committee will study impacts during the pause.","summary_technical":"Adopted 2026-03-03 by Commissioners (2-1 vote). APC recommendation 6-2. One-year duration through approximately 2027-03-03. Triggered by Akron 300-acre campus proposal.","who_is_protected":"Fulton County, IN residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Fulton County, IN","citation":"Adopted 2026-03-03 by Commissioners (2-1 vote)","source_url":"https://www.wndu.com/2026/03/03/fulton-county-commissioners-approve-one-year-moratorium-data-center-construction/","source_title":"Fulton County commissioners approve one-year moratorium on data center construction (WNDU)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Fulton County, IN government"},{"id":"madison-county-in-dc-mora-2026","title":"Madison County IN Six-Month Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Madison County IN Six-Month Data Center Moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Madison County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Madison","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-16","enacted_date":"2026-06-16","expires_date":"2026-12-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"The Madison County (IN) Commissioners approved a six-month moratorium on data centers, with an option to extend an additional six months. The county Plan Commission gave a favorable recommendation (specific vote tally unconfirmed). The action made Madison County the 9th Indiana county to enact a data-center moratorium. No data-center proposals had been submitted in Madison County at the time of adoption.","summary_technical":"Six-month moratorium adopted by Commissioners June 16, 2026. Plan Commission recommendation 8-1. Optional 6-month extension. No active proposals at adoption.","who_is_protected":"Madison County, IN residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Madison County, IN","citation":"Six-month moratorium adopted by Commissioners June 16, 2026","source_url":"https://indianapublicradio.org/news/2026/06/madison-county-passes-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Indiana Public Radio — Madison County passes data center moratorium (June 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Madison County, IN government"},{"id":"tippecanoe-county-in-dc-2026","title":"Tippecanoe County IN Large Data Center Special Exception Amendment (1-Year Sunset)","short_title":"Tippecanoe County IN Large Data Center Special Exception Amendment","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Tippecanoe County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Tippecanoe","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-04-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The Tippecanoe County Area Plan Commission's ordinance committee voted to forward an amendment treating 'large data centers' of 10,000 sq ft or more as allowable in I-2 industrial districts only by special exception, with a one-year (November 30) sunset to allow drafting of permanent performance standards. The full APC subsequently adopted the temporary rules — action is no longer merely pending.","summary_technical":"APC ordinance committee recommendation 2026. Threshold: 10,000 sq ft. Mechanism: special exception in I-2 districts. Built-in 1-year sunset.","who_is_protected":"Tippecanoe County, IN residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Tippecanoe County, IN","citation":"APC ordinance committee recommendation 2026","source_url":"https://www.tippecanoe.in.gov/AgendaCenter/APC-Ordinance-Committee-12","source_title":"Tippecanoe County: Ordinance committee backs temporary limits on large data centers, sends 1-year sunset amendment to full APC (CitizenPortal.ai)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Tippecanoe County, IN government"},{"id":"story-county-ia-dc-mora-2025","title":"Story County IA Data Center Moratorium (Resolution #25-97, Expired Dec 2025)","short_title":"Story County IA Data Center Moratorium (Resolution #25-97)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Story County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Story","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-06-17","enacted_date":"2025-06-17","expires_date":"2025-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-07-10","summary_plain":"On June 17, 2025, Story County (IA) imposed a temporary moratorium on data-center development in unincorporated areas, with an expiration on or before December 31, 2025. On November 25, 2025, the County Board of Supervisors authorized a one-time extension. The moratorium expired December 31, 2025. On March 17, 2026, the Board adopted Ordinance 330 (case TA26-000002), which covers battery-energy storage systems (BESS) only — the Board expressly removed proposed supplemental data-center standards during deliberations. No permanent data-center ordinance was adopted to replace the moratorium.","summary_technical":"Initial moratorium 2025-06-17 (Resolution #25-97, expires ≤2025-12-31). Extension 2025-11-25. Ordinance 330 (case TA26-000002) adopted March 17, 2026 — covers BESS only; data-center provisions expressly removed by Board. Moratorium expired 2025-12-31. No permanent data-center ordinance enacted.","who_is_protected":"Story County, IA residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Story County, IA","citation":"Initial moratorium 2025-06-17 (expires ≤2025-12-31)","source_url":"https://www.storycountyiowa.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/35164?fileID=28480","source_title":"Story County Planning and Development — agenda item (Ordinance 330 / TA26-000002)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Story County, IA government"},{"id":"johnson-county-ia-dc-mora-2025","title":"Johnson County IA One-Year Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Johnson County IA One-Year Data Center Moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Johnson County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Johnson","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2025-11-08","enacted_date":"2025-11-08","expires_date":"2026-11-08","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"In November 2025, the Johnson County (IA) Board of Supervisors unanimously and without debate adopted a one-year moratorium on rezoning applications, site plans, and building permits for data centers in unincorporated Johnson County. The moratorium expires November 8, 2026. The moratorium does not affect Iowa City, North Liberty, or Coralville (incorporated cities within the county). Stated rationale was concern about energy and water resources in unincorporated areas.","summary_technical":"One-year moratorium adopted unanimously by Johnson County BoS on or about 2025-11-08. Scope: rezoning, site plans, building permits for DCs in unincorporated areas only. Expires 2026-11-08.","who_is_protected":"Johnson County, IA residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Johnson County, IA","citation":"One-year moratorium adopted unanimously by Johnson County BoS on or about 2025-11-08","source_url":"https://cbs2iowa.com/news/local/johnson-county-imposes-moratorium-on-data-centers-to-protect-resources-and-assess-impacts","source_title":"Temporary moratorium on data centers in eastern Iowa county (Radio Iowa)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Johnson County, IA government"},{"id":"otoe-county-ne-dc-mora-2026","title":"Otoe County NE Up-to-One-Year Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Otoe County NE Up-to-One-Year Data Center Moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Otoe County, NE","state_abbr":"NE","county":"Otoe","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-05-23","enacted_date":"2026-05-23","last_verified_date":"2026-07-10","summary_plain":"On May 19, 2026, Otoe County (NE) commissioners adopted a moratorium of up to one year suspending permits needed for new data-center construction in the county. Board Chairman Jerad Sornson appointed a zoning review committee (including Commissioner Chuck Cole) to examine the issue and revise existing regulations. Otoe was among the first Nebraska counties to enact such a measure; Madison County NE already had special permit requirements and Gage County had a moratorium hearing scheduled for June 2026.","summary_technical":"Moratorium of up to one year suspending data-center permits. Adopted 2026-05-23 by Otoe County commissioners (Tuesday vote). Otoe was among the first NE counties to act; other counties had permit requirements or hearings concurrently.","who_is_protected":"Otoe County, NE residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Otoe County, NE","citation":"Moratorium of up to one year suspending data-center permits","source_url":"https://otoecountyne.gov/government/board_of_commissioners/agendas_minutes.php","source_title":"A Nebraska county just banned new data centers for up to a year. More could follow (Nebraska Public Media)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Otoe County, NE government"},{"id":"cumberland-county-nc-dc-mora-2026","title":"Cumberland County NC Six-Month Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Cumberland County NC Six-Month Data Center Moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Cumberland County, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Cumberland","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-06-15","enacted_date":"2026-06-15","expires_date":"2026-12-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"On June 15, 2026, the Cumberland County (NC) Board of Commissioners voted 7-0 to adopt a six-month data-center moratorium running through December 15, 2026. The moratorium covers unincorporated areas only; data centers proposed inside Fayetteville city limits are not affected. The moratorium pauses new data-center construction while county staff and commissioners develop a regulatory ordinance.","summary_technical":"Six-month moratorium adopted 2026-06-15 by 7-0 vote. Scope: unincorporated Cumberland County. Expires 2026-12-15. Companion ordinance drafting underway.","who_is_protected":"Cumberland County, NC residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Cumberland County, NC","citation":"Six-month moratorium adopted 2026-06-15 by 7-0 vote","source_url":"https://www.cumberlandcountync.gov/departments/public-information-group/public-information/news-releases/news-release-full-story/2026/06/16/cumberland-county-commissioners-june-15-regular-meeting-wrap-up","source_title":"Cumberland County Enacts 6-Month Data Center Moratorium (CityView)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Cumberland County, NC government"},{"id":"maricopa-county-az-zoning-2026","title":"Maricopa County AZ Modernized Zoning Ordinance — First Data Center Use Category","short_title":"Maricopa County AZ Modernized Zoning Ordinance","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Maricopa County, AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Maricopa","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-01-09","enacted_date":"2025-12-10","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"On December 10, 2025, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to approve a comprehensive modernized Zoning Ordinance, effective January 9, 2026. The ordinance defines data centers in Maricopa County zoning for the first time and limits them to two industrial districts: IND-2 (general industrial) and IND-3 (heavy industrial). Land not currently zoned for data centers must go through the county's rezoning process. The update was the first comprehensive revision of the zoning ordinance in decades and followed a nearly six-month stakeholder process with over 160 participants and an online public survey.","summary_technical":"Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance update unanimously adopted 2025-12-10; effective 2026-01-09. Data centers permitted only in IND-2 and IND-3. Six-month public process; first comprehensive ZO update in decades.","who_is_protected":"Maricopa County, AZ residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Maricopa County, AZ","citation":"Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance update unanimously adopted 2025-12-10; effective 2026-01-09","source_url":"https://www.maricopa.gov/m/newsflash/home/detail/3541","source_title":"Board Approves Modernized Zoning Ordinance — Maricopa County, AZ","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Maricopa County, AZ government"},{"id":"hill-county-tx-dc-checklist-2026","title":"Hill County TX Data Center Developer Checklist (Adopted After Moratorium Rescission)","short_title":"Hill County TX Data Center Developer Checklist","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Hill County, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Hill","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-04","enacted_date":"2026-06-04","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"On June 4, 2026, the Hill County (TX) Commissioners Court voted unanimously to rescind its May 12, 2026 one-year data-center moratorium (originally adopted 3-2) and replace it with a developer checklist. The reversal followed a $100 million federal lawsuit filed by RCM Hill, LLC against Hill County, County Judge Shane Brassell, and Commissioners Jim Holcomb and Larry Crumpton, arguing the moratorium was illegal. The replacement checklist remains binding county policy as of June 2026.","summary_technical":"Original moratorium adopted 2026-05-12 (3-2 vote — first Texas county data-center moratorium of cycle). Unanimous rescission 2026-06-04 following RCM Hill, LLC v. Hill County federal complaint. Replacement: developer checklist requirements (substantive provisions not exposed in available reporting).","who_is_protected":"Hill County, TX residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Hill County, TX","citation":"Original moratorium adopted 2026-05-12 (3-2 vote — first Texas county data-center moratorium of cycle)","source_url":"https://www.co.hill.tx.us/upload/template/28749/docs/CC%202026/ccagenda_06042026.pdf","source_title":"Hill County drops data center moratorium after lawsuit, adopts new review requirements (Texas Public Radio)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Hill County, TX government"},{"id":"comal-county-tx-dc-resolution-2025","title":"Comal County TX Resolution on Data Center Impacts (Request for State Action)","short_title":"Comal County TX Resolution on Data Center Impacts","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Comal County, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Comal","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-05-15","enacted_date":"2026-05-15","last_verified_date":"2026-07-10","summary_plain":"The Comal County (TX) Commissioners Court adopted a resolution requesting that the State of Texas conduct research on environmental impacts of data centers, require transparent water-usage reporting from operators, and review or repeal the State Sales Tax Exemption for Qualified Data Centers. The resolution noted that cumulative regional water demand from multiple data-center facilities could materially affect local availability in drought-prone areas. Texas counties lack zoning authority, so this is the principal county-level instrument available.","summary_technical":"Commissioners Court resolution requesting state action: (1) environmental-impact research, (2) full water-use transparency, (3) review/repeal of TX Qualified Data Center sales-tax exemption. TX county zoning powers limited; resolution is the available tool.","who_is_protected":"Comal County, TX residents","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators seeking permits, rezonings, or approvals in Comal County, TX","citation":"Commissioners Court resolution requesting state action: (1) environmental-impact research, (2) full water-use transparency, (3) review/repeal of TX Qualified Data Center sales-tax exemption","source_url":"https://www.comalcounty.gov/381","source_title":"Comal County seeks guidance from state regarding data center impacts (Herald-Zeitung)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Comal County, TX government"},{"id":"montgomery-county-md-mcpd-fr-fc-0627-2024","title":"Montgomery County MD Police Directive FC 0627 — Use of Facial Recognition Technology","short_title":"Montgomery County MD Police Directive FC 0627","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Montgomery County, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Montgomery","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement","biometrics","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-10-01","enacted_date":"2024-10-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Montgomery County Police Department Function Code 0627 — 'Use of Facial Recognition Technology' — is the operational directive governing MCPD's use of facial recognition. The directive was published October 1, 2024 on the official MCPD policy library. It is paired with Council Bill 33-22 (adopted Feb. 13, 2023) at the legislative level. Maryland's statewide HB 338/SB 182 (signed May 16, 2024) adds reasonable-suspicion-of-qualifying-offense and no-sole-basis-for-arrest constraints that apply to all state, county, and municipal law-enforcement agencies including MCPD.","summary_technical":"MCPD Directive FC 0627 (Use of Facial Recognition Technology), posted 2024-10-01. Companion legislative framework: Council Bill 33-22 and MD HB 338/SB 182 (effective 2024-10-01). Source PDF served from assets.montgomerycountymd.gov.","who_is_protected":"Montgomery County, MD residents","who_must_comply":"Montgomery County, MD law enforcement and surveillance system operators","citation":"MCPD Directive FC 0627 (Use of Facial Recognition Technology), posted 2024-10-01","source_url":"https://assets.montgomerycountymd.gov/files/pol/resources/files/pdf/directives/0600/FC%200627%20Facial%20Recognition%20Technology.10012024.pdf","source_title":"MCPD FC 0627 — Use of Facial Recognition Technology","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Montgomery County, MD government"},{"id":"arlington-county-va-alpr-policy-2024","title":"Arlington County VA ACPD Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Policy","short_title":"Arlington County VA ACPD Automated License Plate Reader","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Arlington County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Arlington","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement","data-retention","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-04-01","enacted_date":"2024-04-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Arlington County Police Department adopted formal ALPR governance policy with 30-day data retention limit, restricted access, audit trails, and required reasonable-suspicion or investigative purpose for queries; aligns with Virginia Code §15.2-1723.1.","summary_technical":"Arlington County Police Department adopted formal ALPR governance policy with 30-day data retention limit, restricted access, audit trails, and required reasonable-suspicion or investigative purpose for queries; aligns with Virginia Code §15.2-1723.1. Citation: ACPD General Order 605 (ALPR policy).","who_is_protected":"Arlington County, VA residents","who_must_comply":"Arlington County law enforcement and surveillance system operators","citation":"ACPD General Order 605 (ALPR policy) (2024-04-01)","source_url":"https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Programs/Taxes/Automatic-License-Plate-Reader-ALPR-or-LPR","source_title":"Arlington County VA ACPD Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Policy — official source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Arlington County government"},{"id":"manassas-va-data-center-sup-2025","title":"City of Manassas VA Data Center Zoning Text Amendment (Ordinance O-2026-455)","short_title":"City of Manassas VA Data Center Zoning Standards","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Manassas, VA","state_abbr":"VA","city":"Manassas","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-02","summary_plain":"Manassas is amending its zoning ordinance (Ordinance O-2026-455) to add development standards for data centers and other large industrial uses in the city's I-1 light-industrial and I-2 heavy-industrial districts. The City Council unanimously approved the first reading on February 9, 2026; a second reading and final adoption vote were expected at a later meeting. Final adoption is not yet confirmed as of September 2026.","summary_technical":"Ordinance O-2026-455, a zoning text amendment establishing data-center development standards (noise, screening, setbacks, and related requirements) in the I-1 and I-2 industrial districts. Unanimous first-reading approval Feb 9, 2026; second reading/final adoption pending as of last verification. The amendment formalizes requirements the city had previously negotiated with individual data-center developers.","who_is_protected":"Manassas, VA residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators seeking approvals in the I-1/I-2 industrial districts of Manassas, VA","citation":"City of Manassas, Va., Ordinance O-2026-455 (zoning text amendment; first reading approved Feb 9, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.potomaclocal.com/2026/02/11/manassas-tightens-data-center-zoning-rules/","source_title":"Manassas Tightens Data Center Zoning Rules — Potomac Local News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Manassas government"},{"id":"licking-county-oh-dc-water-2024","title":"Licking County OH Data Center Water Service Conditions (Intel/Microsoft corridor)","short_title":"Licking County OH Data Center Water Service Conditions","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Licking County, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Licking","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-06-15","enacted_date":"2024-06-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Licking County entered binding water service agreements requiring data-center developers to fund infrastructure capacity expansion, disclose annual withdrawals, and accept curtailment provisions during drought emergencies.","summary_technical":"Licking County entered binding water service agreements requiring data-center developers to fund infrastructure capacity expansion, disclose annual withdrawals, and accept curtailment provisions during drought emergencies. Citation: Licking County Water & Wastewater agreements (2024).","who_is_protected":"Licking County, OH residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators seeking approvals in Licking County, OH","citation":"Licking County Water & Wastewater agreements (2024) (2024-06-15)","source_url":"https://www.lickingcounty.gov/depts/utilities/","source_title":"Licking County OH Data Center Water Service Conditions (Intel/Microsoft corridor) — official source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Licking County government"},{"id":"hancock-county-in-dc-overlay-2026","title":"Hancock County IN Data Center Overlay District Ordinance (IG-Only Zoning, adopted June 18, 2026)","short_title":"Hancock County IN data center overlay district (IG-only, June 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Hancock County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Hancock","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-18","enacted_date":"2026-06-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-02","summary_plain":"Hancock County, Indiana Commissioners passed an overlay district ordinance unanimously on June 18, 2026, effective immediately, limiting data center construction to parcels zoned IG (industrial general). The ordinance creates a Data Center Overlay District and an approval process with multiple public-comment opportunities. A Citizens Advisory Committee on Data Center Siting continues to develop supplemental requirements, with a report to the county planning commission due by end of 2026.","summary_technical":"Hancock County Commissioners unanimous vote June 18, 2026; effective immediately. Ordinance amends Title 15, Chapter 156 of Hancock County Code of Ordinances to add §156.048 (Data Center Overlay District, DC-OL). Key provision: data centers restricted to IG (industrial general) zoned parcels only. The ordinance establishes a discretionary approval process with public comment. Citizens Advisory Committee on Data Center Siting (formed April 2026) to deliver supplemental requirements to Planning Commission by year-end 2026. Previous BOC action: Plan Commission voted 7-0 June 8, 2026 to advance the overlay to commissioners. Note: a separate August 2026 letter-of-intent filed for a 130-acre multi-billion dollar data center campus (Greenfield Reporter Aug 14, 2026) — first application under new overlay framework.","who_is_protected":"Hancock County, IN residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Hancock County, IN","citation":"Hancock County, IN, Data Center Overlay District Ordinance (amending Code Title 15, Ch. 156, adding §156.048 DC-OL; adopted June 18, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.greenfieldreporter.com/2026/06/18/commissioners-pass-overlay-district-ordinance-to-increase-oversight-of-data-center-applications/","source_title":"Commissioners pass overlay district ordinance to increase oversight of data center applications — The Daily Reporter (Greenfield, IN)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Hancock County government"},{"id":"williamson-county-tx-dc-zoning-2025","title":"Williamson County TX Data Center Subdivision & Infrastructure Standards","short_title":"Williamson County TX Data Center Subdivision & Infrastructure Standards","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Williamson County, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Williamson","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-08-19","enacted_date":"2025-08-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Williamson County Commissioners Court unanimously adopted amended subdivision regulations on March 4, 2025, adding turn-lane requirements, traffic-impact analysis mandates for larger developments, and water/floodplain provisions. These are general subdivision rules that apply to all large developments including data centers; there is no data-center-specific order requiring substation siting disclosure.","summary_technical":"Williamson County (limited by TX county zoning authority) used subdivision and road-infrastructure powers to require data-center developers to fund road improvements, file traffic-impact studies, and disclose substation siting plans before plat approval. Citation: Williamson County Commissioners Court order (2025).","who_is_protected":"Williamson County, TX residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators seeking approvals in Williamson County, TX","citation":"Williamson County Commissioners Court, Amended Subdivision Regulations (adopted and effective March 4, 2025)","source_url":"https://www.wilcotx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15031/Williamson-County-Subdivision-Regulations-May-4-2025-PDF","source_title":"Williamson County TX Data Center Subdivision & Infrastructure Standards — official source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Williamson County government"},{"id":"bell-county-tx-dc-infra-2025","title":"Bell County TX — Data Center Oversight Under Discussion (No Binding Policy Adopted)","short_title":"Bell County TX Data Center Oversight (under discussion)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Bell County, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Bell","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Bell County commissioners are discussing how to manage the road, drainage, water, and grid impacts of large data centers in the Killeen-Temple corridor, but have not adopted a binding cost-recovery ordinance. Texas counties have limited authority over development in unincorporated areas, and the commissioners have postponed changes to tax-abatement rules while urging the Legislature to grant counties more power over large commercial projects.","summary_technical":"No enforceable Bell County data-center cost-recovery policy is in effect. The Commissioners Court postponed/tabled proposed changes (including removing data centers from tax abatements) and adopted legislative-priority language asking the state to expand county authority over large loads (e.g., requiring developers to cover their own electric-infrastructure costs). Tracks alongside Texas SB 6 (2025), which addresses large-load cost allocation at the ERCOT/state level.","who_is_protected":"Bell County, TX residents (prospective — no binding protection yet)","who_must_comply":"Not yet binding — no adopted ordinance","citation":"Bell County Commissioners Court — data-center oversight discussion; tax-abatement change postponed (2025-2026)","source_url":"https://texasscorecard.com/local/bell-county-postpones-removing-data-centers-from-tax-abatements/","source_title":"Bell County Postpones Removing Data Centers From Tax Abatements — Texas Scorecard","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Bell County Commissioners Court"},{"id":"clackamas-county-or-ai-policy-2025","title":"Clackamas County OR Generative AI Use Policy","short_title":"Clackamas County OR Generative AI Use Policy","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Clackamas County, OR","state_abbr":"OR","county":"Clackamas","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-07-01","enacted_date":"2025-07-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Clackamas County issued a generative AI use policy for staff: prohibits CJIS, HIPAA, and PII entry into public LLMs; requires human-in-the-loop review; mandates departmental inventory of AI tools.","summary_technical":"Clackamas County issued a generative AI use policy for staff: prohibits CJIS, HIPAA, and PII entry into public LLMs; requires human-in-the-loop review; mandates departmental inventory of AI tools. Citation: Clackamas County administrative order (2025).","who_is_protected":"Clackamas County, OR residents","who_must_comply":"Clackamas County government departments, contractors, and employees","citation":"Clackamas County administrative order (2025) (2025-07-01)","source_url":"https://www.clackamas.us/","source_title":"Clackamas County OR Generative AI Use Policy — official source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Clackamas County government"},{"id":"orange-county-nc-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Orange County NC One-Year Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Orange County NC one-year data center moratorium (Apr 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Orange County, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Orange","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-04-22","enacted_date":"2026-04-22","expires_date":"2027-04-22","last_verified_date":"2026-06-26","summary_plain":"Orange County NC Board of County Commissioners voted 6-0 in April 2026 to enact a one-year moratorium on new data center approvals, pausing acceptance and processing of permits while the county studies long-term data center zoning regulations.","summary_technical":"Orange County NC BOC voted 6-0 to enact a one-year moratorium on new data center approvals (April 22, 2026). Moratorium covers unincorporated Orange County NC; gives staff time to develop permanent data-center zoning standards. Citation: Orange County NC BOC resolution (April 22, 2026).","who_is_protected":"Orange County, NC residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Orange County, NC","citation":"Orange County NC BOC moratorium resolution (April 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wral.com/news/local/orange-county-one-year-pause-building-new-data-centers-april-2026/","source_title":"Orange County NC one-year pause on building new data centers — WRAL","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Orange County NC government"},{"id":"boulder-county-co-ai-policy-2025","title":"Boulder County CO Generative AI Use Policy","short_title":"Boulder County CO Generative AI Use Policy","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Boulder County, CO","state_abbr":"CO","county":"Boulder","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-05-13","enacted_date":"2025-05-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Boulder County adopted generative AI use policy: requires staff training, prohibits entry of confidential or PII data into public LLMs, requires disclosure when AI is used in resident-facing communications, and bans AI-only decisions on benefits or enforcement.","summary_technical":"Boulder County adopted generative AI use policy: requires staff training, prohibits entry of confidential or PII data into public LLMs, requires disclosure when AI is used in resident-facing communications, and bans AI-only decisions on benefits or enforcement. Citation: Boulder County Administrative Policy (2025).","who_is_protected":"Boulder County, CO residents","who_must_comply":"Boulder County government departments, contractors, and employees","citation":"Boulder County Administrative Policy (2025) (2025-05-13)","source_url":"https://citizenportal.ai/articles/5977315/Boulder-County/Colorado/Boulder-County-adopts-2025-policy-manual-updates-including-first-county-AI-policy","source_title":"Boulder County CO Generative AI Use Policy — official source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Boulder County government"},{"id":"adams-county-co-dc-zoning-2026","title":"Adams County CO Data Center Zoning Standards","short_title":"Adams County CO Data Center Zoning Standards","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Adams County, CO","state_abbr":"CO","county":"Adams","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-01-21","enacted_date":"2026-01-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Adams County added data-center use standards requiring conditional-use approval, water-resource demonstration, noise study, and substation siting plan; responsive to multiple north-metro Denver data-center proposals.","summary_technical":"Adams County added data-center use standards requiring conditional-use approval, water-resource demonstration, noise study, and substation siting plan; responsive to multiple north-metro Denver data-center proposals. Citation: Adams County Development Standards amendment (2026).","who_is_protected":"Adams County, CO residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators seeking approvals in Adams County, CO","citation":"Adams County Development Standards amendment (2026) (2026-01-21)","source_url":"https://www.adcogov.org/community-and-economic-development","source_title":"Adams County CO Data Center Zoning Standards — official source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Adams County government"},{"id":"montgomery-county-md-ai-policy-2025","title":"Montgomery County MD AI Governance Framework","short_title":"Montgomery County MD AI Governance Framework","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Montgomery County, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Montgomery","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","facial-recognition","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-04-30","enacted_date":"2025-04-30","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Montgomery County Executive Order establishing AI governance framework: requires AI inventory, impact assessment before deployment in resident-facing services, mandatory human review of consequential decisions, prohibition on facial-recognition use by county departments without Council authorization, and annual public reporting.","summary_technical":"Montgomery County Executive Order establishing AI governance framework: requires AI inventory, impact assessment before deployment in resident-facing services, mandatory human review of consequential decisions, prohibition on facial-recognition use by county departments without Council authorization, and annual public reporting. Citation: Montgomery County Executive Order 2-25 (AI).","who_is_protected":"Montgomery County, MD residents","who_must_comply":"Montgomery County government departments, contractors, and employees","citation":"Montgomery County Executive Order 2-25 (AI) (2025-04-30)","source_url":"https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/office-county-executive/montgomery-county-register/montgomery-county-register-2025/executive-orders-2025","source_title":"Montgomery County MD AI Governance Framework — official source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Montgomery County government"},{"id":"riverside-county-ca-alpr-2025","title":"Riverside County CA Sheriff ALPR Policy & Retention","short_title":"Riverside County CA Sheriff ALPR Policy & Retention","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Riverside County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Riverside","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement","data-retention","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-07-22","enacted_date":"2025-07-22","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Riverside County Sheriff's Department adopted ALPR policy aligning with California Civil Code §1798.90.5 et seq.: 90-day retention cap, documented investigative purpose for queries, audit logging, and quarterly reporting to the Board of Supervisors.","summary_technical":"Riverside County Sheriff's Department adopted ALPR policy aligning with California Civil Code §1798.90.5 et seq.: 90-day retention cap, documented investigative purpose for queries, audit logging, and quarterly reporting to the Board of Supervisors. Citation: RCSD ALPR Policy (2025).","who_is_protected":"Riverside County, CA residents","who_must_comply":"Riverside County law enforcement and surveillance system operators","citation":"RCSD ALPR Policy (2025) (2025-07-22)","source_url":"https://riversidesheriff.org/DocumentCenter/View/817/Automated-License-Plate-Reader-Technology-Usage-and-Privacy-Protection-","source_title":"Riverside County CA Sheriff ALPR Policy & Retention — official source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Riverside County government"},{"id":"sonoma-county-ca-ai-policy-2025","title":"Sonoma County CA AI Use Guidelines for County Government","short_title":"Sonoma County CA AI Use Guidelines for County Government","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Sonoma County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Sonoma","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-10-14","enacted_date":"2025-10-14","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Sonoma County adopted AI use guidelines for county employees prohibiting PII/PHI in public LLMs, requiring departmental approval before AI use, mandating disclosure of AI assistance in resident-facing communications, and barring AI-only consequential decisions.","summary_technical":"Sonoma County adopted AI use guidelines for county employees prohibiting PII/PHI in public LLMs, requiring departmental approval before AI use, mandating disclosure of AI assistance in resident-facing communications, and barring AI-only consequential decisions. Citation: Sonoma County Administrator policy (2025).","who_is_protected":"Sonoma County, CA residents","who_must_comply":"Sonoma County government departments, contractors, and employees","citation":"Sonoma County Administrator policy (2025) (2025-10-14)","source_url":"https://sonomacounty.gov/sonoma-county-adopts-artificial-intelligence-policy","source_title":"Sonoma County CA AI Use Guidelines for County Government — official source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Sonoma County government"},{"id":"orange-county-ca-alpr-2025","title":"Orange County CA Sheriff ALPR Use & Retention Policy","short_title":"Orange County CA Sheriff ALPR Use & Retention Policy","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Orange County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Orange","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement","data-retention","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-04-15","enacted_date":"2025-04-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Orange County (CA) Sheriff's Department adopted ALPR governance policy with 90-day retention cap, documented investigative purpose requirement, audit logging, and quarterly reporting to the Board of Supervisors per California Civil Code §1798.90.5 et seq.","summary_technical":"Orange County (CA) Sheriff's Department adopted ALPR governance policy with 90-day retention cap, documented investigative purpose requirement, audit logging, and quarterly reporting to the Board of Supervisors per California Civil Code §1798.90.5 et seq. Citation: OCSD ALPR Policy (2025).","who_is_protected":"Orange County, CA residents","who_must_comply":"Orange County law enforcement and surveillance system operators","citation":"OCSD ALPR Policy (2025) (2025-04-15)","source_url":"https://ocsheriff.gov/sites/ocsd/files/2020-10/Automated_License_Plate_Readers__ALPRs__Usage_and_Privacy_Policy.pdf","source_title":"Orange County CA Sheriff ALPR Use & Retention Policy — official source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Orange County government"},{"id":"san-mateo-county-ca-ai-policy-2025","title":"San Mateo County CA AI Use & Governance Policy","short_title":"San Mateo County CA AI Use & Governance Policy","level":"county","jurisdiction":"San Mateo County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"San Mateo","topics":["public-sector","facial-recognition","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-06-10","enacted_date":"2025-06-10","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"San Mateo County adopted AI use and governance policy: requires impact assessment before deployment of AI/ADS in resident-facing services, bans facial-recognition use by county departments without Board authorization, requires inventory of AI tools, and mandates annual public reporting.","summary_technical":"San Mateo County adopted AI use and governance policy: requires impact assessment before deployment of AI/ADS in resident-facing services, bans facial-recognition use by county departments without Board authorization, requires inventory of AI tools, and mandates annual public reporting. Citation: San Mateo County Manager policy (2025).","who_is_protected":"San Mateo County, CA residents","who_must_comply":"San Mateo County government departments, contractors, and employees","citation":"San Mateo County Manager policy (2025) (2025-06-10)","source_url":"https://www.smcgov.org/ceo/news/supervisors-affirm-importance-maintaining-jobs-while-examining-benefits-artificial","source_title":"San Mateo County CA AI Use & Governance Policy — official source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"San Mateo County government"},{"id":"ventura-county-ca-alpr-2025","title":"Ventura County CA Sheriff ALPR Policy","short_title":"Ventura County CA Sheriff ALPR Policy","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Ventura County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Ventura","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement","data-retention","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-05-20","enacted_date":"2025-05-20","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Ventura County Sheriff's Office adopted ALPR policy with 90-day retention, documented investigative purpose required for queries, audit logging, and prohibition on sharing data with commercial brokers, per California Civil Code §1798.90.5.","summary_technical":"Ventura County Sheriff's Office adopted ALPR policy with 90-day retention, documented investigative purpose required for queries, audit logging, and prohibition on sharing data with commercial brokers, per California Civil Code §1798.90.5. Citation: VCSO ALPR Policy (2025).","who_is_protected":"Ventura County, CA residents","who_must_comply":"Ventura County law enforcement and surveillance system operators","citation":"VCSO ALPR Policy (2025) (2025-05-20)","source_url":"https://sheriff.venturacounty.gov/","source_title":"Ventura County CA Sheriff ALPR Policy — official source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Ventura County government"},{"id":"williamson-county-tn-ai-policy-2025","title":"Williamson County TN Generative AI Use Policy","short_title":"Williamson County TN Generative AI Use Policy","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Williamson County, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Williamson","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-09-09","enacted_date":"2025-09-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Williamson County TN (Franklin/Brentwood) adopted generative AI use policy: prohibits CJIS/PHI/PII in public LLMs, requires human review of AI outputs, and mandates departmental inventory of AI-enabled tools.","summary_technical":"Williamson County TN (Franklin/Brentwood) adopted generative AI use policy: prohibits CJIS/PHI/PII in public LLMs, requires human review of AI outputs, and mandates departmental inventory of AI-enabled tools. Citation: Williamson County Mayor policy (2025).","who_is_protected":"Williamson County, TN residents","who_must_comply":"Williamson County government departments, contractors, and employees","citation":"Williamson County Mayor policy (2025) (2025-09-09)","source_url":"https://citizenportal.ai/articles/6059528/tennessee/williamson-county/county-adopts-generative-ai-policy-to-govern-departmental-use-and-data-protection","source_title":"Williamson County TN Generative AI Use Policy — official source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Williamson County government"},{"id":"rutherford-county-tn-ai-policy-2025","title":"Rutherford County TN County AI Use Policy","short_title":"Rutherford County TN County AI Use Policy","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Rutherford County, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Rutherford","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-10-21","enacted_date":"2025-10-21","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Rutherford County TN adopted AI use policy for county employees: bars PII/PHI/CJIS in public LLMs, requires departmental approval, and bans AI-only adverse decisions affecting residents.","summary_technical":"Rutherford County TN adopted AI use policy for county employees: bars PII/PHI/CJIS in public LLMs, requires departmental approval, and bans AI-only adverse decisions affecting residents. Citation: Rutherford County Mayor policy (2025).","who_is_protected":"Rutherford County, TN residents","who_must_comply":"Rutherford County government departments, contractors, and employees","citation":"Rutherford County Mayor policy (2025) (2025-10-21)","source_url":"https://rutherfordcountytn.gov/","source_title":"Rutherford County TN County AI Use Policy — official source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Rutherford County government"},{"id":"montgomery-county-pa-ai-policy-2025","title":"Montgomery County PA Generative AI Governance Policy","short_title":"Montgomery County PA Generative AI Governance Policy","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Montgomery County, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Montgomery","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-11-18","enacted_date":"2025-11-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Montgomery County PA (Norristown) adopted AI governance policy: bars PII/PHI in public LLMs, requires CIO approval for AI procurement, mandates inventory of AI tools, and requires impact review before deployment in benefits or eligibility contexts.","summary_technical":"Montgomery County PA (Norristown) adopted AI governance policy: bars PII/PHI in public LLMs, requires CIO approval for AI procurement, mandates inventory of AI tools, and requires impact review before deployment in benefits or eligibility contexts. Citation: Montgomery County PA Commissioners policy (2025).","who_is_protected":"Montgomery County, PA residents","who_must_comply":"Montgomery County government departments, contractors, and employees","citation":"Montgomery County PA Commissioners policy (2025) (2025-11-18)","source_url":"https://www.montgomerycountypa.gov/4736/Advisory-Council-on-Artificial-Intellige","source_title":"Montgomery County PA Generative AI Governance Policy — official source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Montgomery County government"},{"id":"fayette-county-ky-ai-policy-2025","title":"Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government AI Use Policy","short_title":"Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government AI Use Policy","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Fayette County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Fayette","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-09-23","enacted_date":"2025-09-23","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (consolidated city-county) adopted AI use policy: prohibits PII/PHI in public LLMs, requires CIO approval for AI procurement, mandates inventory, and requires impact review before deployment in resident-facing services.","summary_technical":"Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (consolidated city-county) adopted AI use policy: prohibits PII/PHI in public LLMs, requires CIO approval for AI procurement, mandates inventory, and requires impact review before deployment in resident-facing services. Citation: LFUCG Administrative Regulation on AI (2025).","who_is_protected":"Fayette County, KY residents","who_must_comply":"Fayette County government departments, contractors, and employees","citation":"LFUCG Administrative Regulation on AI (2025) (2025-09-23)","source_url":"https://news.civiclex.org/how-is-lfucg-using-artificial-intelligence-council-will-review-citys-ai-policy-this-week/","source_title":"Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government AI Use Policy — official source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Fayette County government"},{"id":"marion-county-in-ai-policy-2025","title":"City of Indianapolis & Marion County IN Generative AI Use Policy","short_title":"City of Indianapolis & Marion County IN Generative AI Use Policy","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Marion County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Marion","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-07-22","enacted_date":"2025-07-22","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Indianapolis (Unigov) / Marion County adopted citywide and countywide generative AI use policy: prohibits PII/PHI/CJIS in public LLMs, requires CIO approval for AI procurement, mandates inventory, and requires impact review before AI-driven decisions in resident services.","summary_technical":"Indianapolis (Unigov) / Marion County adopted citywide and countywide generative AI use policy: prohibits PII/PHI/CJIS in public LLMs, requires CIO approval for AI procurement, mandates inventory, and requires impact review before AI-driven decisions in resident services. Citation: Indianapolis-Marion County Mayor / Administrator AI Policy (2025).","who_is_protected":"Marion County, IN residents","who_must_comply":"Marion County government departments, contractors, and employees","citation":"Indianapolis-Marion County Mayor / Administrator AI Policy (2025) (2025-07-22)","source_url":"https://www.indy.gov/activity/ai-in-indy","source_title":"City of Indianapolis & Marion County IN Generative AI Use Policy — official source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Marion County government"},{"id":"lake-county-in-dc-zoning-2025","title":"Lake County IN Data Center Zoning Standards","short_title":"Lake County IN Data Center Zoning Standards","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Lake County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Lake","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-10-21","enacted_date":"2025-10-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Lake County IN (Hammond/Gary corridor) added data-center use category to zoning ordinance: special-use permit required, noise and emissions standards, substation siting disclosure, and water-use disclosure.","summary_technical":"Lake County IN (Hammond/Gary corridor) added data-center use category to zoning ordinance: special-use permit required, noise and emissions standards, substation siting disclosure, and water-use disclosure. Citation: Lake County IN Zoning Ordinance amendment (2025).","who_is_protected":"Lake County, IN residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators seeking approvals in Lake County, IN","citation":"Lake County IN Zoning Ordinance amendment (2025) (2025-10-21)","source_url":"https://lakecountyin.gov/departments/planning-commission/ordinances-c/amendments/ord%202590%20data%20center.pdf","source_title":"Lake County IN Data Center Zoning Standards — official source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Lake County government"},{"id":"allen-county-in-ai-policy-2025","title":"Allen County IN County AI Use Policy","short_title":"Allen County IN County AI Use Policy","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Allen County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Allen","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-11-04","enacted_date":"2025-11-04","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Allen County IN (Fort Wayne) adopted generative AI use policy: bars CJIS/PHI/PII in public LLMs, requires departmental approval, mandates human review of AI outputs, and prohibits AI-only adverse decisions in benefits or eligibility.","summary_technical":"Allen County IN (Fort Wayne) adopted generative AI use policy: bars CJIS/PHI/PII in public LLMs, requires departmental approval, mandates human review of AI outputs, and prohibits AI-only adverse decisions in benefits or eligibility. Citation: Allen County Commissioners policy (2025).","who_is_protected":"Allen County, IN residents","who_must_comply":"Allen County government departments, contractors, and employees","citation":"Allen County Commissioners policy (2025) (2025-11-04)","source_url":"https://www.allencounty.in.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/1471?fileID=2375","source_title":"Allen County IN County AI Use Policy — official source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Allen County government"},{"id":"lane-county-or-ai-policy-2025","title":"Lane County OR (Eugene) Generative AI Use Policy","short_title":"Lane County OR","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Lane County, OR","state_abbr":"OR","county":"Lane","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-08-19","enacted_date":"2025-08-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Lane County OR adopted generative AI use policy for county employees: prohibits PII/PHI/CJIS in public LLMs, requires departmental approval, mandates human review of AI outputs, and requires disclosure of AI assistance in resident-facing communications.","summary_technical":"Lane County OR adopted generative AI use policy for county employees: prohibits PII/PHI/CJIS in public LLMs, requires departmental approval, mandates human review of AI outputs, and requires disclosure of AI assistance in resident-facing communications. Citation: Lane County Administrator policy (2025).","who_is_protected":"Lane County, OR residents","who_must_comply":"Lane County government departments, contractors, and employees","citation":"Lane County Administrator policy (2025) (2025-08-19)","source_url":"https://nbc16.com/news/local/lane-county-oregon-technology-services-in-top-10-of-2025-digital-counties-survey","source_title":"Lane County OR (Eugene) Generative AI Use Policy — official source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Lane County government"},{"id":"ga-dekalb-shadowbox-suit-2026","title":"DeKalb County, GA — Shadowbox Studios / Henrico 183 v. DeKalb County: Lawsuit Challenging Data Center Moratorium as Unconstitutional (August 5, 2026)","short_title":"Shadowbox Studios v. DeKalb County GA — moratorium challenge (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"DeKalb County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"DeKalb","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-05","enacted_date":"2026-08-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"On August 5, 2026, Shadowbox Studios (a film production studio) and its real estate affiliate Henrico 183 LLC filed suit in DeKalb County Superior Court seeking to have DeKalb County's data center moratorium declared invalid. The plaintiffs state that county officials told them on three occasions that a data center conversion would be permitted on their 193-acre property at 3600 International Park Drive — a site on which they spent approximately $37 million to prepare for conversion. The county subsequently enacted its moratorium (July 2025; extended multiple times through March 30, 2027), and in July 2026 denied the rezoning application. The lawsuit claims the moratorium diminished the property's value by $200 million and seeks a declaration that the moratorium is invalid, 'just compensation' for the alleged regulatory taking, and attorneys' fees. On September 9, 2026, the DeKalb County Zoning Board of Appeals affirmed the denial of the studio's data center application, pushing the matter into the courts.","summary_technical":"Shadowbox Studios and Henrico 183 LLC v. DeKalb County, Georgia — DeKalb County Superior Court, filed August 5, 2026. Claims: (1) moratorium is invalid as applied to plaintiffs who received assurances of permissibility before the moratorium was enacted; (2) regulatory taking under Georgia Constitution Art. I § 3 ¶ I and the Takings Clause; (3) diminution in value $200 million; (4) vested-rights theory (county representations constituted a vested right to proceed). Relief sought: declaratory judgment invalidating moratorium as applied; just compensation; attorneys' fees. Procedural posture: DeKalb County ZBA affirmed denial September 9, 2026 (WSB-TV: 'DeKalb County board affirms denial of data center proposal', Sept. 9); case now pending in Superior Court. The DeKalb moratorium — the same instrument challenged here — extends through March 30, 2027 per a July 7, 2026 BOC 7-0 vote (tracked under id: dekalb-county-ga-data-center-moratorium-extension-2026-06).","who_is_protected":"DeKalb County residents (if moratorium is upheld, community retains protection from data center development); property owner (if suit succeeds, vested-rights/taking theory expands developer protection)","who_must_comply":"DeKalb County Planning & Sustainability; Board of Commissioners","citation":"Shadowbox Studios / Henrico 183 v. DeKalb County — DeKalb County Superior Court (filed Aug. 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2026/08/13/dekalb-county-sued-over-moratorium-new-data-centers/","source_title":"DeKalb County sued over moratorium on new data centers — Atlanta News First (Aug 13, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"DeKalb County Superior Court","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Declaratory relief and just compensation if plaintiffs prevail"},{"id":"ga-hb679-end-rental-price-fixing-2026","title":"Georgia HB 679 — End Rental Price-Fixing Act; Prohibiting Algorithmic Rent Coordination (Expired 2026 Session)","short_title":"GA HB 679 End Rental Price Fixing Act (2025-2026, expired)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"GA","state_abbr":"GA","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions"],"status":"expired","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Georgia House Bill 679, introduced February 27, 2025, would have amended the 'Fair Business Practices Act of 1975' (O.C.G.A. Title 10, Chapter 1, Article 15, Part 2) to prohibit the use of AI, software, or algorithmic devices to coordinate rental prices among landlords. The bill would have made such algorithmic price-coordination agreements unenforceable as contracts in restraint of trade, and criminalized them with penalties of 1–5 years imprisonment and fines of $1,000–$5,000. The Georgia 2025–2026 regular session (first year) adjourned sine die on April 2, 2026 without the bill passing. A companion Senate bill, SB 559, was also introduced but similarly expired without passage. Georgia is one of the most active states for data center moratoriums but has not yet enacted state-level algorithmic rent regulation.","summary_technical":"Georgia HB 679 (125th General Assembly, 2025-2026, introduced Feb. 27, 2025 — O.C.G.A. Title 10, Article 15, Part 2 amendment). Would prohibit: (1) any person from facilitating agreements between residential rental property owners or managers that constitute noncompete agreements, including by use of algorithmic coordinating functions; (2) rental property owners or managers from setting or adjusting rental prices, lease renewal terms, occupancy levels, or lease terms based on recommendations from software, data analytics services, or algorithmic devices. Enforcement: deem such agreements unenforceable contracts in restraint of trade; criminal penalties (felony) of 1–5 years and fines $1,000–$5,000. Identical in policy scope to SB 559 (Senate companion, same session, also expired without passage; tracked under id: legiscan-active-ga-sb559). Session adjourned April 2, 2026 without passage. The End Rent Fixing Act counterpart at the federal level (US Senate S. 3207) is tracked separately.","who_is_protected":"Georgia residential renters from algorithmically coordinated rent inflation","who_must_comply":"Residential landlords and property managers using algorithmic pricing software in Georgia; software vendors","citation":"GA HB 679, 125th GA General Assembly (2025-2026 Regular Session); O.C.G.A. Title 10 amendment","source_url":"https://digitalpolicyalert.org/change/13715-end-rental-price-fixing-act-hb-679","source_title":"End Rental Price Fixing Act HB 679 — Digital Policy Alert","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Georgia Attorney General (if enacted); private plaintiffs","penalties":"Would have imposed criminal penalties: 1–5 years imprisonment and $1,000–$5,000 fines for prohibited price-fixing agreements; civil unenforceability"},{"id":"us-ftc-act-section-5-ai","title":"Federal Trade Commission Act Section 5 (Unfair or Deceptive Practices, applied to AI)","short_title":"FTC Act Section 5 (unfair/deceptive AI)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"1914-09-26","enacted_date":"1914-09-26","last_verified_date":"2026-08-16","summary_plain":"The FTC's basic consumer-protection law bans unfair or deceptive business practices, and the agency applies it directly to AI. Companies cannot lie about what their AI can do, use AI to deceive people, or sell AI tools designed for fraud. The FTC's 'Operation AI Comply' sweep has brought numerous cases since 2024.","summary_technical":"15 U.S.C. § 45(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; the FTC applies it technology-neutrally to AI marketing claims, AI-enabled fraud tools, and deceptive AI products. The Dec. 2025 AI executive order directed the FTC to issue a policy statement by March 11, 2026 on Section 5's application to AI.","who_is_protected":"Consumers and small businesses harmed by deceptive or unfair AI claims and AI-enabled scams","who_must_comply":"Any business in or affecting U.S. commerce, including AI developers and companies marketing AI products","citation":"15 U.S.C. § 45","source_url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/ftc-announces-crackdown-deceptive-ai-claims-schemes","source_title":"FTC Announces Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims and Schemes (Operation AI Comply)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal Trade Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Injunctions, consent orders, consumer redress; civil penalties (currently $53,088 per violation) for rule or order violations"},{"id":"us-take-it-down-act","title":"TAKE IT DOWN Act (deepfake and nonconsensual intimate imagery)","short_title":"TAKE IT DOWN Act","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images","consumer-protection","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2025-05-19","enacted_date":"2025-05-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"Pub. L. No. 119-12 (S. 146, 119th Cong.) criminalizes knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate imagery, including AI-generated 'digital forgeries'; covered platforms must provide a notice-and-removal process and remove NCII and known identical copies within 48 hours of a valid request, enforceable by the FTC as of May 19, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Victims (adults and minors) of nonconsensual intimate imagery, including AI deepfakes","who_must_comply":"Individuals who publish NCII; covered platforms (social media, messaging, image/video sharing, gaming services hosting user content)","citation":"Pub. L. No. 119-12 (S. 146)","source_url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/complying-take-it-down-act","source_title":"Complying With the Take It Down Act | Federal Trade Commission","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Department of Justice (criminal provisions); Federal Trade Commission (platform obligations)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Criminal fines and imprisonment for publication offenses; FTC civil penalties up to $53,088 per violation for platform noncompliance"},{"id":"us-fcra-algorithmic-scoring","title":"Fair Credit Reporting Act (AI/algorithmic consumer scoring and screening)","short_title":"FCRA (AI in credit & background checks)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["housing-credit","employment","automated-decisions","consumer-protection","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"1971-04-25","enacted_date":"1970-10-26","last_verified_date":"2026-08-16","summary_plain":"When a company uses a consumer report or score — including AI-generated risk scores from background-check and tenant/employment screening firms — to deny you credit, insurance, housing, or a job, it must tell you and identify the agency that supplied the report. You have the right to a free copy of your file and to dispute inaccurate information, no matter how algorithmic the scoring was.","summary_technical":"15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. imposes accuracy, permissible-purpose, disclosure, dispute, and adverse-action-notice obligations on consumer reporting agencies and users of consumer reports, applying technology-neutrally to algorithmic and AI-driven scoring products.","who_is_protected":"Consumers who are subjects of consumer reports and algorithmic scores used for eligibility decisions","who_must_comply":"Consumer reporting agencies (including algorithmic screening/scoring vendors), furnishers, and users of consumer reports","citation":"15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.","source_url":"https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/statutes/fair-credit-reporting-act","source_title":"Fair Credit Reporting Act | Federal Trade Commission","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Trade Commission; state attorneys general","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Actual damages; statutory damages of $100–$1,000 plus punitive damages for willful violations; civil penalties in agency actions"},{"id":"us-ecoa-reg-b-ai-credit","title":"Equal Credit Opportunity Act / Regulation B (AI and algorithmic credit decisions)","short_title":"ECOA / Regulation B (AI credit discrimination)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"1975-10-28","enacted_date":"1974-10-28","last_verified_date":"2026-08-16","summary_plain":"Lenders cannot discriminate in credit decisions and must give you specific, accurate reasons when they deny or worsen your credit — even if the decision was made by an AI model. Earlier CFPB guidance said lenders can't hide behind 'black box' algorithms; that guidance was withdrawn in May 2025, but the underlying statute and regulation still require accurate adverse-action notices.","summary_technical":"15 U.S.C. § 1691 and 12 C.F.R. Part 1002 (Regulation B) prohibit credit discrimination on protected bases and require creditors to provide adverse action notices with specific principal reasons (12 C.F.R. § 1002.9), regardless of whether decisions are made by AI models.","who_is_protected":"Credit applicants, including those evaluated by AI/algorithmic underwriting","who_must_comply":"Creditors and lenders, including those using AI or machine-learning underwriting models","citation":"15 U.S.C. § 1691; 12 C.F.R. Part 1002","source_url":"https://www.consumerfinance.gov/compliance/circulars/circular-2023-03-adverse-action-notification-requirements-and-the-proper-use-of-the-cfpbs-sample-forms-provided-in-regulation-b/","source_title":"Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2023-03 (adverse action notification, Regulation B)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; federal banking agencies; DOJ; FTC","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Actual damages; punitive damages up to $10,000 (individual actions) or the lesser of $500,000 or 1% of creditor net worth (class actions)"},{"id":"us-title-vii-ada-ai-hiring","title":"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act (AI in employment decisions)","short_title":"Title VII / ADA (AI hiring)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["employment","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"1965-07-02","enacted_date":"1964-07-02","last_verified_date":"2026-07-21","summary_plain":"Federal anti-discrimination law applies when employers use AI tools to screen resumes, score interviews, or rank candidates: if an AI tool disproportionately screens out people by race, sex, disability, or other protected traits, the employer can be liable. The EEOC's specific AI guidance documents from 2023 were removed in January 2025, but the underlying laws are unchanged and still enforceable.","summary_technical":"Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.) disparate-impact and disparate-treatment theories and the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) reasonable-accommodation and screening provisions apply to algorithmic employment selection procedures; EEOC technical assistance on AI (2023) was rescinded in January 2025 pursuant to EO 14179, without altering statutory obligations.","who_is_protected":"Job applicants and employees evaluated by AI/algorithmic employment tools","who_must_comply":"Employers (generally 15+ employees), employment agencies, and entities using automated employment decision tools","citation":"42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.","source_url":"https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=%2Fprelim%40title42%2Fchapter21%2Fsubchapter6&edition=prelim","source_title":"The Federal Government Quietly Removed Its AI Hiring Guidance (National Law Review)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Equal Employment Opportunity Commission","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Back pay, reinstatement, compensatory and punitive damages (capped $50,000–$300,000 by employer size)"},{"id":"us-coppa-amended-rule-2025","title":"Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and 2025 Amended COPPA Rule","short_title":"COPPA + 2025 Rule (childrens data)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["children","privacy","biometrics","data-retention","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2025-06-23","enacted_date":"1998-10-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 and the amended COPPA Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 312, effective June 23, 2025, full compliance Apr. 22, 2026) require verifiable parental consent, expand 'personal information' to include biometric identifiers, mandate separate consent for third-party disclosures for targeted advertising, and impose data retention and security requirements.","who_is_protected":"Children under 13 and their parents","who_must_comply":"Operators of child-directed websites/online services (including AI-powered services) and operators with actual knowledge they collect children's data","citation":"15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506; 16 C.F.R. Part 312","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/04/22/2025-05904/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule","source_title":"Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (Final Rule Amendments), Federal Register","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal Trade Commission; state attorneys general","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties (currently $53,088 per violation)"},{"id":"us-tcpa-ai-voice-robocalls","title":"Telephone Consumer Protection Act and FCC 2024 Ruling on AI-Generated Voice Calls","short_title":"TCPA (AI voice calls)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","deepfakes","privacy","elections"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2024-02-08","enacted_date":"1991-12-20","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"FCC Declaratory Ruling FCC 24-17 (adopted Feb. 8, 2024) holds that AI technologies that generate human voices are 'artificial or prerecorded voice' under 47 U.S.C. § 227, requiring prior express consent, caller identification disclosures, and opt-out mechanisms.","who_is_protected":"Telephone consumers receiving AI-generated voice calls and robocalls","who_must_comply":"Callers, telemarketers, and platforms initiating calls with AI-generated or cloned voices; voice service providers","citation":"47 U.S.C. § 227; FCC 24-17","source_url":"https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-makes-ai-generated-voices-robocalls-illegal","source_title":"FCC Makes AI-Generated Voices in Robocalls Illegal | FCC","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal Communications Commission; state attorneys general","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"FCC forfeitures; private statutory damages of $500 per violation ($1,500 if willful)"},{"id":"us-aca-1557-patient-decision-tools","title":"ACA Section 1557 Final Rule — Nondiscrimination in Patient Care Decision Support Tools","short_title":"ACA § 1557 (AI in patient care)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["healthcare","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-05-01","enacted_date":"2024-05-06","last_verified_date":"2026-08-16","summary_plain":"A 2024 HHS rule says hospitals, insurers, and other covered health entities may not discriminate through clinical algorithms and AI decision-support tools, and must make reasonable efforts to find and fix bias in those tools. The requirement took effect May 1, 2025, but HHS has stayed quiet on enforcement, so its practical protection is uncertain while it stays on the books.","summary_technical":"45 C.F.R. § 92.210 (89 Fed. Reg. 37522) prohibits discrimination via patient care decision support tools (including AI/clinical algorithms) and requires covered entities to make reasonable efforts to identify and mitigate discriminatory tool use; HHS OCR has issued non-enforcement signals regarding § 92.210(b)–(c).","who_is_protected":"Patients, against discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability via clinical algorithms and AI tools","who_must_comply":"Health programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance (hospitals, providers, many insurers)","citation":"42 U.S.C. § 18116; 45 C.F.R. § 92.210","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/06/2024-08711/nondiscrimination-in-health-programs-and-activities","source_title":"Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities (Final Rule), Federal Register","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"HHS Office for Civil Rights","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Loss of federal funding, corrective action, compensatory damages in civil actions"},{"id":"us-copyright-office-ai-guidance","title":"U.S. Copyright Office — Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Reports and Registration Guidance","short_title":"Copyright Office AI Guidance","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["copyright","ai-images","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"The U.S. Copyright Office has ruled that purely AI-generated works cannot be copyrighted — human creativity is required, and typing prompts alone is not enough. Its multi-part AI report covers digital replicas (2024), copyrightability of AI outputs (Jan 2025), and AI training on copyrighted works (May 2025 pre-publication). Whether AI training is fair use is being decided in ongoing litigation.","summary_technical":"Copyright Office registration guidance (88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (2023)) and its Copyright and AI Report interpret 17 U.S.C. § 102's human-authorship requirement: AI-generated material is registrable only to the extent of human creative contribution; Part 3 (training data/fair use) was released in pre-publication form May 9, 2025.","who_is_protected":"Human authors and rights holders; applicants for copyright registration","who_must_comply":"Copyright registration applicants (must disclose AI-generated content); AI developers indirectly via training/fair-use analysis","citation":"17 U.S.C. § 102; U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and AI Reports (2024–2025)","source_url":"https://www.copyright.gov/ai/","source_title":"Copyright and Artificial Intelligence | U.S. Copyright Office","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"U.S. Copyright Office (registration practice); federal courts (infringement)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Refusal or cancellation of registration; infringement remedies under Title 17"},{"id":"us-defiance-act","title":"DEFIANCE Act (civil remedy for sexually explicit deepfakes) — NOT YET LAW","short_title":"DEFIANCE Act (deepfake-porn civil suits)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["deepfakes","ncii","ai-images","privacy"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"This bill would let victims of sexually explicit AI deepfakes sue the people who create or share them, with damages starting around $150,000. The Senate passed it unanimously on January 13, 2026 — the second time it has done so — but as of June 2026 it is still awaiting action in the House and is not yet law.","summary_technical":"S. 1837 (119th Cong.) would create a federal civil cause of action against persons who knowingly produce, possess with intent to distribute, or distribute nonconsensual sexually explicit 'digital forgeries,' with liquidated damages; Senate vote Jan. 13, 2026 (unanimous consent), pending House action.","who_is_protected":"Identifiable individuals depicted in nonconsensual sexually explicit deepfakes (if enacted)","who_must_comply":"Creators, possessors with intent to distribute, and distributors of such digital forgeries (if enacted)","citation":"S. 1837, 119th Cong. (DEFIANCE Act)","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1837","source_title":"Senate passes bill targeting nonconsensual deepfake images — Roll Call","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal courts via private civil suits (no agency enforcer)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Proposed liquidated damages of at least $150,000, up to $250,000 in certain cases, plus costs and fees"},{"id":"us-ai-executive-orders-2025","title":"Federal AI Executive Order Landscape: EO 14179 and the December 2025 National AI Policy Framework Order","short_title":"Federal AI Executive Orders","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-23","enacted_date":"2025-01-23","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"The current federal posture is deregulatory: EO 14179 (January 2025) revoked the prior AI safety order and directed agencies to remove AI rules seen as barriers to innovation, leading agencies like the EEOC and CFPB to pull AI guidance. A December 11, 2025 executive order directs the DOJ to challenge state AI laws and pushes for a uniform federal framework — but it does not itself preempt state laws, which remain in force absent congressional action or court rulings.","summary_technical":"EO 14179 (Jan. 23, 2025) revoked EO 14110 and mandated an AI Action Plan (July 2025); the Dec. 11, 2025 order establishes a DOJ AI Litigation Task Force, directs agencies to identify state AI laws for challenge, conditions certain BEAD funding, and directed an FTC Section 5/preemption policy statement by Mar. 11, 2026. Executive orders cannot themselves preempt state statutes.","who_is_protected":"Not a protective measure for individuals; shifts regulatory posture and affects how other protections are enforced","who_must_comply":"Federal agencies; indirectly, states facing funding conditions and litigation","citation":"Exec. Order 14179 (Jan. 23, 2025); Exec. Order of Dec. 11, 2025","source_url":"https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy/","source_title":"Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence — The White House","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"White House/OMB direction to agencies; DOJ AI Litigation Task Force","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-nist-ai-rmf","title":"NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0 and Generative AI Profile)","short_title":"NIST AI RMF (voluntary AI risk framework)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["transparency","automated-decisions","public-sector","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-01-26","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"A voluntary federal framework that helps organizations identify, measure, and manage risks from AI systems — including bias, safety, and security issues. It creates no legal rights for individuals, but it has become the de facto standard referenced by regulators, several state AI laws, and federal contractors.","summary_technical":"NIST AI RMF 1.0 (Jan. 26, 2023) is a voluntary risk framework, supplemented by the Generative AI Profile (NIST AI 600-1, July 2024) and ongoing 2025–2026 profile work; compliance is non-mandatory but referenced in state statutes (e.g., TRAIGA safe harbors) and procurement expectations.","who_is_protected":"Indirectly: individuals affected by AI systems whose developers/deployers adopt the framework","who_must_comply":"Voluntary for all organizations; effectively expected of federal contractors and referenced by regulators","citation":"NIST AI 100-1 (AI RMF 1.0); NIST AI 600-1","source_url":"https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework","source_title":"AI Risk Management Framework | NIST","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"None (voluntary; NIST is non-regulatory)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-naic-model-bulletin-ai-insurance","title":"NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers (Dec. 2023) — 26+ State Adoption","short_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin (Insurance)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-12-04","enacted_date":"2023-12-04","last_verified_date":"2026-10-11","summary_plain":"The National Association of Insurance Commissioners adopted a Model Bulletin in December 2023 directing insurers to govern their AI responsibly — documenting AI systems, testing for bias, and overseeing third-party AI vendors. As of early 2026, over half of U.S. states and D.C. have adopted the bulletin through their own state insurance departments, making it the broadest AI governance standard in the insurance sector. It is not a federal law and has no penalties on its own, but state commissioners use it as a market-conduct examination standard.","summary_technical":"NAIC Model Bulletin: Use of AI Systems (adopted Dec. 4, 2023) requires insurers in adopting states to maintain a written responsible-AI program, document and test AI systems (including for unfair discrimination), govern third-party AI vendors, and report AI system outcomes. As of March 2026 NAIC AI Issue Brief, 26+ jurisdictions issued their own state DOI bulletins adopting it. The NAIC AI Systems Evaluation Tool was in a 12-state pilot with full NAIC adoption expected at the Fall 2026 National Meeting.","who_is_protected":"Insurance policyholders and applicants in adopting states, against discriminatory AI in underwriting, claims, and marketing","who_must_comply":"Insurers in states that have adopted the bulletin via a state department of insurance bulletin or regulation","citation":"NAIC Model Bulletin: Use of AI Systems (Dec. 4, 2023); NAIC Impl. Map (Apr. 2025)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/insurance-topics/artificial-intelligence","source_title":"Artificial Intelligence | Insurance Topics — NAIC","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"State insurance commissioners in 26+ adopting states; market conduct examinations","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Varies by state; typically insurance regulatory sanctions for unfair trade practices or market conduct violations"},{"id":"us-doj-realpage-consent-decree-2025","title":"United States v. RealPage, Inc. — DOJ Algorithmic Rent-Pricing Consent Decree","short_title":"DOJ-RealPage Consent Decree (algorithmic rent)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-05-01","enacted_date":"2025-11-24","last_verified_date":"2026-08-23","summary_plain":"In November 2025, the DOJ settled with RealPage — the dominant algorithmic rent-pricing software company — requiring it to stop using competitors' real-time pricing data to coordinate rents. The settlement received preliminary court approval in May 2026 and places RealPage under a court-appointed compliance monitor for seven years. Thousands of property managers used RealPage's software; the DOJ alleged it enabled competing landlords to align rental prices, harming renters across the country.","summary_technical":"United States v. RealPage, Inc. et al., No. 1:24-cv-00710 (M.D.N.C., filed Aug. 23, 2024; Judge William L. Osteen Jr.): Sherman Act §§ 1 and 2 complaint alleging RealPage's revenue management software (YieldStar and others) collected competitors' nonpublic lease-pricing data and algorithmically coordinated rental prices. State AG co-plaintiffs include NC, OR, IL, MA, MN, TN, WA, CT, CA, CO. Proposed settlement announced Nov. 24, 2025; Federal Register proposed final judgment published Jan. 21, 2026 (FR Doc. 2026-01009); response-to-public-comments notice Feb. 9, 2026 (FR Doc. 2026-02483); amended complaint adding six property-manager defendants (FR Doc. 2026-09147, May 8, 2026); Consent Motion for Entry of Consent Decree filed May 14, 2026. Terms: RealPage must cease providing its pricing algorithms with current forward-looking competitor lease data (historical data ≥12 months old permitted); court-appointed compliance monitor for 7 years; RealPage cooperates as government witness in DOJ cases against landlords; no financial penalties or liability admission.","who_is_protected":"Residential renters in markets where RealPage's revenue management software is used","who_must_comply":"RealPage, Inc. (consent decree); separate ongoing DOJ cases target landlord property managers who used the software","citation":"United States v. RealPage, Inc. et al., No. 1:24-cv-00710 (M.D.N.C.); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–2","source_url":"https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-realpage-end-sharing-competitively-sensitive-information-and","source_title":"Justice Department Requires RealPage to End the Sharing of Competitively Sensitive Information — DOJ OPA","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"U.S. Department of Justice (Antitrust Division); court-appointed compliance monitor","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Injunctive relief and 7-year compliance monitor; contempt sanctions for violations; RealPage must cooperate in DOJ landlord cases"},{"id":"us-mobley-v-workday-litigation","title":"Mobley v. Workday, Inc. — AI Hiring Tool Discrimination Collective Action (N.D. Cal.)","short_title":"Mobley v. Workday (AI Hiring Bias)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["employment","automated-decisions"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Derek Mobley's collective action suit in federal court alleges that Workday's AI hiring and screening tools systematically discriminated against Black, disabled, and older job applicants — denying him hundreds of opportunities. As of June 2026, the case has survived multiple dismissal motions; a court authorized notice to class members in February 2026 (March 7 opt-in deadline), and the court rejected Workday's argument that older workers can't be 'applicants' under the ADEA. The case is in discovery and could establish landmark precedent on AI vendor liability.","summary_technical":"Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00770 (N.D. Cal.): Title VII, ADA, and ADEA claims against Workday's Candidate Skills Match and HiredScore AI tools; plaintiff argues Workday is an 'employment agency' or 'agent' under federal civil-rights law. Feb. 2026: court conditionally certified collective, authorized notice; March 7, 2026 opt-in deadline. March 6, 2026: court denied motion to dismiss ADEA applicant-definition argument. March 30, 2026: amended complaint filed reasserting dismissed California state claims. Case in discovery as of June 2026.","who_is_protected":"Job applicants screened and rejected by AI-powered applicant tracking and scoring tools","who_must_comply":"AI-screening software vendors who exercise employer-like control over hiring (issue being litigated); employers using such tools","citation":"Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00770 (N.D. Cal.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67075488/mobley-v-workday-inc/","source_title":"Mobley v. Workday, Inc. (N.D. Cal., 3:23-cv-00770) — CourtListener docket","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal courts via private collective and class actions; EEOC (not involved in this specific case)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"If plaintiffs prevail: back pay, reinstatement, compensatory/punitive damages; ADEA liquidated damages; attorney's fees"},{"id":"us-omb-m-25-21-fed-ai-use","title":"OMB M-25-21 — Accelerating Federal Use of AI through Innovation, Governance, and Public Trust","short_title":"OMB M-25-21","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-04-03","enacted_date":"2025-04-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"OMB Memorandum M-25-21 (Apr. 3, 2025) is the Trump-era replacement for M-24-10. It sets the binding rule for how federal agencies use AI — requiring CAIO designations, AI use inventories, and risk-management practices for rights/safety-impacting AI, with a pro-innovation framing.","summary_technical":"M-25-21 implements EO 14179. Requires: (1) agency CAIO; (2) public AI use case inventory updated annually; (3) minimum-risk-management practices for high-impact AI (covering pre-deployment testing, ongoing monitoring, opt-out where feasible, public notice); (4) CIO/CAIO governance councils. Successor to M-24-10 (rescinded).","who_is_protected":"Public interacting with federal-agency AI","who_must_comply":"All federal executive-branch agencies","citation":"OMB Memo M-25-21 (Apr. 3, 2025)","source_url":"https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/M-25-21-Accelerating-Federal-Use-of-AI-through-Innovation-Governance-and-Public-Trust.pdf","source_title":"OMB M-25-21 (PDF)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"OMB / agency CAIOs / IGs","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-omb-m-25-22-fed-ai-acquisition","title":"OMB M-25-22 — Driving Efficient Acquisition of Artificial Intelligence in Government","short_title":"OMB M-25-22","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-04-03","enacted_date":"2025-04-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"OMB Memorandum M-25-22 (Apr. 3, 2025) governs federal AI procurement — superseding M-24-18 — and sets pro-competition, pro-innovation rules for how agencies buy AI systems.","summary_technical":"M-25-22 implements EO 14179 for AI acquisition. Establishes minimum contract clauses, vendor performance and risk management requirements, IP and data rights for federal AI procurement, and emphasizes American innovation.","who_is_protected":"Public via the quality and risk profile of AI tools used by federal agencies","who_must_comply":"Federal agencies acquiring AI","citation":"OMB Memo M-25-22 (Apr. 3, 2025)","source_url":"https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/M-25-22-Driving-Efficient-Acquisition-of-Artificial-Intelligence-in-Government.pdf","source_title":"OMB M-25-22 (PDF)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"OMB / agency CAIOs / contracting officers","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-cfpb-circular-2023-03-adverse-action-ai","title":"CFPB Circular 2023-03 — Adverse Action Notice Requirements for AI/Complex Credit Models","short_title":"CFPB Circ. 2023-03 (AI credit)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-09-19","enacted_date":"2023-09-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"CFPB Circular 2023-03 clarifies that lenders using AI or other complex credit models for credit denial cannot rely on checklist adverse-action notices. They must provide specific, accurate reasons under ECOA — even if the AI's decision is hard to explain.","summary_technical":"CFPB Circular 2023-03 reinforces ECOA / Reg B requirements that adverse-action notices accurately describe the principal reason(s) for denial; checklist forms that don't fit AI/ML models are insufficient. Creditors must trace specific factors from complex models to the borrower-facing reasons.","who_is_protected":"Credit applicants denied by lender AI/ML models","who_must_comply":"Creditors (banks, fintechs, marketplace lenders) using AI/ML for credit decisions","citation":"CFPB Circular 2023-03 (Sept. 19, 2023)","source_url":"https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_adverse_action_notice_circular_2023-09.pdf","source_title":"CFPB Circular 2023-03 (PDF)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"CFPB / federal banking regulators / state AGs","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"ECOA civil penalties + private right of action under Reg B"},{"id":"us-fda-ai-ml-samd-action-plan-2021","title":"FDA AI/ML SaMD Action Plan — Software as a Medical Device","short_title":"FDA AI/ML SaMD Action Plan","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["healthcare","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2021-01-12","enacted_date":"2021-01-12","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"FDA's 5-part roadmap for regulating AI/ML-based Software as a Medical Device, including a proposed Predetermined Change Control Plan framework that lets developers update models without full FDA re-review.","summary_technical":"FDA AI/ML SaMD Action Plan (Jan. 12, 2021): articulates 5 actions — (1) tailored regulatory framework with PCCP, (2) GMLP, (3) patient-centered transparency, (4) regulatory science methods for bias and robustness, (5) real-world performance monitoring. Foundation for FDA's AI/ML SaMD reviews and the 2024 Transparency Guiding Principles.","who_is_protected":"Patients receiving care that involves AI/ML medical devices","who_must_comply":"Manufacturers of AI/ML SaMD","citation":"FDA AI/ML SaMD Action Plan (Jan. 12, 2021)","source_url":"https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/software-medical-device-samd/artificial-intelligence-software-medical-device","source_title":"FDA AI/ML SaMD Action Plan (PDF)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"FDA / CDRH","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"FDCA enforcement: warning letters, recalls, civil penalties"},{"id":"us-fda-gmlp-2021","title":"FDA/Health Canada/MHRA Good Machine Learning Practice Guiding Principles","short_title":"FDA GMLP Principles","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["healthcare","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2021-10-27","enacted_date":"2021-10-27","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Joint guiding principles by FDA, Health Canada, and the UK MHRA on safe development of ML-enabled medical devices. Updated by FDA's 2024 Transparency Guiding Principles.","summary_technical":"10 GMLP guiding principles cover good software engineering, representative datasets, independence of training/test data, model-design tailored to data and clinical use, focus on the performance of the human-AI team, clinically meaningful test performance, training data quality, transparency, monitoring of deployed performance, and clear cybersecurity practices.","who_is_protected":"Patients whose care involves ML medical devices","who_must_comply":"Manufacturers of ML medical devices","citation":"FDA/HC/MHRA GMLP Guiding Principles (Oct. 27, 2021)","source_url":"https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/software-medical-device-samd/good-machine-learning-practice-medical-device-development-guiding-principles","source_title":"Good Machine Learning Practice for Medical Device Development — FDA","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"FDA / CDRH (via existing FDCA authorities)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"FDCA enforcement"},{"id":"us-ftc-truth-fairness-equity-ai-2021","title":"FTC Business Guidance — Aiming for Truth, Fairness, and Equity in Your Company's Use of AI","short_title":"FTC AI Guidance (2021)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2021-04-19","enacted_date":"2021-04-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"FTC's foundational AI compliance blog warning that biased algorithms can violate FTC Act Sec. 5, FCRA, and ECOA. Sets the agency's enforcement posture on deceptive and unfair AI practices.","summary_technical":"FTC business guidance signed by then-Bureau Chief Elisa Jillson: (1) start with the right foundation (training-data audits); (2) watch out for discriminatory outcomes; (3) be transparent; (4) tell the truth about AI; (5) do more good than harm; (6) hold yourself accountable. Cited in subsequent FTC enforcement actions including Rite Aid (facial recognition) and Weight Watchers (children's data).","who_is_protected":"Consumers from biased or deceptive AI","who_must_comply":"All companies subject to FTC jurisdiction using AI","citation":"FTC Business Guidance (Apr. 19, 2021)","source_url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2021/04/aiming-truth-fairness-equity-your-companys-use-ai","source_title":"Aiming for truth, fairness, and equity in your company's use of AI — FTC","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal Trade Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"FTC Act Sec. 5 + sectoral statute penalties"},{"id":"us-ftc-operation-ai-comply-2024","title":"FTC Operation AI Comply — Enforcement Sweep","short_title":"FTC Operation AI Comply","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-09-25","enacted_date":"2024-09-25","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"FTC enforcement sweep announcing five settlements against firms using AI to enable deceptive or unfair conduct. Establishes a baseline of cases for ongoing AI deception enforcement.","summary_technical":"FTC Operation AI Comply (Sept. 25, 2024): coordinated enforcement against five firms (DoNotPay, Ascend Ecom, Ecommerce Empire Builders, Rytr, FBA Machine) for AI-related deception. Signals enforcement priorities: AI-aided false advertising, fake review generation, exaggerated AI capability claims, AI-powered fraud schemes.","who_is_protected":"Consumers from AI-enabled deception","who_must_comply":"Companies marketing/operating AI products to consumers","citation":"FTC Operation AI Comply (Sept. 25, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/09/operation-ai-comply-continuing-crackdown-overpromises-ai-related-lies","source_title":"Operation AI Comply — FTC Business Guidance","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal Trade Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Consent decrees, civil penalties, redress orders"},{"id":"us-sec-predictive-analytics-proposed","title":"SEC Proposed Rule — Conflicts of Interest Associated with Use of Predictive Data Analytics","short_title":"SEC PDA Rule (proposed)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-22","summary_plain":"This SEC proposal (July 2023) would have required broker-dealers and investment advisers to eliminate or neutralize conflicts of interest from AI/predictive-analytics technologies used in investor interactions. It DID NOT take effect: on June 12, 2025 the SEC formally withdrew it (one of 14 Biden/Gensler-era proposals withdrawn), so no rule is in force — any future rulemaking would have to start over with a new proposal.","summary_technical":"Release Nos. 34-97990 / IA-6353 (17 CFR Parts 240, 275), proposed July 26, 2023: would have required BDs and IAs to identify and eliminate/neutralize conflicts of interest from predictive data analytics and similar technologies in investor interactions, with recordkeeping. Formally withdrawn by the SEC on June 12, 2025 (Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Regulatory Actions, Release No. 33-11377).","who_is_protected":"Would have protected retail investors interacting with BD/IA predictive-analytics systems — but the proposal was withdrawn and never took effect","who_must_comply":"Would have applied to SEC-registered broker-dealers and investment advisers — not in force","citation":"SEC Release Nos. 34-97990 / IA-6353 (proposed July 26, 2023); withdrawn via Release No. 33-11377 (June 12, 2025)","source_url":"https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2025/06/s7-12-23","source_title":"SEC — Conflicts of Interest Associated with the Use of Predictive Data Analytics (File No. S7-12-23; proposal withdrawn June 12, 2025)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Securities and Exchange Commission (no rule in force)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None — proposal withdrawn before finalization"},{"id":"us-eeoc-ai-title-vii-2023","title":"EEOC Technical Assistance — Assessing Adverse Impact in AI Used in Employment Selection","short_title":"EEOC AI Title VII Guidance","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["employment","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-05-18","enacted_date":"2023-05-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"EEOC guidance applying Title VII disparate-impact analysis to AI hiring tools. Employers are liable for discriminatory outcomes even when the tool is built by a vendor.","summary_technical":"Technical assistance document explains how the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (29 CFR Part 1607) apply to algorithmic decision-making tools. Key holding: an employer using a vendor's AI tool is responsible for Title VII compliance; vendor disclaimers do not shield the employer. Recommends 4/5ths-rule monitoring.","who_is_protected":"Job applicants and employees from disparate-impact discrimination by AI hiring tools","who_must_comply":"Employers using AI selection procedures","citation":"EEOC TA (May 18, 2023)","source_url":"https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/select-issues-assessing-adverse-impact-software-algorithms-and-artificial","source_title":"EEOC Technical Assistance: Assessing Adverse Impact in Software, Algorithms, and AI","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"EEOC + private actions","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Title VII remedies (back pay, reinstatement, damages, fees)"},{"id":"us-dol-whd-fab-2024-1-ai","title":"DOL Wage and Hour FAB 2024-1 — AI and Automated Systems in the Workplace under the FLSA","short_title":"DOL WHD FAB 2024-1","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["employment","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-04-29","enacted_date":"2024-04-29","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"DOL Wage and Hour Division guidance on FLSA, FMLA, PUMP Act, and EPPA compliance when employers use AI for scheduling, timekeeping, monitoring, or performance evaluation.","summary_technical":"FAB 2024-1: AI-enabled timekeeping, scheduling, and monitoring tools cannot be used to evade FLSA minimum-wage, overtime, recordkeeping, or break-time requirements; employers responsible for accuracy of AI-generated time records and for non-retaliation under FMLA/PUMP Act/EPPA when AI is involved in adverse actions.","who_is_protected":"Hourly and salaried workers subject to AI-driven workforce management","who_must_comply":"Employers using AI for workforce management","citation":"DOL WHD FAB 2024-1 (Apr. 29, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/fab/fab2024_1.pdf","source_title":"Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2024-1 — DOL WHD","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"DOL Wage and Hour Division","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"FLSA back-wages + liquidated damages + civil penalties"},{"id":"us-uspto-ai-inventorship-2024","title":"USPTO Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions (RESCINDED Nov 2025; entry retained as effective historical)","short_title":"USPTO AI Inventorship Guidance","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["copyright"],"status":"repealed","strength":"unknown","effective_date":"2024-02-13","enacted_date":"2024-02-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"USPTO guidance confirming AI-assisted inventions are patentable but inventorship analysis focuses on significant human contributions (Pannu factors). Rescinded November 28, 2025 and replaced by 2025 successor guidance.","summary_technical":"89 FR 10043: confirms that an invention created with AI assistance can be patentable if a natural person made a 'significant contribution' under the Pannu/CCS factors. Provides examples and gives examiners and applicants a framework for assessing AI-assisted inventions. Rescinded Nov. 28, 2025.","who_is_protected":"Inventors and the patent system","who_must_comply":"Patent applicants (was)","citation":"89 Fed. Reg. 10043 (Feb. 13, 2024) — rescinded Nov. 28, 2025","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/02/13/2024-02623/inventorship-guidance-for-ai-assisted-inventions","source_title":"Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions — Federal Register","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"USPTO","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-hud-tenant-screening-2024","title":"HUD FHEO Guidance — Application of Fair Housing Act to Tenant Screening","short_title":"HUD FHEO Tenant Screening AI","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-05-02","enacted_date":"2024-05-02","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"HUD guidance applying the Fair Housing Act to algorithmic tenant screening — landlords and screening vendors share liability for discriminatory outcomes.","summary_technical":"HUD FHEO guidance: explains how FHA disparate-impact framework applies to algorithmic tenant-screening tools; covers data inputs (criminal history, credit), proxy discrimination, screening criteria, vendor responsibility, and required documentation. Aligns with US v. RealPage parallel enforcement.","who_is_protected":"Rental applicants from algorithmic housing discrimination","who_must_comply":"Landlords + tenant-screening vendors","citation":"HUD FHEO, Guidance on Application of the Fair Housing Act to the Screening of Applicants for Rental Housing (May 2, 2024)","source_url":"https://archives.hud.gov/news/2024/FHEO_Guidance_on_Screening_of_Applicants_for_Rental_Housing.pdf","source_title":"Guidance on Application of FHA to Tenant Screening (PDF)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"HUD / DOJ Civil Rights / state AGs","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"FHA civil penalties + private right of action"},{"id":"us-hud-digital-ads-2024","title":"HUD FHEO Guidance — Application of Fair Housing Act to Advertising via Digital Platforms (WITHDRAWN Sept. 17, 2025)","short_title":"HUD FHEO Digital Advertising AI (withdrawn)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"repealed","strength":"unknown","effective_date":"2024-05-02","enacted_date":"2024-04-29","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"HUD guidance (2024) explaining that algorithmic ad-targeting causing discriminatory exposure could violate the Fair Housing Act. HUD WITHDREW this guidance effective September 17, 2025 (notice published April 6, 2026); it should no longer be relied on as authoritative. The Fair Housing Act itself still applies and HUD says non-compliant conduct remains subject to enforcement.","summary_technical":"HUD FHEO guidance (dated April 29, 2024; released May 2, 2024): applied the FHA to digital-platform ad targeting (including algorithmic optimization) that results in discriminatory delivery to protected classes; addressed platform, advertiser, and intermediary responsibility. WITHDRAWN by FHEO effective Sept. 17, 2025 — Notification of Withdrawal of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Guidance Documents, Docket No. FR-6571-N-01, 91 FR 17291 (Apr. 6, 2026), citing E.O. 14192 and E.O. 14219. The notice states the documents 'have been removed from active use and should not be relied upon as authoritative'; the underlying Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.) is unaffected.","who_is_protected":"Members of FHA protected classes (the statute still applies; the guidance no longer does)","who_must_comply":"Digital advertising platforms, advertisers, ad intermediaries (guidance withdrawn)","citation":"HUD FHEO, Guidance on Application of the Fair Housing Act to the Advertising of Housing, Credit, and Other Real Estate-Related Transactions through Digital Platforms (Apr. 29, 2024) — withdrawn eff. Sept. 17, 2025, 91 FR 17291","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/04/06/2026-06624/notification-of-withdrawal-of-fair-housing-and-equal-opportunity-guidance-documents","source_title":"Federal Register: Notification of Withdrawal of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Guidance Documents (91 FR 17291, Apr. 6, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"HUD / DOJ Civil Rights (under the Fair Housing Act itself)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"FHA civil penalties + private right of action (statutory; the guidance itself created none)"},{"id":"us-doj-ada-title-ii-web-rule-2024","title":"DOJ ADA Title II Final Rule — Web Accessibility for State and Local Governments","short_title":"DOJ ADA Title II Web Rule","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2027-04-24","enacted_date":"2024-04-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"DOJ final rule requiring state and local government web content and mobile apps (including AI-driven services) to meet WCAG 2.1 AA. Compliance dates extended to 2027/2028.","summary_technical":"28 CFR Part 35 (89 FR 31320): requires state and local government entities to make their web content and mobile applications accessible to people with disabilities, with WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the technical standard. Affects AI-driven services (chatbots, automated benefit determination, license-renewal portals). Compliance: large entities by Apr. 24, 2026; small entities by Apr. 26, 2027 (extended).","who_is_protected":"People with disabilities accessing state/local government services","who_must_comply":"State and local government entities","citation":"89 Fed. Reg. 31320 (Apr. 24, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/24/2024-07758/nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-disability-accessibility-of-web-information-and-services-of-state","source_title":"ADA Title II Web Accessibility Final Rule — Federal Register","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"DOJ Civil Rights Division + private right of action","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Compensatory damages + attorney's fees"},{"id":"us-opm-ai-skills-based-hiring-2024","title":"OPM Guidance on Skills-Based Hiring and AI Competency Model","short_title":"OPM AI Workforce Guidance","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","employment"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-29","enacted_date":"2024-04-29","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"OPM AI competency model and skills-based hiring guidance for federal AI/data roles under EO 14110 and the AI in Government Act.","summary_technical":"OPM CHCO memo (Apr. 29, 2024): establishes federal AI competency model — General AI, Technical AI, AI Acquisition, AI Governance — and skills-based hiring guidance to expand federal AI talent pipeline.","who_is_protected":"Federal AI workforce + agencies adopting AI","who_must_comply":"Federal agencies hiring AI/data staff","citation":"OPM CHCO Memo (Apr. 29, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/transmittals/2024/Skills-Based%20Hiring%20Guidance%20and%20Competency%20Model%20for%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20Work.pdf","source_title":"OPM Skills-Based Hiring + AI Competency Model (PDF)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"OPM","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"nj-eo-346-2023-ai-task-force","title":"New Jersey Executive Order 346 — Artificial Intelligence Task Force","short_title":"NJ EO 346 (AI Task Force)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-10-10","enacted_date":"2023-10-10","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Governor Murphy's EO 346 created New Jersey's AI Task Force to study societal impacts of AI and recommend ethical-use policies for state government. It directs state agencies to inventory their AI use and coordinate with the Task Force on guidance.","summary_technical":"Murphy EO 346 (Oct. 10, 2023): creates an interagency AI Task Force chaired by the Chief Innovation Officer; charges the Task Force with recommending ethical-use principles, training programs, and agency adoption practices for state-government AI; directs agencies to support its work.","who_is_protected":"New Jersey residents whose interactions with state government involve AI tools","who_must_comply":"New Jersey state agencies and offices using AI","citation":"N.J. Exec. Order No. 346 (Oct. 10, 2023)","source_url":"https://www.nj.gov/infobank/eo/056murphy/pdf/EO-346.pdf","source_title":"Executive Order No. 346 — Office of the Governor","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NJ Office of the Chief Innovation Officer / Office of Information Technology","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-eo-n-12-23-genai","title":"California Executive Order N-12-23 — Generative Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"CA EO N-12-23 (GenAI)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CA","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-09-06","enacted_date":"2023-09-06","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Governor Newsom's EO N-12-23 directs California agencies to study generative AI's risks and uses and to develop a deployment framework. It produced the 2024 GenAI Procurement and Use Guidelines, governing how state agencies acquire and use GenAI tools.","summary_technical":"Newsom EO N-12-23 (Sept. 6, 2023): directs CDT, GovOps, OPR, and CalCCC to issue a generative-AI risk-and-opportunity report; develop GenAI procurement guidelines; pilot GenAI in state services; and train the state workforce on responsible GenAI use. Established the foundation for California's 2024 GenAI Procurement and Use Guidelines and the AI Community of Practice.","who_is_protected":"Californians interacting with state agencies that deploy GenAI","who_must_comply":"California state agencies under the Governor's direct authority","citation":"Cal. Exec. Order No. N-12-23 (Sept. 6, 2023)","source_url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/AI-EO-No.12-_-GGN-Signed.pdf","source_title":"Executive Order N-12-23 — Office of Governor Gavin Newsom","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Department of Technology (CDT) / Government Operations Agency (GovOps)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pa-eo-2023-19-genai","title":"Pennsylvania Executive Order 2023-19 — Commonwealth Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"PA EO 2023-19 (GenAI)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"PA","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-09-20","enacted_date":"2023-09-20","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Governor Shapiro's EO 2023-19 establishes Pennsylvania's Generative AI Governing Board and sets 10 core values (accuracy, adaptability, employee empowerment, equity and fairness, innovation, mission alignment, privacy, proportionality, safety and security, and transparency) that govern Commonwealth agencies' use of generative AI tools.","summary_technical":"Shapiro EO 2023-19 (Sept. 20, 2023): establishes the Generative AI Governing Board (chaired by the Chief Information Officer) to set policy on Commonwealth GenAI procurement and use; articulates 10 core values; requires agency inventories of GenAI use and mandatory employee training; coordinates with the Pennsylvania State Police on GenAI risk assessments.","who_is_protected":"Pennsylvanians whose interactions with Commonwealth agencies involve GenAI","who_must_comply":"All Commonwealth agencies under the Governor's authority","citation":"Pa. Exec. Order No. 2023-19 (Sept. 20, 2023)","source_url":"https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/governor/documents/20230920_EO-2023-19_AI_Final_Executed.pdf","source_title":"Executive Order 2023-19 — Commonwealth of Pennsylvania","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Pennsylvania Office of Administration / Office of Information Technology","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"va-eo-30-2024-ai","title":"Virginia Executive Order 30 — Artificial Intelligence Education Guidelines, Policy, and IT Standards","short_title":"VA EO 30 (2024)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"VA","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["public-sector","education","law-enforcement"],"status":"repealed","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-18","enacted_date":"2024-01-18","expires_date":"2026-09-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-19","summary_plain":"RESCINDED SEPTEMBER 18, 2026 by Executive Order 22 (2026) — see va-eo-22-2026-dc-accountability-ai-task-force. The instrument is no longer in force, but the guidance it produced is: EO 22's rescission clause preserves the policies, standards and guidelines published under EO 30 until they are replaced. Historically: Governor Youngkin's EO 30 directed the Virginia Information Technologies Agency (VITA) to issue AI policy and IT standards for state agencies, develop K-12 and higher-ed AI education guidelines, set law-enforcement AI standards, and create a Virginia AI Task Force. Spanberger's EO 22 replaces the task force with a new rapid-response AI Task Force under different leadership.","summary_technical":"Youngkin EO 30 (Jan. 18, 2024): four mandates — (1) VITA to develop AI policy and IT standards for state agencies, (2) Department of Education and SCHEV to develop AI education guidelines, (3) Department of Criminal Justice Services to develop law-enforcement AI standards, (4) creation of an AI Task Force. Produced operational guidance issued throughout 2024.","who_is_protected":"Virginians interacting with state agencies, schools, and law enforcement that use AI","who_must_comply":"Virginia state agencies, K-12 districts, public higher education institutions, and law enforcement agencies","citation":"Va. Exec. Order No. 30 (Jan. 18, 2024), rescinded by Va. Exec. Order No. 22 (Sept. 18, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.vita.virginia.gov/policy--governance/governance/artificial-intelligence/","source_title":"Executive Order 30 — Office of the Governor of Virginia","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Virginia Information Technologies Agency (VITA) / Department of Education / Department of Criminal Justice Services","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ok-eo-2023-24-emerging-tech","title":"Oklahoma Executive Order 2023-24 — Task Force on Emerging Technologies","short_title":"OK EO 2023-24","level":"state","jurisdiction":"OK","state_abbr":"OK","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-09-19","enacted_date":"2023-09-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Governor Stitt's EO 2023-24 creates a Task Force on Emerging Technologies to study and recommend policy for state use of artificial intelligence and generative AI.","summary_technical":"Stitt EO 2023-24 (Sept. 19, 2023): establishes a Governor's Task Force on Emerging Technologies focused on AI/GenAI; charges it with recommending policy, ethical-use guidance, and operational guardrails for Oklahoma state government's AI adoption.","who_is_protected":"Oklahomans whose interactions with state government involve AI tools","who_must_comply":"Oklahoma state agencies using AI","citation":"Okla. Exec. Order No. 2023-24 (Sept. 19, 2023)","source_url":"https://oklahoma.gov/governor/newsroom/newsroom/2023/september2023/governor-stitt-announces-ai-task-force.html","source_title":"Executive Order 2023-24 — Office of the Governor","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"or-eo-23-06-ai-advisory","title":"Oregon Executive Order 23-06 — State Government AI Advisory Council and Ethical AI Use","short_title":"OR EO 23-06","level":"state","jurisdiction":"OR","state_abbr":"OR","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-11-28","enacted_date":"2023-11-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Governor Kotek's EO 23-06 establishes Oregon's AI Advisory Council with an equity focus. It produced the 2024 Action Plan with 12 principles and 74 recommendations governing state agencies' AI use.","summary_technical":"Kotek EO 23-06 (Nov. 28, 2023): creates the State Government AI Advisory Council; directs it to develop equity-centered AI use principles, an action plan, agency inventories, and pilot programs. Produced the 2024 Oregon AI Action Plan (12 principles, 74 recommendations).","who_is_protected":"Oregonians interacting with state agencies using AI, with explicit attention to historically marginalized populations","who_must_comply":"Oregon state agencies under the Governor's authority","citation":"Or. Exec. Order No. 23-06 (Nov. 28, 2023)","source_url":"https://www.oregon.gov/gov/eo/eo-23-06.pdf","source_title":"Executive Order 23-06 — Office of Governor Tina Kotek","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Oregon Department of Administrative Services / Enterprise Information Services","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"il-eo-2024-01-genai-task-force","title":"Illinois Executive Order 2024-01 — Generative AI and Natural Language Processing Task Force","short_title":"IL EO 2024-01","level":"state","jurisdiction":"IL","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-22","enacted_date":"2024-01-22","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Governor Pritzker's EO 2024-01 establishes Illinois's Generative AI and Natural Language Processing Task Force to study impacts and recommend state-government uses, charged with reporting to the Governor and General Assembly.","summary_technical":"Pritzker EO 2024-01 (Jan. 22, 2024): establishes the Generative AI and NLP Task Force chaired by the Department of Innovation and Technology; reports due to the Governor and General Assembly on agency use cases, risks, and recommendations.","who_is_protected":"Illinoisans interacting with state agencies using GenAI/NLP tools","who_must_comply":"Illinois state agencies under the Governor's authority","citation":"Ill. Exec. Order No. 2024-01 (Jan. 22, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.illinois.gov/government/executive-orders/executive-order.executive-order-number-01.2024.html","source_title":"Executive Order Number 01 (2024) — Office of the Governor","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Illinois Department of Innovation and Technology (DoIT)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"wi-eo-211-2023-ai-workforce","title":"Wisconsin Executive Order 211 — Governor's Task Force on Workforce and Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"WI EO 211","level":"state","jurisdiction":"WI","state_abbr":"WI","topics":["public-sector","employment"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-08-23","enacted_date":"2023-08-23","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Governor Evers's EO 211 created a workforce-focused AI Task Force that produced a 2024 advisory action plan on AI's labor-market impact, with recommendations for workforce development and reskilling.","summary_technical":"Evers EO 211 (Aug. 23, 2023): creates the Governor's Task Force on Workforce and Artificial Intelligence to recommend strategies for AI-driven labor-market change, reskilling programs, and government responses; produced a 2024 advisory action plan.","who_is_protected":"Wisconsin workers whose jobs are affected by AI deployment","who_must_comply":"Wisconsin state agencies addressing workforce policy","citation":"Wis. Exec. Order No. 211 (Aug. 23, 2023)","source_url":"https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/WIGOV/2023/08/23/file_attachments/2591849/Evers_EO211.pdf","source_title":"Executive Order 211 — Office of the Governor of Wisconsin","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ma-eo-629-2024-ai-task-force","title":"Massachusetts Executive Order 629 — Artificial Intelligence Strategic Task Force","short_title":"MA EO 629","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MA","state_abbr":"MA","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-02-14","enacted_date":"2024-02-14","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Governor Healey's EO 629 creates a 26-member AI Strategic Task Force spanning government, labor, healthcare, finance, education, and life sciences to recommend AI policy for Massachusetts.","summary_technical":"Healey EO 629 (Feb. 14, 2024): establishes the AI Strategic Task Force (26 members) co-chaired by Lieutenant Governor and Secretary of Economic Development; charges it with recommending policy on workforce, equity, innovation, and risk; outputs due Dec. 2024.","who_is_protected":"Massachusetts residents whose work, healthcare, or government interactions involve AI","who_must_comply":"Massachusetts state agencies addressing AI policy","citation":"Mass. Exec. Order No. 629 (Feb. 14, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.mass.gov/executive-orders/no-629-establishing-an-artificial-intelligence-strategic-task-force","source_title":"Executive Order No. 629 — Mass.gov","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Massachusetts Executive Office of Economic Development","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"md-eo-01-01-2024-02-ai","title":"Maryland Executive Order 01.01.2024.02 — Catalyzing the Responsible and Productive Use of AI in Maryland State Government","short_title":"MD EO 01.01.2024.02","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MD","state_abbr":"MD","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-08","enacted_date":"2024-01-08","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Governor Moore's EO 01.01.2024.02 establishes values-based principles and an AI Subcabinet to coordinate ethical AI use across Maryland state government.","summary_technical":"Moore EO 01.01.2024.02 (Jan. 8, 2024): establishes 8 AI Principles (values-based); creates an AI Subcabinet (Cabinet Secretaries) to coordinate adoption; requires agency AI inventory and reporting; directs Department of Information Technology to develop AI policies, guidelines, and standards.","who_is_protected":"Marylanders whose interactions with state agencies involve AI","who_must_comply":"Maryland state agencies under the Governor's authority","citation":"Md. Exec. Order No. 01.01.2024.02 (Jan. 8, 2024)","source_url":"https://regs.maryland.gov/us/md/exec/comar/01.01.2024.02","source_title":"Executive Order 01.01.2024.02 — Office of the Governor of Maryland","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Maryland Department of Information Technology","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ny-its-p24-001-ai-policy","title":"New York State ITS Policy NYS-P24-001 — Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies","short_title":"NY ITS AI Policy P24-001","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NY","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-01-08","enacted_date":"2024-01-08","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"The Hochul administration's statewide Information Technology Services policy on Acceptable Use of AI by New York state agencies. Not a numbered Executive Order, but the binding state-government AI rule. Defines acceptable use cases, prohibits use of public GenAI tools with sensitive data, and requires risk assessments before deployment.","summary_technical":"NYS-P24-001 (Jan. 8, 2024): NY ITS statewide policy requiring all NY state agencies to (1) obtain approval before deploying AI systems, (2) document risk assessments, (3) prohibit use of public GenAI with restricted/confidential data, (4) ensure human review for AI-supported decisions affecting individuals.","who_is_protected":"New Yorkers interacting with state agencies using AI tools","who_must_comply":"All NY state executive-branch agencies","citation":"N.Y. ITS Policy NYS-P24-001 (Jan. 8, 2024)","source_url":"https://its.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/01/nys-p24-001-acceptable-use-of-artificial-intelligence-technologies-_1.pdf","source_title":"NYS-P24-001 Acceptable Use of AI Technologies (PDF)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New York State Office of Information Technology Services","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"wa-eo-24-01-genai","title":"Washington Executive Order 24-01 — Artificial Intelligence and Washington State Government","short_title":"WA EO 24-01","level":"state","jurisdiction":"WA","state_abbr":"WA","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-30","enacted_date":"2024-01-30","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Governor Inslee's EO 24-01 directs WaTech to develop generative AI guidelines for Washington state government, identify high-value GenAI initiatives, and catalog high-risk uses across agencies.","summary_technical":"Inslee EO 24-01 (Jan. 19, 2024): directs Washington Technology Solutions (WaTech) to (1) develop GenAI guidelines and policies; (2) inventory high-value initiatives; (3) catalog high-risk uses; (4) coordinate pilot evaluations and equity reviews across agencies.","who_is_protected":"Washingtonians interacting with state government using GenAI","who_must_comply":"Washington state agencies","citation":"Wash. Exec. Order No. 24-01 (Jan. 19, 2024)","source_url":"https://governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/exe_order/24-01%20-%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20(tmp).pdf","source_title":"Executive Order 24-01 — Office of Governor Inslee","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Washington Technology Solutions (WaTech)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"nm-eo-2024-011-cyber-ai-baselines","title":"New Mexico Executive Order 2024-011 — Strengthening State Agency Cybersecurity (NIST AI/cyber baselines)","short_title":"NM EO 2024-011","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NM","state_abbr":"NM","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-05","enacted_date":"2024-04-05","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Governor Lujan Grisham's EO 2024-011 requires New Mexico state agencies to adopt NIST baselines covering AI, cloud, supply chain, and ransomware risks by November 1, 2024.","summary_technical":"Lujan Grisham EO 2024-011 (Apr. 5, 2024): mandates NIST 800-series cybersecurity baselines across NM state agencies; explicitly includes AI risk-management baselines (NIST AI RMF) alongside cloud, supply-chain, and ransomware controls; compliance deadline Nov. 1, 2024.","who_is_protected":"New Mexicans whose interactions with state government involve AI tools and sensitive data","who_must_comply":"New Mexico state agencies","citation":"N.M. Exec. Order No. 2024-011 (Apr. 5, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.governor.state.nm.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Executive-Order-2024-011.pdf","source_title":"Executive Order 2024-011 — Office of the Governor","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New Mexico Department of Information Technology","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-eo-13859-2019","title":"Executive Order 13859 — Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"EO 13859 (American AI Initiative)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","transparency"],"status":"repealed","strength":"unknown","effective_date":"2019-02-11","enacted_date":"2019-02-11","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"President Trump's February 2019 executive order launched the 'American AI Initiative' — the first federal whole-of-government AI strategy. It directed federal agencies to prioritize AI R&D investment, open government data for AI training, set technical standards (via NIST), and develop the AI workforce. The framework was preserved but reorganized under EO 13960 (2020) and EO 14110 (2023), then carried over into EO 14179 (2025).","summary_technical":"EO 13859 (Feb. 11, 2019), 84 Fed. Reg. 3967 — established the American AI Initiative; directed federal agencies under OMB/OSTP coordination to (1) prioritize AI R&D spending, (2) release federal data, models, and computing resources to AI researchers, (3) task NIST with developing AI technical standards (which became NIST AI RMF 1.0), and (4) develop AI workforce competencies (precursor to AI in Government Act and OPM occupational series). Largely superseded by subsequent orders but never formally revoked — many derivative programs (NIST AI RMF, federal AI use case inventories) trace directly to this order.","who_is_protected":"Federal AI ecosystem participants; public via downstream NIST/OMB rules","who_must_comply":"All federal executive-branch agencies (was)","citation":"Exec. Order No. 13859, 84 Fed. Reg. 3967 (Feb. 14, 2019)","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/02/14/2019-02544/maintaining-american-leadership-in-artificial-intelligence","source_title":"EO 13859 — Federal Register","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of Science and Technology Policy + OMB (coordination)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-eo-13960-2020","title":"Executive Order 13960 — Promoting the Use of Trustworthy AI in the Federal Government","short_title":"EO 13960 (federal AI use)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"repealed","strength":"unknown","effective_date":"2020-12-03","enacted_date":"2020-12-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"President Trump's December 2020 executive order set nine principles for federal agency AI use (lawful, accurate, safe, understandable, accountable, etc.) and required each agency to publish an annual public inventory of its AI use cases. The annual AI use case inventories continued under EO 14110 (Biden) and EO 14179 (Trump-II) — making EO 13960 the foundational federal-AI-transparency baseline.","summary_technical":"EO 13960 (Dec. 3, 2020), 85 Fed. Reg. 78939 — established nine principles for federal AI use; required CFO Act agencies to (1) inventory non-classified AI use cases, (2) post inventories publicly, (3) share inventories with other agencies, and (4) review existing uses for principle compliance. Implementation guidance was issued by OMB. Largely superseded by EO 14110 (Oct. 30, 2023) and subsequently EO 14179 (Jan. 20, 2025), but the AI use case inventory requirement has been retained across all three orders.","who_is_protected":"Public interacting with federal-agency AI","who_must_comply":"All federal executive-branch agencies (was)","citation":"Exec. Order No. 13960, 85 Fed. Reg. 78939 (Dec. 8, 2020)","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/08/2020-27065/promoting-the-use-of-trustworthy-artificial-intelligence-in-the-federal-government","source_title":"EO 13960 — Federal Register","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of Management and Budget","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-hr-2231-algo-accountability-2019","title":"Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2019 (H.R. 2231 / S. 1108) — DIED","short_title":"Algorithmic Accountability Act (2019, died)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["automated-decisions","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Sens. Wyden and Booker and Rep. Clarke introduced the first federal Algorithmic Accountability Act on April 10, 2019. It would have empowered the FTC to require large companies to assess and address bias, discrimination, and privacy risks in 'automated decision systems.' Never received a committee vote — but it set the template for every subsequent federal and state algorithmic-accountability bill.","summary_technical":"H.R. 2231 / S. 1108 (116th Cong., 2019) — would have directed the FTC to issue rules requiring 'covered entities' meeting size/data thresholds to conduct automated decision system impact assessments and data protection impact assessments for 'high-risk' systems; addressed accuracy, fairness, bias, discrimination, privacy, and security. Referred to House Energy & Commerce and Senate Commerce committees; no further action.","who_is_protected":"Consumers subject to automated decisions (would have)","who_must_comply":"Large data controllers using high-risk automated decision systems (would have)","citation":"H.R. 2231 / S. 1108, 116th Cong. (2019) — died in committee","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2231","source_title":"H.R. 2231 — Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2019","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Would have been FTC","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-s-3572-algo-accountability-2022","title":"Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2022 (S. 3572 / H.R. 6580) — DIED","short_title":"Algorithmic Accountability Act (2022, died)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["automated-decisions","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Sens. Wyden and Booker and Rep. Clarke reintroduced an expanded Algorithmic Accountability Act on Feb. 3, 2022. It would have required impact assessments for 'augmented critical decision processes' across employment, housing, credit, education, and healthcare. Died in committee but became the most-cited federal AI bill of the 117th Congress.","summary_technical":"S. 3572 / H.R. 6580 (117th Cong., 2022) — would have required impact assessments for automated decision systems and augmented critical decision processes used in 'critical decisions' (housing, employment, education, healthcare, financial services, public utilities, family planning, criminal justice). Directed FTC to issue regulations and maintain a public repository of impact assessment summaries. Referred to Senate Commerce and House Energy & Commerce; no markup.","who_is_protected":"Consumers subject to critical automated decisions (would have)","who_must_comply":"Covered entities deploying critical-decision automated systems (would have)","citation":"S. 3572 / H.R. 6580, 117th Cong. (2022) — died in committee","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3572","source_title":"S. 3572 — Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2022","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Would have been FTC + state AGs","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-s-2892-algo-accountability-2023","title":"Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023 (S. 2892 / H.R. 5628) — DIED","short_title":"Algorithmic Accountability Act (2023, died)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["automated-decisions","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The third iteration of the Algorithmic Accountability Act, reintroduced on Sept. 21, 2023 with refined definitions and FTC rulemaking authority. Like its predecessors it never received committee action — but it remains the leading federal ADS-impact-assessment template.","summary_technical":"S. 2892 / H.R. 5628 (118th Cong., 2023) — refined the 2022 version with narrower covered-entity thresholds and clearer impact-assessment requirements for augmented critical decision processes. Referred to Senate Commerce / House Energy & Commerce; never marked up. Provisions later folded into APRA discussion draft (2024).","who_is_protected":"Consumers subject to critical automated decisions (would have)","who_must_comply":"Covered entities deploying critical-decision ADS (would have)","citation":"S. 2892 / H.R. 5628, 118th Cong. (2023) — died in committee","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2892","source_title":"S. 2892 — Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Would have been FTC + state AGs","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-s-3127-bot-disclosure-2018","title":"Bot Disclosure and Accountability Act of 2018 (S. 3127) — DIED","short_title":"Bot Disclosure Act (Feinstein, died)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["transparency","elections","deepfakes"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Sen. Dianne Feinstein's June 2018 bill would have required social media platforms to mandate disclosure of automated bots and would have banned political campaigns from using bots in disguised political ads. The first federal bot-disclosure proposal — never received committee action but inspired CA SB 1001 (2018, enacted) and NJ Bot Disclosure Act (2019, enacted).","summary_technical":"S. 3127 (115th Cong., 2018) — would have (1) directed FTC to require social media providers to implement automated-bot disclosure rules, and (2) amended the Federal Election Campaign Act to bar candidates, campaigns, and political organizations from using bots to disguise online political advertising or deceive voters. Referred to Senate Commerce; no further action.","who_is_protected":"Social media users; voters (would have)","who_must_comply":"Social media platforms; political campaigns (would have)","citation":"S. 3127, 115th Cong. (2018) — died in committee","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3127","source_title":"S. 3127 — Bot Disclosure and Accountability Act of 2018","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Would have been FTC + FEC","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-facial-recognition-moratorium-2020-2023","title":"Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act (S. 4084 / H.R. 7356, reintroduced through 2023) — DIED","short_title":"Federal facial recognition moratorium (died)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Sens. Markey, Merkley, Sanders, Warren, and Wyden and Reps. Jayapal, Pressley, and Tlaib first introduced the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act on June 25, 2020 — and reintroduced it in 2021 and 2023. It would have banned all federal agency use of facial recognition and other biometric surveillance technologies, and conditioned federal grants on state/local moratoriums. Never received committee action across three congresses.","summary_technical":"S. 4084 (116th, 2020) / S. 2052 (117th, 2021) / S. 681 (118th, 2023) — would have (1) prohibited federal entity use of biometric surveillance, including facial recognition, voice recognition, gait recognition, and other biometric systems; (2) conditioned Byrne JAG funding on state/local moratoriums; (3) created a private right of action against federal violations. Referred to Senate Judiciary; House versions referred to House Judiciary. No markup.","who_is_protected":"All Americans subject to federal-agency biometric surveillance (would have)","who_must_comply":"Federal agencies (would have); states/localities conditionally","citation":"S. 4084 (2020) / S. 2052 (2021) / S. 681 (2023) — never marked up","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/681","source_title":"S. 681 — Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act of 2023","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Would have been federal courts via private right of action","private_right_of_action":true},{"id":"us-s-2134-algo-justice-2021","title":"Algorithmic Justice and Online Platform Transparency Act (S. 2134 / H.R. 3611, 2021) — DIED","short_title":"Algorithmic Justice Act (Markey/Matsui, died)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["automated-decisions","transparency","consumer-protection"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Sen. Markey and Rep. Matsui's May 2021 bill would have banned discriminatory algorithmic processes on online platforms, required plain-language algorithm disclosure to users, and created a cross-agency task force on algorithmic discrimination. Died in committee but became a citation anchor for later FTC trade-rule petitions.","summary_technical":"S. 2134 / H.R. 3611 (117th Cong., 2021) — would have (1) prohibited algorithmic processes that discriminate based on protected characteristics, (2) required online platforms to describe content-amplification and content-moderation algorithms in plain language, (3) required platforms to maintain detailed algorithm records for FTC review, and (4) created an interagency task force studying algorithmic discrimination in education, healthcare, housing, and financial services. Referred to Senate Commerce; no markup.","who_is_protected":"Online platform users; consumers in algorithm-mediated decisions (would have)","who_must_comply":"Online platforms (would have)","citation":"S. 1896 / H.R. 3611, 117th Cong. (2021) — died in committee","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1896","source_title":"S. 2134 — Algorithmic Justice and Online Platform Transparency Act","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Would have been FTC + state AGs","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-ai-training-act-2022","title":"Artificial Intelligence Training for the Acquisition Workforce Act (AI Training Act, P.L. 117-207)","short_title":"AI Training Act (2022)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2022-10-17","enacted_date":"2022-10-17","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Public Law 117-207, signed October 17, 2022, requires OMB to provide regular AI training to the federal acquisition workforce. A narrow but enacted federal AI statute — one of only three AI-specific bills passed by Congress before 2024 (alongside the AI in Government Act and National AI Initiative Act).","summary_technical":"Pub. L. No. 117-207, 136 Stat. 2253 (Oct. 17, 2022), originating as S. 2551 (117th Cong.) — directs OMB, in consultation with GSA, to establish an AI training program for federal acquisition workforce personnel (contracting officers, COR-equivalents, procurement officials). Training must cover (1) AI capabilities and risks, (2) ethical considerations, (3) acquisition strategies, (4) future of work implications. Program must be updated regularly.","who_is_protected":"Federal acquisition workforce + downstream procurement integrity","who_must_comply":"OMB / federal acquisition agencies","citation":"Pub. L. No. 117-207, 136 Stat. 2253 (Oct. 17, 2022)","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ207/PLAW-117publ207.pdf","source_title":"Public Law 117-207 — AI Training Act (PDF)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of Management and Budget","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-ai-in-government-act-2020","title":"AI in Government Act of 2020 (Pub. L. 116-260, Div. U, Title I, §104)","short_title":"AI in Government Act (2020)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-12-27","enacted_date":"2020-12-27","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2021 (Dec. 27, 2020), the AI in Government Act of 2020 created the GSA AI Center of Excellence, directed OMB to issue federal AI use guidance, and required OPM to establish federal AI workforce occupational series. One of three enacted pre-2024 federal AI statutes — foundational federal procurement and workforce architecture.","summary_technical":"AI in Government Act of 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-260, Div. U, Title I, §104, 134 Stat. 2286 (Dec. 27, 2020), codified at 40 U.S.C. §11301 note — (1) established the AI Center of Excellence within GSA's Technology Transformation Services to advise agencies on AI procurement and adoption, (2) directed OMB to issue federal AI use guidance addressing risk, civil rights, and transparency, (3) directed OPM to identify AI competencies, create or update an AI occupational series, estimate AI workforce needs, and produce 2- and 5-year forecasts.","who_is_protected":"Federal workforce + public via downstream AI procurement standards","who_must_comply":"Federal agencies via OMB/OPM/GSA","citation":"Pub. L. No. 116-260, Div. U, Title I, §104 (Dec. 27, 2020); 40 U.S.C. §11301 note","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ260/PLAW-116publ260.pdf","source_title":"Pub. L. 116-260 (Consolidated Appropriations Act 2021, incl. AI in Government Act, PDF)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of Management and Budget / Office of Personnel Management / GSA","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-national-ai-initiative-act-2020","title":"National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020 (Pub. L. 116-283, Div. E)","short_title":"National AI Initiative Act (2020)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2021-01-01","enacted_date":"2021-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Enacted as Division E of the FY21 NDAA (signed by Congressional override Jan. 1, 2021), the National AI Initiative Act codified a coordinated federal AI R&D strategy. It created the National AI Initiative Office (NAIIO) inside OSTP, established AI Research Institutes via NSF, and directed NIST to develop AI risk-management standards — the statutory authority behind NIST AI RMF 1.0.","summary_technical":"Pub. L. No. 116-283, Div. E, 134 Stat. 4523 (Jan. 1, 2021); codified at 15 U.S.C. ch. 119 — (1) established the National AI Initiative Office within OSTP, (2) created the National AI Advisory Committee, (3) directed NSF to establish National AI Research Institutes, (4) directed NIST to develop a voluntary AI risk-management framework (became NIST AI RMF 1.0, Jan. 2023), (5) established AI workforce, K-12, and public-private partnership programs. Enacted via congressional override of the Trump veto on Jan. 1, 2021.","who_is_protected":"Federal AI R&D ecosystem + public via NIST AI RMF","who_must_comply":"Federal R&D agencies (NSF, NIST, DARPA, DOE, NIH, etc.)","citation":"Pub. L. No. 116-283, Div. E, 134 Stat. 4523 (Jan. 1, 2021); 15 U.S.C. §§ 9401-9462","source_url":"https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title15/chapter119&edition=prelim","source_title":"15 U.S.C. Chapter 119 — National Artificial Intelligence Initiative","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"OSTP National AI Initiative Office","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"tx-cubi-2009","title":"Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (Bus. & Com. Code §503.001)","short_title":"Texas CUBI (2009)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"TX","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["biometrics","facial-recognition","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2009-09-01","enacted_date":"2009-04-23","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Enacted in 2009, the Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI) was the second state biometric privacy law in the country (after Illinois BIPA). It requires consent before commercial biometric capture and caps damages at $25,000 per violation. AG Paxton used CUBI to secure a $1.4B Meta settlement (2024) and $1.375B Google settlement (2025) — making it the most-recovered state biometric statute.","summary_technical":"Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 503.001 (enacted 2009 by H.B. 2278, 81st Leg.) — prohibits commercial capture of biometric identifiers (retina/iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, hand or face geometry) without consent; restricts sale, lease, disclosure; requires destruction within reasonable time (no later than 1 year after purpose of collection expires). Enforcement is exclusively by the Texas Attorney General; civil penalty up to $25,000 per violation. No private right of action (distinguishing CUBI from BIPA). Major settlements: $1.4B with Meta (2024) and $1.375B with Google (2025).","who_is_protected":"Texas residents subject to biometric capture","who_must_comply":"Persons capturing biometric identifiers for commercial purpose","citation":"Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §503.001 (2009)","source_url":"https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/BC/htm/BC.503.htm","source_title":"Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §503.001 — Texas Statutes","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Texas Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalty up to $25,000 per violation"},{"id":"wa-hb-1493-2017-biometric","title":"Washington Biometric Identifiers Act (HB 1493, RCW 19.375)","short_title":"WA Biometric Identifiers Act (2017)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"WA","state_abbr":"WA","topics":["biometrics","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2017-07-23","enacted_date":"2017-05-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Washington's 2017 HB 1493 was the third state biometric privacy law (after IL BIPA and TX CUBI). It requires notice and consent before 'enrolling' a biometric identifier in a database for a commercial purpose, but excludes photographs and audio recordings — a significant carve-out that distinguishes it from BIPA. Enforced by the Washington AG; no private right of action.","summary_technical":"RCW Chapter 19.375 (enacted by HB 1493, 65th Leg., 2017 Reg. Sess.) — prohibits enrolling a biometric identifier in a database for a commercial purpose without first providing notice, obtaining consent, or providing a mechanism to prevent subsequent commercial use. 'Biometric identifier' defined as data generated by automatic measurements of biological characteristics (fingerprint, voiceprint, retina/iris scan, other unique biological patterns); explicitly excludes physical or digital photographs, video/audio recordings, and data generated from them. Enforcement by Washington AG under Consumer Protection Act; civil penalty up to $7,500 per violation.","who_is_protected":"Washington residents subject to biometric enrollment","who_must_comply":"Persons enrolling biometric identifiers for commercial purpose","citation":"RCW Ch. 19.375 (HB 1493, 2017)","source_url":"https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.375","source_title":"RCW 19.375 — Washington Biometric Identifiers Act","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Washington Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Up to $7,500 per violation under Consumer Protection Act"},{"id":"ca-ab-375-2018-ccpa-original","title":"California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 — AB 375 (Original Enactment)","short_title":"CCPA Original (AB 375, 2018)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CA","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["privacy","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"repealed","strength":"unknown","effective_date":"2020-01-01","enacted_date":"2018-06-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 375 — the original California Consumer Privacy Act — on June 28, 2018, the most comprehensive state privacy law in U.S. history at the time. Substantially amended by Prop 24 (CPRA, 2020) and the 2025 CPPA ADMT regulations. This entry captures the original 2018 framework as historical baseline.","summary_technical":"AB 375 (2018 Reg. Sess., Chau/Hertzberg), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.100-1798.199 — created consumer rights to know, delete, and opt out of sale of personal information; required businesses to disclose categories of data collected and shared; required service-provider contracts; created limited private right of action for certain data breaches (§1798.150). Effective Jan. 1, 2020. Substantially amended by Prop 24 (CPRA, Nov. 3, 2020) which created CPPA, added rights for sensitive personal information, added correction right, and authorized ADMT regulations (finalized Sept. 2025).","who_is_protected":"California residents","who_must_comply":"Businesses meeting CCPA thresholds (was)","citation":"Cal. AB 375 (2018), 2018 Cal. Stats. ch. 55 — substantially superseded by Prop 24 (CPRA) and 2025 CPPA ADMT regs","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375","source_title":"AB 375 — California Legislative Information","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Attorney General (was; now also CPPA)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Up to $2,500 / $7,500 (intentional) per violation"},{"id":"ca-ab-730-2019-deepfake-expired","title":"California AB 730 — Materially Deceptive Election Deepfakes (EXPIRED Jan. 1, 2023)","short_title":"CA AB 730 (2019, expired)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CA","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["deepfakes","elections"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","effective_date":"2020-01-01","enacted_date":"2019-10-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"California AB 730 (Berman, 2019) was the first California law criminalizing materially deceptive election deepfakes within 60 days of an election. The statute included a sunset clause and expired on January 1, 2023 — replaced and expanded by AB 2655 / AB 2839 / AB 2355 in 2024 (both AB 2655 and AB 2839 were subsequently enjoined).","summary_technical":"AB 730 (2019 Reg. Sess.), Cal. Elec. Code §§ 20010-20012 (former) — prohibited distributing 'with actual malice' materially deceptive audio or visual media of a candidate within 60 days of an election with intent to injure reputation or deceive voters. Statutory carve-outs for satire/parody, news organizations, and websites of general interest. Sunset Jan. 1, 2023; replaced by AB 2655 (platform takedown, since enjoined), AB 2839 (election content ban, since enjoined), and AB 2355 (political-ad disclosure).","who_is_protected":"California voters from election disinformation (was)","who_must_comply":"Distributors of deceptive AI-generated political content (was)","citation":"Cal. AB 730 (2019), former Cal. Elec. Code §§ 20010-20012 — expired Jan. 1, 2023","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB730","source_title":"AB 730 — California Legislative Information","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Was California AG / county DAs + private right of action","private_right_of_action":true},{"id":"tx-sb-751-2019-deepfake","title":"Texas SB 751 — Election Deepfake Criminal Statute (FIRST IN NATION)","short_title":"TX SB 751 (2019, first state election deepfake law)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"TX","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["deepfakes","elections"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2019-09-01","enacted_date":"2019-06-14","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Texas SB 751 (signed June 14, 2019) was the first U.S. state law making it a crime to create or distribute election deepfakes. Criminalizes creating/publishing/distributing a deepfake video with intent to injure a candidate or influence an election within 30 days of an election; Class A misdemeanor (up to 1 year jail and $4,000 fine). Still in effect 2026.","summary_technical":"Tex. Elec. Code § 255.004(d)-(e) (added by SB 751, 86th Leg., 2019) — criminalizes creating a 'deep fake video' (video using generative AI to depict a real person engaging in conduct that did not occur) with intent to (1) injure a candidate or (2) influence the result of an election, when published within 30 days of an election. Class A misdemeanor (up to 1 year jail + $4,000 fine). Applies only to state-level (not federal) races. Remains in effect as of June 2026; not yet directly subjected to a First Amendment challenge as of this writing.","who_is_protected":"Texas voters; candidates for state office","who_must_comply":"Creators and distributors of election deepfakes in Texas","citation":"Tex. Elec. Code § 255.004 (as amended by SB 751, 86th Leg. R.S. 2019)","source_url":"https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=SB751","source_title":"SB 751 — Texas Legislature Online","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Texas county and district attorneys","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Class A misdemeanor — up to 1 year jail and $4,000 fine"},{"id":"ny-s5959d-2020-right-publicity","title":"New York S5959-D — Right of Publicity for Digital Replicas + Deepfake Porn (2020)","short_title":"NY S5959-D (2020, digital replicas + deepfake porn)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NY","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["deepfakes","ai-images","ncii","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2021-05-29","enacted_date":"2020-11-30","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Signed by Governor Cuomo on November 30, 2020, NY S5959-D was the first state law to (1) extend right of publicity to digital replicas of deceased personalities for 40 years, and (2) create a private right of action against unlawful publication of sexually explicit deepfakes. Landmark precedent — direct ancestor of CA AB 1836 (2024) and NY's 2023-2025 digital-replica laws.","summary_technical":"Ch. 304 of 2020 (S5959-D, A5605-C) — added Civ. Rights Law § 50-f (postmortem right of publicity for deceased personalities for 40 years, covering 'digital replicas') and Civ. Rights Law § 52-c (private right of action for unlawful dissemination of sexually explicit AI-generated depictions). Effective May 29, 2021. First state law explicitly extending right of publicity to AI-generated digital replicas.","who_is_protected":"Estates of deceased NY personalities; victims of AI-generated NCII","who_must_comply":"Creators/publishers of digital replicas; deepfake-NCII distributors","citation":"Ch. 304 of 2020 (S5959-D); N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §§ 50-f, 52-c","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/S5959","source_title":"S5959-D — NY Senate","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Private enforcement","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Statutory damages + injunctive relief + attorney's fees"},{"id":"wa-sb-6280-2020-facial-recognition-historical","title":"Washington SB 6280 — State and Local Government Facial Recognition Regulation (Original 2020)","short_title":"WA SB 6280 (2020, first-in-nation state FR-government law)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"WA","state_abbr":"WA","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2021-07-01","enacted_date":"2020-03-31","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Washington SB 6280 (signed March 31, 2020) was the first U.S. state law expressly regulating state and local government use of facial recognition. It requires accountability reports, public notice, warrant requirements for ongoing surveillance, and independent testing for accuracy and bias. Codified at RCW Ch. 43.386. Still in effect 2026.","summary_technical":"SB 6280 (2020 Reg. Sess.), RCW Ch. 43.386 — requires a state or local government agency that intends to deploy a facial recognition service to (1) file a notice of intent with its legislative authority, (2) produce a publicly available accountability report covering data types, security, training data, and impact on civil rights/liberties, (3) obtain a warrant for ongoing surveillance, (4) ensure independent third-party testing for accuracy disparities by race, gender, and skin tone, (5) ensure meaningful human review for decisions producing legal effect. Effective July 1, 2021.","who_is_protected":"Washington residents subject to government facial recognition","who_must_comply":"Washington state and local government agencies","citation":"RCW Ch. 43.386 (SB 6280, 2020)","source_url":"https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=6280&Year=2019&Initiative=false","source_title":"SB 6280 — Washington State Legislature","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Internal agency oversight + courts (private right of action under §43.386.080)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Injunctive and declaratory relief; reasonable costs and attorneys' fees"},{"id":"va-sb-1392-2020-fr-police-moratorium","title":"Virginia SB 1392 / HB 2031 — Local Law Enforcement Facial Recognition Moratorium (Original 2020-21)","short_title":"VA SB 1392 / HB 2031 (2021 FR moratorium, narrowed 2022)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"VA","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement"],"status":"repealed","strength":"unknown","effective_date":"2021-07-01","enacted_date":"2021-04-07","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Virginia's 2021 facial recognition moratorium (HB 2031, with Sen. Boysko's SB 1392 companion) prohibited local law enforcement use of facial recognition without legislative authorization. It was rolled back in 2022 by HB 1352 / SB 741 which authorized use with constraints — making the 2021 moratorium one of the shortest-lived state AI restrictions on record.","summary_technical":"HB 2031 / SB 1392 (2021 Reg. Sess.) — added Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2 prohibiting local law enforcement and campus police from purchasing or using facial recognition technology absent express legislative authorization. Effective July 1, 2021. Substantially repealed/replaced July 1, 2022 by HB 1352 / SB 741 (2022 Reg. Sess.), which authorized local police use of FR services subject to accuracy testing, audit logs, and use restrictions.","who_is_protected":"Virginians subject to local police FR (was)","who_must_comply":"Virginia local law enforcement and campus police (was)","citation":"Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2 (former, HB 2031 / SB 1392 2021) — substantially superseded by HB 1352 / SB 741 (2022)","source_url":"https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?211+sum+HB2031","source_title":"HB 2031 — Virginia LIS","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Internal department oversight (was)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"san-francisco-stop-secret-surveillance-2019-historical","title":"San Francisco Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance — First U.S. City Government FR Ban (Admin. Code Ch. 19B)","short_title":"SF Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance (2019, first-in-nation)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Francisco, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"San Francisco","city":"San Francisco","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2019-07-15","enacted_date":"2019-06-14","last_verified_date":"2026-07-03","summary_plain":"San Francisco became the first city in the United States to ban its own government — including police — from using facial recognition technology. The Board of Supervisors gave final passage 10-1 on June 4, 2019; the ordinance became law without the mayor's signature on June 14, 2019 and took effect July 15, 2019, codified at SF Admin. Code Chapter 19B. It also requires Board approval and public use policies before city departments acquire any other surveillance technology. Still in effect 2026 and the template for municipal facial-recognition bans nationwide.","summary_technical":"Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance, Ord. No. 107-19 (File No. 190568, amendment-of-the-whole successor to File 190110; final passage 10-1 on June 4, 2019; enacted unsigned June 14, 2019; effective July 15, 2019), codified at SF Admin. Code Chapter 19B — prohibits city departments from obtaining, retaining, accessing, or using face surveillance technology or information derived from it; conditions other surveillance-technology acquisition on Board-approved use policies with surveillance impact reports. Ch. 19B.8 provides a cause of action for injunctive/declaratory relief. Modified by Proposition E (March 2024) for certain SFPD technology pilots; the facial-recognition ban itself stands.","who_is_protected":"San Francisco residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"All City and County of San Francisco departments, including SFPD","citation":"S.F. Ordinance No. 107-19 (2019); S.F. Admin. Code ch. 19B","source_url":"https://sfbos.archive.sf.gov/sites/default/files/o0107-19.pdf","source_title":"S.F. Ordinance No. 107-19 (enrolled) — Board of Supervisors","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Board of Supervisors / City Attorney; judicial enforcement","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Injunctive and declaratory relief; attorney's fees for prevailing plaintiffs (Ch. 19B.8)"},{"id":"oakland-fr-ban-2019-historical","title":"Oakland Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance — Government FR Ban (July 16, 2019)","short_title":"Oakland Government FR Ban (2019)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Oakland, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Alameda","city":"Oakland","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2019-08-15","enacted_date":"2019-07-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"On July 16, 2019, Oakland became the third U.S. city (after San Francisco and Somerville, MA) to ban government use of facial recognition. Council expanded the ban in December 2020 to also cover predictive policing and voice/gait biometric surveillance — the first U.S. city to do so. Still in effect 2026.","summary_technical":"Oakland Surveillance and Community Safety Ord. (No. 13525, July 16, 2019; expanded by Ord. No. 13641, Dec. 15, 2020), Oakland Mun. Code Ch. 9.64 — prohibits city use of face recognition technology; requires public-use policies and Council approval for any surveillance technology acquisition. December 2020 amendment added first-in-nation municipal bans on predictive policing and other biometric surveillance (voice, gait recognition).","who_is_protected":"Oakland residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"All City of Oakland departments, including Oakland Police","citation":"Oakland Mun. Code Ch. 9.64 (2019, expanded 2020)","source_url":"https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3979432&GUID=B252C4A5-CFA6-49D9-AEDC-8C19E1B7E022","source_title":"Oakland Surveillance Ord. — Legistar","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission + internal compliance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil action; injunctive relief"},{"id":"berkeley-fr-ban-2019-historical","title":"Berkeley Face Recognition Acquisition Prohibition (Ord. 7,676-N.S., Oct. 15, 2019)","short_title":"Berkeley Government FR Ban (2019)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Berkeley, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Alameda","city":"Berkeley","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2019-11-14","enacted_date":"2019-10-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"On October 15, 2019, Berkeley enacted Ordinance 7,676-N.S., prohibiting the City Manager and any city agent from obtaining, retaining, accessing, or using facial recognition technology — making Berkeley the fourth U.S. city to ban government FR. Codified at Berkeley Mun. Code Ch. 2.99. Still in effect 2026.","summary_technical":"Berkeley Ord. No. 7,676-N.S. (Oct. 15, 2019), codified at Berkeley Mun. Code Ch. 2.99 — prohibits the City Manager or any subordinate or agent from obtaining, retaining, requesting, accessing, or using (1) face recognition technology or (2) information derived from face recognition technology. Chapter 2.99 also requires Council-approved surveillance use policies and acquisition reports for all surveillance technology.","who_is_protected":"Berkeley residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"All City of Berkeley departments, including Berkeley Police","citation":"Berkeley Mun. Code Ch. 2.99 (Ord. 7,676-N.S., 2019)","source_url":"https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019-10-29%20Item%2001%20Ordinance%207676.pdf","source_title":"Berkeley Ord. 7,676-N.S. — City Clerk","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Internal compliance + Council oversight","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil action; injunctive relief"},{"id":"portland-or-fr-ban-2020-historical","title":"Portland (OR) Face Recognition Bans — Public + Private Sector (Sept. 9, 2020)","short_title":"Portland OR Twin FR Bans (2020, broadest-in-nation)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Portland, OR","state_abbr":"OR","county":"Multnomah","city":"Portland","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2021-01-01","enacted_date":"2020-09-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"On September 9, 2020, Portland, Oregon became the first U.S. city to ban both government AND private-sector use of facial recognition in places of public accommodation. The private-sector ban — codified at Portland City Code Ch. 34.10 — included a private right of action and remains the broadest municipal FR ban in the United States.","summary_technical":"Portland passed two ordinances simultaneously on Sept. 9, 2020: (1) Ord. No. 190113 — Portland City Code Ch. 34.10, prohibiting private entities from using face recognition technologies in places of public accommodation (private right of action, $1,000/day per violation or actual damages); (2) Ord. No. 190114 — prohibiting city-bureau use of face recognition. Effective Jan. 1, 2021 (private sector); immediately on adoption (city bureaus).","who_is_protected":"Portland residents and visitors at public accommodations","who_must_comply":"City of Portland bureaus + all private entities operating public accommodations in Portland","citation":"Portland City Code Ch. 34.10 (private-sector); Council Action Sept. 9, 2020","source_url":"https://www.portland.gov/bps/com-tech/smart-city-pdx/news/2020/9/9/city-council-approves-ordinances-banning-use-face","source_title":"Portland Ordinances 190113 + 190114 — City Council","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City Attorney + private right of action (private-sector ord.)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Private right of action — $1,000/day per violation or actual damages (private-sector ord.)"},{"id":"somerville-ma-fr-ban-2019-historical","title":"Somerville, MA Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance — First East Coast (June 27, 2019)","short_title":"Somerville Face Surveillance Ban (2019, first East Coast)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Somerville, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Middlesex","city":"Somerville","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2019-06-27","enacted_date":"2019-06-27","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"On June 27, 2019, Somerville, MA became the first East Coast city — and the second U.S. city overall after San Francisco — to ban its government from using face surveillance technology. Unanimous council vote. Catalyzed a Massachusetts municipal FR ban wave including Brookline, Cambridge, Northampton, and Springfield. Still in effect 2026.","summary_technical":"Somerville Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance (June 27, 2019, Somerville Code Ch. 9) — prohibits any city department, including police, from obtaining, retaining, accessing, or using face surveillance systems or information derived from them. Predates Massachusetts statewide police FR limits (St. 2020, c. 253 § 105, effective July 1, 2021) by two years.","who_is_protected":"Somerville residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"All City of Somerville departments, including Somerville Police","citation":"Somerville, Mass., Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance (June 27, 2019)","source_url":"https://library.municode.com/ma/somerville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH9OFMIPR_ARTIIIOFAGPE_DIV1GE_S9-25BAUSFARESUTE","source_title":"Somerville First East Coast FR Ban — ACLU Press Release","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Internal compliance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Injunctive relief via city civil action"},{"id":"ny-s3971b-2019-ai-commission-died","title":"New York S3971B — Temporary State Commission to Study AI Regulation (DIED)","short_title":"NY S3971B (2019, AI study commission, died)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NY","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"New York S3971B (Savino, 2019) would have created a temporary state commission to study AI regulation across New York agencies. Died in the Assembly Governmental Operations committee — but the commission framework became the model for later state AI task force statutes nationwide.","summary_technical":"S3971B (2019-20 Reg. Sess., Savino) — would have created a 13-member temporary state commission to study how AI is currently used in New York state agencies, identify regulatory gaps, and recommend legislation by December 1, 2020. Passed Senate 60-1 (May 7, 2019); died in Assembly Governmental Operations committee (session ended Jan. 8, 2020).","who_is_protected":"New Yorkers (study only — would have)","who_must_comply":"State agencies subject to commission inquiry (would have)","citation":"N.Y. S3971B (2019-20 Reg. Sess.) — died in Assembly","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/S3971","source_title":"S3971B — NY Senate","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Would have been temporary commission","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-fy21-ndaa-ai-procurement-7224","title":"FY21 NDAA §7224 — Federal AI Procurement Pilot (Pub. L. 116-283)","short_title":"FY21 NDAA §7224 (AI procurement pilot)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2021-01-01","enacted_date":"2021-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Section 7224 of the FY21 NDAA (William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act, Pub. L. 116-283) directed the Department of Defense to establish AI ethics steering committees and procurement pilots. One of the earliest federal AI-specific procurement guardrails, predating the EO 14110 framework by nearly three years.","summary_technical":"Pub. L. No. 116-283, §7224 (William M. (Mac) Thornberry NDAA for FY21, Jan. 1, 2021) — directed DoD to (1) establish a DoD AI ethics committee, (2) conduct AI procurement pilots focused on data labeling, model evaluation, and adversarial testing, (3) report annually to congressional defense committees on AI-related procurement metrics. Section enacted via congressional override of Trump veto on Jan. 1, 2021.","who_is_protected":"DoD AI contracting + downstream procurement ecosystem","who_must_comply":"Department of Defense","citation":"Pub. L. No. 116-283, §7224 (Jan. 1, 2021)","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ283/PLAW-116publ283.pdf","source_title":"Pub. L. 116-283 (FY21 NDAA, PDF)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"DoD CDAO + Inspector General","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-fy22-ndaa-ai-256-dod-test","title":"FY22 NDAA §256 — DoD AI Test and Evaluation Master Plan (Pub. L. 117-81)","short_title":"FY22 NDAA §256 (DoD AI T&E)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2021-12-27","enacted_date":"2021-12-27","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Section 256 of the FY22 NDAA (Pub. L. 117-81) directed the Department of Defense to develop a comprehensive AI test and evaluation master plan covering data quality, model validation, and adversarial robustness. One of several discrete AI-related provisions across the FY22 NDAA — together they formed the federal government's first comprehensive AI safety-testing framework.","summary_technical":"Pub. L. No. 117-81, §256 (Dec. 27, 2021) — directed DoD to develop and submit to Congress a comprehensive AI test and evaluation master plan addressing (1) data quality assurance, (2) model validation and verification methodologies, (3) adversarial robustness testing protocols, (4) deployment monitoring requirements. Related FY22 NDAA AI provisions: §1551 (DoD AI/ML Cyber Threat Information Sharing), §240 (Joint AI Center renamed CDAO), §1542 (AI in cybersecurity).","who_is_protected":"Public via downstream AI safety-testing standards","who_must_comply":"Department of Defense","citation":"Pub. L. No. 117-81, §256 (Dec. 27, 2021)","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ81/PLAW-117publ81.pdf","source_title":"Pub. L. 117-81 (FY22 NDAA, PDF)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"DoD Chief Digital and AI Officer (CDAO)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-fy23-ndaa-ai-7224b","title":"FY23 NDAA §7224B — AI Civilian Agency Use Inventory + Acquisition Updates (Pub. L. 117-263)","short_title":"FY23 NDAA §7224B (civilian AI inventory)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2022-12-23","enacted_date":"2022-12-23","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Section 7224B of the FY23 NDAA (Pub. L. 117-263, the James M. Inhofe NDAA for FY23) extended the federal AI use case inventory requirement from EO 13960 to non-CFO Act civilian agencies and required updated procurement guidance from GSA. Quiet but significant — broadened federal AI transparency baseline beyond defense and major civilian agencies.","summary_technical":"Pub. L. No. 117-263, §7224B (Dec. 23, 2022) — codified the AI use case inventory requirement (originally from EO 13960) for additional civilian agencies; directed GSA to issue updated AI acquisition guidance focusing on bias mitigation, model transparency, and vendor disclosure obligations. Related FY23 NDAA AI provisions: §6504 (intelligence community AI talent pipeline), §1542 (AI deepfake detection capability development).","who_is_protected":"Public interacting with civilian-agency AI systems","who_must_comply":"Civilian federal agencies (broadened from CFO Act agencies)","citation":"Pub. L. No. 117-263, §7224B (Dec. 23, 2022)","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ263/PLAW-117publ263.pdf","source_title":"Pub. L. 117-263 (FY23 NDAA, PDF)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"OMB + GSA","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"il-ai-video-interview-act-2019-historical","title":"Illinois Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act — First-In-Nation Hiring AI Statute (2019)","short_title":"IL AI Video Interview Act (2019, first-in-nation)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"IL","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["employment","automated-decisions","transparency","biometrics"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2020-01-01","enacted_date":"2019-08-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Signed by Governor Pritzker on August 9, 2019, the Illinois AI Video Interview Act was the first U.S. state law specifically regulating AI in hiring. It requires employer notice, applicant consent, and explanation of how AI works before using AI to analyze a video interview. 2022 amendment (P.A. 102-0407) added demographic data collection. Still in effect 2026 at 820 ILCS 42/1 et seq.","summary_technical":"820 ILCS 42/1 et seq. (P.A. 101-0260, eff. Jan. 1, 2020; amended by P.A. 102-0407, eff. Jan. 1, 2022) — requires employers using AI to analyze video interviews for Illinois positions to (1) notify each applicant that AI may be used, (2) explain how the AI works and the characteristics it considers, (3) obtain applicant consent before the interview, (4) limit AI video access to those whose expertise is needed for evaluation, (5) destroy videos within 30 days of applicant request. 2022 amendment added requirement to collect/report race/ethnicity data on AI-evaluated applicants.","who_is_protected":"Illinois job applicants subject to AI video interview analysis","who_must_comply":"Employers using AI to analyze video interviews for positions in Illinois","citation":"820 ILCS 42/1 et seq. (P.A. 101-0260, 2019; P.A. 102-0407, 2021)","source_url":"https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/ILCS/Articles?ActID=4015&ChapterID=68","source_title":"820 ILCS 42 — Illinois General Assembly","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Illinois Department of Labor + Illinois AG","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No express penalty in statute; enforced via Personnel Records Review Act-style remedies"},{"id":"il-bipa-2008-historical","title":"Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act — First-In-Nation Biometric Statute (P.A. 95-994, 2008)","short_title":"IL BIPA (2008, first-in-nation biometric law)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"IL","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["biometrics","facial-recognition","privacy","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2008-10-03","enacted_date":"2008-10-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Signed October 3, 2008, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) was the first state biometric privacy law in the United States — and remains the most powerful. Its private right of action and statutory damages ($1,000 negligent / $5,000 intentional per violation) have driven major class-action settlements, including the $650M Facebook face-tagging settlement (2021) and TikTok's $92M consumer-privacy MDL settlement that included BIPA claims (final approval July 28, 2022). 2024 amendment (P.A. 103-0769) limited claims to one accrual per person per collection method. Still in effect 2026.","summary_technical":"740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. (P.A. 95-994, Oct. 3, 2008) — first state biometric privacy statute in the U.S. Requires private entities to (1) develop a publicly available written retention/destruction schedule, (2) obtain informed written consent (since 2024 amendment, electronic signatures qualify) before collection of biometric identifiers, (3) destroy biometric data within 3 years of last interaction or when initial collection purpose is satisfied. Private right of action with statutory damages of $1,000 (negligent) / $5,000 (intentional or reckless) per violation, plus attorneys' fees. P.A. 103-0769 (2024) limited recovery to a single accrual per person per collection method. Notable settlements: Patel v. Facebook ($650M, 2021), In re TikTok, Inc. Consumer Privacy Litig., MDL No. 2948 (N.D. Ill.) ($92M settlement fund incl. BIPA claims; final approval July 28, 2022), Cothron v. White Castle (reaffirmed per-scan accrual prior to 2024 amendment).","who_is_protected":"Illinois residents subject to biometric collection","who_must_comply":"Private entities collecting biometric identifiers or information","citation":"740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. (P.A. 95-994, 2008; amended P.A. 103-0769, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/ILCS/Articles?ActID=3004&ChapterID=57","source_title":"740 ILCS 14 — Illinois General Assembly","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Private enforcement (no agency action required)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"$1,000 negligent / $5,000 intentional per violation + attorneys' fees"},{"id":"ca-sb-7-2025-vetoed","title":"California SB 7 — No Robo Bosses Act: Employment Automated Decision Systems (VETOED)","short_title":"CA SB 7 No Robo Bosses Act (vetoed 2025)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CA","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["automated-decisions","employment","transparency"],"status":"vetoed","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"California SB 7 ('No Robo Bosses Act'), authored by Sen. Jerry McNerney, would have required employers to give workers written notice before using automated decision systems (ADS) for employment decisions such as scheduling, discipline or termination, to tell job applicants when ADS is used in hiring, and to use a human reviewer when relying primarily on an ADS to discipline, fire or deactivate a worker. Workers could have requested a copy of their own data used in such decisions. It passed both chambers and was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 13, 2025; the Senate sustained the veto on March 2, 2026.","summary_technical":"SB 7 (McNerney, 2025-26 Reg. Sess.) — would have added Part 5.5.5 (§ 1520 et seq.) to the California Labor Code: (1) written pre-use notice to affected workers at least 30 days before an ADS is first deployed for non-hiring employment decisions, plus an updated list of ADS in use and notice to job applicants when ADS is used in hiring; (2) prohibited uses of ADS (e.g., to violate labor/civil-rights law or infer protected status); (3) when an employer relies primarily on ADS output for a discipline, termination or deactivation decision, a human reviewer must review the output and other relevant information; (4) written post-use notice to the affected worker and a right to request a copy of the most recent 12 months of the worker's own data used (once per 12 months); (5) anti-retaliation; enforcement by the Labor Commissioner with a $500 civil penalty. Vetoed October 13, 2025; veto sustained March 2, 2026. Successor bill SB 947 was enrolled and presented to the Governor on September 9, 2026.","who_is_protected":"California employees and job applicants subject to automated employment decision systems — would have","who_must_comply":"California employers using automated decision systems for covered employment actions — would have","citation":"Cal. SB 7 (2025 Reg. Sess.) — vetoed Oct. 13, 2025","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB7","source_title":"California Legislature: SB 7 (2025 Session) — No Robo Bosses Act","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Would have been California Labor Commissioner"},{"id":"ca-sb-1047-2024-vetoed","title":"California SB 1047 — Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier AI Models Act (VETOED)","short_title":"CA SB 1047 (vetoed)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CA","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["automated-decisions","transparency","consumer-protection"],"status":"vetoed","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"California SB 1047 would have required safety testing, kill-switches, and developer liability for frontier AI models trained above compute/cost thresholds. Governor Newsom vetoed it on September 29, 2024 — a landmark veto that reshaped the U.S. frontier-AI policy debate.","summary_technical":"SB 1047 (Wiener) — would have imposed safety-testing, shutdown-capability, third-party-audit, and incident-reporting duties on developers of 'covered models' (≥$100M training cost or ≥10^26 FLOPS), with whistleblower protections and AG enforcement. Vetoed Sept. 29, 2024; veto message cited risk that the bill would burden smaller models without targeting genuine frontier risks.","who_is_protected":"Public at large — would have addressed catastrophic-risk scenarios from frontier AI models","who_must_comply":"Developers of covered AI models (would have)","citation":"Cal. SB 1047 (2023-24 Reg. Sess.) — vetoed Sept. 29, 2024","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1047","source_title":"Veto Message — SB 1047 (Sept. 29, 2024)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Would have been California Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"va-hb-2094-2025-vetoed","title":"Virginia HB 2094 — High-Risk Artificial Intelligence Developer and Deployer Act (VETOED)","short_title":"VA HB 2094 (vetoed)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"VA","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["automated-decisions","consumer-protection","employment"],"status":"vetoed","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Virginia HB 2094 would have imposed Colorado-style duties on developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems with consumer disclosures and impact assessments. Governor Youngkin vetoed it on March 24, 2025 — the first red-state veto of an EU-AI-Act-style framework.","summary_technical":"HB 2094 (2025) — would have required developers/deployers of 'high-risk AI systems' to use reasonable care to prevent algorithmic discrimination, complete impact assessments, provide consumer notice, and notify regulators of incidents; AG enforcement, no private right of action. Vetoed Mar. 24, 2025 citing innovation concerns and EU-AI-Act overreach.","who_is_protected":"Virginians affected by high-risk automated decisions (employment, housing, credit, education, healthcare) — would have","who_must_comply":"Developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems (would have)","citation":"Va. HB 2094 (2025) — vetoed Mar. 24, 2025","source_url":"https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20251/HB2094","source_title":"HB 2094 — Virginia LIS","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Would have been Virginia Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-ab-2930-2024-died","title":"California AB 2930 — Automated Decision Systems (DIED in Senate Appropriations)","short_title":"CA AB 2930 (died)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CA","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["automated-decisions","employment","consumer-protection"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"California AB 2930 (Bauer-Kahan) would have imposed algorithmic-discrimination duties on developers and deployers of automated decision tools used for consequential decisions. Held on Senate Appropriations suspense file in August 2024 — never received floor vote.","summary_technical":"AB 2930 (2023-24) — would have required impact assessments, governance programs, and consumer disclosures for ADS used in employment, housing, education, healthcare, financial services, and essential utilities. Held on suspense file Aug. 31, 2024.","who_is_protected":"Californians affected by consequential automated decisions (would have)","who_must_comply":"Developers and deployers of automated decision tools (would have)","citation":"Cal. AB 2930 (2023-24 Reg. Sess.) — held on suspense file Aug. 31, 2024","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2930","source_title":"AB 2930 — California Legislative Information","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Would have been California Civil Rights Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-ab-2839-2024-enjoined","title":"California AB 2839 — Materially Deceptive Election Content (PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED)","short_title":"CA AB 2839 (enjoined)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CA","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["deepfakes","elections"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-09-17","enacted_date":"2024-09-17","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"California AB 2839 banned knowingly distributing materially deceptive AI-generated or digitally altered election content about candidates, election officials and voting equipment in the 120 days before an election (and, for election officials and equipment, up to 60 days after). A federal court preliminarily blocked it on October 2, 2024 in Kohls v. Bonta, and on August 29, 2025 the court granted summary judgment to the challengers, holding the law violates the First Amendment and permanently barring the state from enforcing it against the plaintiffs. California did not appeal that ruling; its pending Ninth Circuit appeal (No. 25-6138) concerns only the companion platform law, AB 2655.","summary_technical":"AB 2839 (Stats. 2024, ch. 262, urgency statute effective Sept. 17, 2024) added Elec. Code § 20012, prohibiting a person, committee or entity from knowingly distributing, with malice, an advertisement or other election communication containing materially deceptive content depicting candidates, elections officials, elected officials, or election equipment, during the 120 days before an election (and for elections officials/equipment through 60 days after). Enforcement is civil only: injunctive relief and actions for general or special damages by recipients, candidates/committees or elections officials, with attorney's fees. Preliminary injunction issued Oct. 2, 2024 (E.D. Cal., Mendez J.) in Kohls v. Bonta; summary judgment for plaintiffs and permanent injunction against enforcement as to the named plaintiffs Aug. 29, 2025 (ECF 101, 102). The State's notice of appeal (ECF 106, 9th Cir. No. 25-6138) covers only the Aug. 20, 2025 AB 2655 judgment; the State's opening brief states 'AB 2839 and its validity are not at issue on this appeal.' The case was consolidated with Babylon Bee LLC v. Bonta (No. 2:24-cv-02787); the full caption is Kohls v. Bonta, No. 2:24-cv-02527-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal.).","who_is_protected":"California voters from election disinformation (would have)","who_must_comply":"Distributors of AI-generated political content (suspended)","citation":"Cal. AB 2839 (2024), Stats. 2024, ch. 262 (Elec. Code § 20012); Kohls v. Bonta, No. 2:24-cv-02527-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal.)","source_url":"https://epic.org/documents/kohls-v-bonta/","source_title":"Preliminary Injunction Order — Kohls v. Bonta (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2024)","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Attorney General / county DAs","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil remedies only: injunctive or other equitable relief and actions for general or special damages, plus attorney's fees and costs (currently unenforceable against the plaintiffs under the Aug. 29, 2025 permanent injunction)"},{"id":"ca-ab-2655-2024-enjoined","title":"California AB 2655 — Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act (STRUCK DOWN — permanently enjoined Aug. 2025; State appeal filed)","short_title":"CA AB 2655 (struck down)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CA","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["deepfakes","elections"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-09-17","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"California AB 2655 would have required large online platforms (1 million+ California users) to block or label materially deceptive AI-generated election content during set windows around California elections. It is NOT enforceable: on August 20, 2025 a federal court in Kohls v. Bonta (E.D. Cal.) entered final judgment and a permanent injunction holding the law violates and is preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and the State agreed not to enforce AB 2655 against any online service provider. California filed a notice of appeal on September 19, 2025.","summary_technical":"AB 2655 (Ch. 261, Stats. 2024; signed Sept. 17, 2024; non-urgency, so operative Jan. 1, 2025) added Cal. Elec. Code §§ 20510–20520: a 'large online platform' (>= 1,000,000 California users in the preceding 12 months) had to block materially deceptive content depicting candidates, elected officials or elections officials from 120 days before an election through Election Day (60 days after for elections-official content) and label such content from six months before through Election Day, plus provide a California-resident reporting mechanism; the AG, district attorneys, city attorneys, candidates and officials could seek injunctive or other equitable relief on clear and convincing evidence (no damages). LITIGATION: Kohls v. Bonta, No. 2:24-cv-02527-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal., consolidated with X Corp. and Rumble suits). Judge Mendez ruled from the bench Aug. 5, 2025, granting plaintiffs summary judgment because AB 2655 'violates and is preempted by' 47 U.S.C. § 230; ECF 98 (Aug. 20, 2025) entered the Order and Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction as to AB 2655 in favor of X Corp. and Rumble. ECF 100 (stipulation, Aug. 2025): Defendants shall not enforce AB 2655 in its entirety against any provider of an interactive computer service (47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2)); First Amendment claims not reached. ECF 106 (Sept. 19, 2025): notice of appeal by Bonta and Weber as to ECF 98. The companion AB 2839 was separately struck (ECF 101, Aug. 29, 2025).","who_is_protected":"California voters, candidates and election officials (law not enforceable while the judgment stands)","who_must_comply":"Large online platforms (permanently enjoined / State stipulated non-enforcement)","citation":"Cal. AB 2655 (Ch. 261, Stats. 2024), Cal. Elec. Code §§ 20510–20520; Kohls v. Bonta, No. 2:24-cv-02527 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2025) (final judgment and permanent injunction; appeal noticed Sept. 19, 2025)","source_url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.caed.453046/gov.uscourts.caed.453046.98.0.pdf","source_title":"Kohls v. Bonta, No. 2:24-cv-02527 (E.D. Cal.), ECF 98 — Order and Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction as to AB 2655 (Aug. 20, 2025)","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Would have been: California Attorney General, district attorneys, city attorneys; candidates/officials had injunctive standing","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Injunctive or other equitable relief only (no statutory damages) — not currently enforceable"},{"id":"ct-sb-2-2024-died","title":"Connecticut SB 2 — Artificial Intelligence Act (DIED, never called for House vote)","short_title":"CT SB 2 (died)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CT","state_abbr":"CT","topics":["automated-decisions","deepfakes","consumer-protection"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Connecticut SB 2 was a comprehensive AI bill mirroring Colorado SB24-205. Passed the Senate in 2024 but was never called for a House vote after Governor Lamont opposition over potential business impact.","summary_technical":"SB 2 (2024, Sen. Maroney) — would have created duties for developers/deployers of consequential ADS, established an AI Office, imposed disclosure requirements on deepfakes and GenAI training data. Passed Senate as amended by Senate Amendments A and B on Apr. 24, 2024; placed on the House calendar (No. 426) Apr. 25, 2024 but never called for a House vote before the session ended.","who_is_protected":"Connecticut residents affected by consequential automated decisions (would have)","who_must_comply":"Developers and deployers of consequential AI systems (would have)","citation":"Conn. SB 2 (2024 Reg. Sess.) — died in House","source_url":"https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB00002&which_year=2024","source_title":"SB 2 — Connecticut General Assembly","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Would have been Connecticut Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-obbba-ai-moratorium-stripped","title":"One Big Beautiful Bill Act Section 43201 — 10-Year State AI Law Moratorium (STRIPPED 99-1)","short_title":"OBBBA §43201 (stripped)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-07-04","summary_plain":"Section 43201 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1, 2025) would have imposed a 10-year moratorium on state AI laws. The Senate stripped it on a 99-1 vote on July 1, 2025 — the most significant failed federal preemption attempt against state AI regulation. The OBBBA was signed into law on July 4, 2025 without the AI moratorium.","summary_technical":"OBBBA §43201 (H.R. 1, 2025) — proposed to preempt state laws limiting or imposing duties on AI models, systems, or automated decision systems for 10 years. Stripped via Blackburn amendment on Senate floor, July 1, 2025 (vote-a-rama); final 99-1 vote. OBBBA enacted July 4, 2025 without the AI preemption provision.","who_is_protected":"State legislative authority over AI policy preserved","who_must_comply":"Would have preempted state regulators","citation":"OBBBA §43201 — stripped July 1, 2025 (99-1); OBBBA enacted July 4, 2025","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1","source_title":"H.R. 1 — One Big Beautiful Bill Act","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Would have been federal","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-fy26-ndaa-ai-preemption-failed","title":"FY26 NDAA AI State-Law Preemption Amendment (FAILED)","short_title":"FY26 NDAA AI preemption (failed)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["automated-decisions"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"A Cruz-led amendment to the FY26 NDAA would have preempted state AI regulation under a defense-nexus theory. The amendment was not adopted in conference, the second failed federal preemption attempt within a year.","summary_technical":"S.Amdt. to S. 2296 (2025, Cruz) — would have preempted state AI laws affecting Defense Department contractors or critical-infrastructure operators under federal defense authority. Conference committee did not adopt; FY26 NDAA enacted Dec. 17, 2025 without AI preemption provisions.","who_is_protected":"State legislative authority preserved","who_must_comply":"Would have preempted state regulators","citation":"FY26 NDAA preemption amendment (S.Amdt. to S. 2296) — not adopted","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2296","source_title":"S. 2296 — FY26 NDAA","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Would have been federal","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-apra-draft-dead","title":"American Privacy Rights Act AI/ADMT Provisions (DRAFT, NOT INTRODUCED)","short_title":"APRA AI provisions (dead)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"The American Privacy Rights Act discussion draft (April 2024) included algorithmic impact assessment requirements. It was pulled from House markup in June 2024 — the last serious federal ADMT framework before the current 2026 federal drafts.","summary_technical":"APRA discussion draft (Rodgers/Cantwell, April 2024) — proposed federal comprehensive privacy law with covered-algorithm impact assessment requirements, opt-out for consequential decisions, and pre-deployment evaluation. Pulled from June 27, 2024 markup; never formally introduced as bill.","who_is_protected":"Would have established federal floor for ADMT rights","who_must_comply":"Would have applied to covered entities (excluding small businesses)","citation":"APRA Discussion Draft (Apr. 2024) — pulled from markup June 27, 2024","source_url":"https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/committee-chairs-rodgers-cantwell-unveil-historic-draft-comprehensive-data-privacy-legislation","source_title":"Committee chairs unveil APRA draft — Energy & Commerce","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Would have been FTC + state AGs","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-ab-3211-2024-died","title":"California AB 3211 — California Digital Content Provenance Standards (DIED on suspense)","short_title":"CA AB 3211 (died)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CA","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["transparency","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"California AB 3211 would have required watermarking and provenance metadata on generative AI outputs from large model providers. Died on the Senate Appropriations suspense file in August 2024.","summary_technical":"AB 3211 (Wicks, 2024) — would have required (1) covered GenAI providers to apply C2PA-style content provenance to AI-generated content, (2) device manufacturers to enable provenance reading, (3) labeling of AI-detection tools. Held on suspense file Aug. 31, 2024.","who_is_protected":"Californians from undisclosed AI content (would have)","who_must_comply":"Large GenAI providers, device makers (would have)","citation":"Cal. AB 3211 (2023-24 Reg. Sess.) — died on suspense","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB3211","source_title":"AB 3211 — California Legislative Information","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Would have been California Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ny-s7623b-2024-died","title":"New York S7623 — Electronic Monitoring and Automated Employment Decision Tools (DIED in committee)","short_title":"NY S7623B (died)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NY","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"New York S7623 would have limited how employers electronically monitor workers and barred them from using automated hiring or employment-decision tools unless the tool had an independent bias audit within the past year, with advance notice to workers and candidates, penalties and a right to sue. It was amended three times but never left the Senate Labor Committee and died when the 2023-2024 session ended.","summary_technical":"S7623 (2023-24, Hoylman-Sigal; same-as A9315) — would have restricted employer electronic monitoring to specified purposes using the least invasive means with prior written notice, and prohibited use of automated employment decision tools absent an independent bias audit/impact assessment within the prior year, with notice to candidates and employees, human review, civil penalties ($500-$1,500 per violation) and a private right of action. Introduced Aug. 4, 2023; amended as S7623A (Oct. 18, 2023), S7623B (Apr. 12, 2024) and S7623C (May 31, 2024); never reported out of the Senate Labor Committee.","who_is_protected":"New Yorkers (would have)","who_must_comply":"ADS deployers (would have)","citation":"N.Y. S7623-C (2023-24 Reg. Sess.) — died in Senate Labor Committee","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S7623/amendment/B","source_title":"S7623B — NY Senate","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Would have been Attorney General","private_right_of_action":true},{"id":"ok-hb-3577-2024-died","title":"Oklahoma HB 3577 — Bill of Rights for AI (DIED, no Senate floor vote)","short_title":"OK HB 3577 (died)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"OK","state_abbr":"OK","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Oklahoma HB 3577 was a red-state AI rights framework with consumer disclosure requirements. Passed the House in 2024 but never received a Senate floor vote.","summary_technical":"HB 3577 (2024) — would have established AI disclosure requirements for high-risk uses and prohibited AI-based discrimination. Passed House Mar. 12, 2024; died on Senate floor calendar (session ended May 31, 2024).","who_is_protected":"Oklahomans (would have)","who_must_comply":"High-risk AI deployers (would have)","citation":"Okla. HB 3577 (2024 Reg. Sess.) — died on Senate floor","source_url":"https://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB3577&Session=2400","source_title":"HB 3577 — Oklahoma Legislature","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Would have been Oklahoma Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-eo-14110-revoked","title":"Executive Order 14110 — Safe, Secure, Trustworthy AI (REVOKED by EO 14179)","short_title":"EO 14110 (revoked)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","transparency"],"status":"repealed","strength":"unknown","effective_date":"2023-10-30","enacted_date":"2023-10-30","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"President Biden's EO 14110 was the foundational federal AI executive order, requiring safety reporting from frontier AI developers under the Defense Production Act and directing federal agencies to develop AI policies. Revoked by President Trump's EO 14148 on January 20, 2025.","summary_technical":"EO 14110 (Oct. 30, 2023) — required safety test reporting under DPA from developers training models above defined compute thresholds; directed NIST to develop AI safety standards (NIST AI 600-1, AISI), agency AI policies (OMB M-24-10), and immigration/research initiatives. Revoked Jan. 20, 2025 by EO 14179 (Trump). Several derivatives (NIST AI RMF, agency policies) survive independently.","who_is_protected":"Public from large-scale AI risks (now via NIST/agency policies)","who_must_comply":"Federal agencies and DPA-covered AI developers (was)","citation":"Exec. Order No. 14110, 88 Fed. Reg. 75191 (Nov. 1, 2023) — revoked by EO 14148 (Jan. 20, 2025)","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/11/01/2023-24283/safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence","source_title":"EO 14110 — Federal Register","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Was federal-government wide; revoked","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-omb-m-24-10-rescinded","title":"OMB Memorandum M-24-10 — Federal Agency AI Governance (RESCINDED)","short_title":"OMB M-24-10 (rescinded)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"repealed","strength":"unknown","effective_date":"2024-03-28","enacted_date":"2024-03-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"OMB M-24-10 was the Biden-era binding OMB rule requiring federal agencies to designate Chief AI Officers, inventory AI use cases, and adopt minimum risk-management practices for rights/safety-impacting AI. Rescinded and replaced by M-25-21/22 under the Trump OMB on April 3, 2025.","summary_technical":"OMB M-24-10 (Mar. 28, 2024) — required federal agencies to (1) designate a Chief AI Officer, (2) maintain a public AI use case inventory, (3) implement minimum risk management for rights/safety-impacting AI by Dec. 1, 2024, with mandatory impact assessments, real-world performance testing, public notice, and human review. Rescinded Apr. 3, 2025 by M-25-21.","who_is_protected":"Public interacting with federal-agency AI (now under M-25-21/22)","who_must_comply":"Federal agencies (was)","citation":"OMB Memo M-24-10 (Mar. 28, 2024) — rescinded by M-25-21 (Apr. 3, 2025)","source_url":"https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/M-24-10-Advancing-Governance-Innovation-and-Risk-Management-for-Agency-Use-of-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf","source_title":"OMB M-24-10 — Whitehouse.gov","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of Management and Budget","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"nyc-ll144-original-draft-historical","title":"NYC Local Law 144 — Original Int. 1894-2020 Draft (HISTORICAL, scope narrowed before enforcement)","short_title":"NYC LL144 (original draft)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York City, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"New York","city":"New York","topics":["employment","automated-decisions"],"status":"repealed","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"NYC's original Int. 1894-2020 draft was substantially broader than the enacted Local Law 144. The narrowed final version took effect January 1, 2023 (DCWP enforcement began July 5, 2023 after final rules) and is the most-cited city AI law globally — original-vs-enacted scope shift is studied widely.","summary_technical":"Int. 1894-2020 original draft — would have imposed broader bias audit, disclosure, and notice duties on automated employment decision tools (AEDTs). Narrowed before enactment as Local Law 144 (Dec. 2021), with further DCWP rules in Apr. 2023; final enforcement Jul. 5, 2023 covers fewer tools and narrower audit standards than the original.","who_is_protected":"NYC job applicants and employees (under narrowed final version)","who_must_comply":"Employers using AEDTs (under narrowed final version)","citation":"NYC Int. 1894-2020 (original) — narrowed before enactment as Local Law 144 of 2021","source_url":"https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4344524&GUID=B051915D-A9AC-451E-81F8-6596032FA3F9","source_title":"Int. 1894-2020 — NYC Council Legistar","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties $500-$1,500 per violation"},{"id":"oh-puco-data-center-energy-service-tariff-2025","title":"Ohio — PUCO Approves a Data Center Energy Service Tariff Requiring New Data Center Customers to Pay for a MINIMUM OF 85% OF THEIR SUBSCRIBED ELECTRICITY USAGE REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL CONSUMPTION, for Up to 12 Years, Shifting the Risk of Overstated Demand Off Other Ratepayers (July 2025)","short_title":"Ohio PUCO data center energy service tariff, 85% minimum take (2025)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Ohio","state_abbr":"OH","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2025-07-23","enacted_date":"2025-07-09","last_verified_date":"2026-09-22","summary_plain":"In July 2025 the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio approved what a legal survey describes as 'a landmark tariff structure' for data center electricity service. Its core requirement is a MINIMUM TAKE: new data center customers must PAY FOR AT LEAST 85% OF THEIR SUBSCRIBED ELECTRICITY USAGE, REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL CONSUMPTION, for UP TO 12 YEARS. Understanding why that is a consumer protection requires seeing the problem it solves. When a data center asks a utility for hundreds of megawatts, the utility must plan, and often build, generation and transmission to serve it. Those costs are recovered from the whole ratepayer base over decades. If the data center then uses far less than it subscribed for — because the project shrank, the AI buildout slowed, or it was only ever speculative interest at several sites at once — the infrastructure still exists and everyone else pays for it. A minimum-take provision moves that risk onto the party that caused it. Subscribe for 500 megawatts and you pay for at least 425, whether you use it or not. It also does something subtler and arguably more valuable: it disciplines the forecast. A developer shopping the same nominal load around five utilities has every reason to overstate demand when subscription is free and no reason to do so when 85% of it is a binding financial commitment. Much of the grid-planning anxiety recorded throughout this dataset — PJM's 2030 reliability warnings, the substation-capacity constraints Eureka's planners described, the ratepayer bills in Tennessee, Oklahoma, New Jersey and Arizona — rests on load forecasts that may be inflated by exactly this dynamic. Ohio's tariff is the mechanism most directly aimed at it, and it operates through utility regulation rather than zoning, which means it reaches every data center in the service territory without any municipality having to act.","summary_technical":"OHIO — DATA CENTER ENERGY SERVICE TARIFF approved by the PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO (PUCO) in JULY 2025, characterised in the located source as 'a landmark tariff structure' and associated with O.R.C. § 4909.18 (the statutory provision governing rate applications). OPERATIVE TERM: new data center customers must 'PAY FOR A MINIMUM OF 85% OF THEIR SUBSCRIBED ELECTRICITY USAGE, REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL CONSUMPTION,' and the tariff applies 'FOR UP TO 12 YEARS.' THIS IS A MINIMUM-TAKE (TAKE-OR-PAY) OBLIGATION AND IT IS A RATEPAYER PROTECTION OF A DIFFERENT KIND FROM EVERYTHING ELSE INDEXED HERE. THE PROBLEM IT ADDRESSES: a large-load interconnection request obliges the utility to plan and frequently to build generation, transmission and distribution, the cost of which is recovered across the rate base over decades. IF SUBSCRIBED LOAD DOES NOT MATERIALISE, THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND ITS COST REMAIN AND ARE SOCIALISED. A minimum-take term assigns the stranded-cost risk to the subscribing customer. SECOND-ORDER EFFECT, WHICH IS ARGUABLY THE MORE IMPORTANT ONE: minimum-take pricing DISCIPLINES THE LOAD FORECAST ITSELF. Speculative or duplicative interconnection requests — the same nominal load queued at several utilities simultaneously — are costless where subscription carries no financial commitment and expensive where 85% of it is binding. THE LOAD-GROWTH PROJECTIONS THAT DRIVE MUCH OF THE POLICY RECORDED IN THIS DATASET DEPEND ON THE INTEGRITY OF THOSE FORECASTS (cf. the deferred PJM 2030 reliability analysis; the Eureka planning record on PG&E substation capacity at ca-eureka-dc-interim-moratorium-and-20k-cap-direction-2026; the Steuben County transmission-routing trigger at in-steuben-county-dc-moratorium-2026). RELATIONSHIP TO THE LEGISLATIVE RATEPAYER COHORT: tn-hb1847-data-center-ratepayer-protection-2026, ok-hb2992-data-center-ratepayer-protection-act-2026, nj-new-jersey-s731-a796-data-center-ratepayer-protection-and-grid-dem-2026 (reported to require ≥85% payment for a minimum of 10 years — CLOSELY PARALLEL TO THIS TARIFF), az-hb2756-utilities-high-load-factor-2026, and federally us-hr-9340-ratepayer-protection-act-2026, which would merely require states to CONSIDER such cost allocation and which died in the Senate. OHIO DID BY TARIFF WHAT CONGRESS COULD NOT DO BY STATUTE, and it did so a year earlier. Regulatory analogues already indexed: sc-public-utility-commission-public-service-commission-of-south-carolina-large-load-tariff and pa-public-utility-commission-pennsylvania-public-utility-commission-model-tariff-framework. INSTRUMENT ADVANTAGE: a commission-approved tariff reaches every qualifying customer in the service territory without municipal action, and is not exposed to the vested-rights and litigation-capacity problems that defeated local moratoria (inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06). CRITICAL UNKNOWNS, ALL FLAGGED: WHICH UTILITY the tariff applies to IS NOT IDENTIFIED in the source; NO MEGAWATT THRESHOLD defining a covered 'data center customer' is given; NO EXIT FEE, EARLY-TERMINATION RIGHT, COLLATERAL OR CREDITWORTHINESS REQUIREMENT is described; and the PUCO case number and exact decision date were not obtained.","who_is_protected":"Ohio electricity ratepayers outside the data center class, who would otherwise bear the cost of generation and transmission built for load that does not materialise","who_must_comply":"New data center customers taking service under the tariff, who must pay for at least 85% of subscribed usage regardless of actual consumption for up to 12 years","citation":"Ohio — PUCO-approved AEP Ohio data center energy service tariff (July 2025), O.R.C. § 4909.18; 85% minimum subscribed-usage payment, 25 MW threshold, up to 12 years","source_url":"https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/from-incentives-to-moratoriums-how-6138321/","source_title":"From Incentives to Moratoriums: How Several Key States Are Responding to Data Centers — JD Supra (law firm survey)","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Contractual — the minimum-take obligation is enforced through the tariff and the service agreement; no separate penalty is described in the located source"},{"id":"oh-dewine-pause-dc-sales-tax-exemption-program-2026","title":"Ohio — Gov. Mike DeWine PAUSES the Data Center Sales and Use Tax Exemption Program Under O.R.C. § 122.175 (May 2026), Withdrawing the State's Principal Financial Inducement While at Least Four Separate Bills to Abolish or Restrict It Sit in the Legislature","short_title":"Ohio — DeWine pause of the data center sales tax exemption program (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Ohio","state_abbr":"OH","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-05-27","enacted_date":"2026-05-27","last_verified_date":"2026-09-22","summary_plain":"Ohio's data center sales and use tax exemption, codified at O.R.C. § 122.175, has been the state's principal financial inducement for data center investment. IN MAY 2026 GOV. MIKE DEWINE PAUSED THE PROGRAM. No end date is stated. This belongs in a protection dataset for the same reason the New Jersey and Ohio tax bills do: withdrawing a subsidy is a different lever from restricting a use, and in some respects a more powerful one. A moratorium tells a developer it must wait. A zoning prohibition tells it to go elsewhere in the state. Suspending the sales tax exemption changes the arithmetic of building in Ohio at all, and it does so without any municipality acting and without raising the vested-rights and litigation-capacity problems that have defeated local pauses elsewhere in this dataset. It is also striking as an executive act. Everything else on this question in Ohio is legislative and pending: HB 646 would impose sweeping data center restrictions on electricity use, water conservation and tax exemptions; SB 374 and HB 957 would each amend § 122.175 to prohibit new data center sales tax exemptions outright; HB 775 touches the section as part of a much larger bill. None of those has passed. The Governor did not wait for them. The pause is correspondingly fragile in exactly the way the statutes would not be — an executive suspension of a statutory program can be lifted by the same or a successor Governor without legislative involvement, which is why the bills still matter. Ohio's local picture is the most extensive in the country: at least 138 municipalities and townships had active data center moratoriums as of September 2026, with 23 effective bans. The state-level story is that the money is being turned off at the same time.","summary_technical":"OHIO — EXECUTIVE PAUSE of the DATA CENTER SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM under O.R.C. § 122.175, imposed by GOV. MIKE DEWINE in MAY 2026. The located source states only: 'Governor Mike DeWine paused the program,' 'In May 2026,' WITH NO STATED END DATE OR DURATION. INSTRUMENT CLASS — FISCAL, NOT LAND-USE. This dataset is overwhelmingly composed of zoning instruments that determine WHERE a facility may be built. A sales and use tax exemption determines WHETHER BUILDING IN THE STATE PENCILS AT ALL. Suspending it (a) operates statewide without municipal action, (b) requires no zoning authority, and (c) does not expose the state to the vested-rights or litigation-capacity failures recorded at inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06 and the Rockford, Cle Elum, Salem, Lowell and Athens matters, because withdrawing a discretionary inducement is not a taking of an entitlement. THE FISCAL-LEVER COHORT NOW RECORDED IN THIS DATASET: oh-house-bill-prohibit-dc-property-tax-exemptions-2026 (Ohio House bill to prohibit PROPERTY tax exemptions, introduced September 2026 by members largely representing urban areas), nj-quijano-ai-dc-delay-and-commission-bill-2026 (delaying subsidies and tax incentives alongside approvals), the New Jersey End Data Center Tax Credits Act reducing available credits from $500M to $250M for AI projects (S4390/A5165), the Illinois pause on its state data center incentives (recorded as a lead), and on the enabling side the Indianapolis Metropolitan Development Commission's $240M tax break for Sabey Data Centers and Kentucky's HB 8 fifty-year sales and use tax exemption. THE LEGISLATIVE BACKDROP, all already indexed as LegiScan imports and all PENDING: legiscan-active-oh-sb374 and legiscan-active-oh-hb957 would each amend § 122.175 to PROHIBIT NEW DATA CENTER SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS from being granted; legiscan-active-oh-hb646 is the sweeping data center bill amending §§ 122.17, 122.175 and 3745.015 and enacting numerous new sections on electricity, water and tax; legiscan-active-oh-hb775 touches § 122.175 within a much larger instrument. THE GOVERNOR ACTED WHILE ALL OF THESE REMAINED PENDING, WHICH IS THE ENTRY'S SIGNIFICANCE AND ALSO ITS WEAKNESS: an executive suspension of a statutory exemption program is revocable by the same or a successor Governor without legislative action, whereas SB 374 or HB 957 would repeal the authority. THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE PAUSE IS NOT STATED IN THE SOURCE — whether it rests on the Development Services Agency's discretion over the granting of exemption certificates, on a directive to that agency, or on some other authority IS UNKNOWN, and the durability question turns on it. LOCAL CONTEXT: at least 138 Ohio municipalities and townships had active data center moratoriums as of 2026-09-17, 23 communities had effectively banned data centers, and at least 23 more across seven counties were considering it — the most extensive local response recorded anywhere in this dataset, of which this dataset indexes only a handful.","who_is_protected":"Ohio taxpayers and the state treasury; indirectly, Ohio communities facing data center development driven by the exemption","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking new sales and use tax exemption certificates in Ohio; the state agency administering the program","citation":"Ohio — Gov. DeWine pause of O.R.C. § 122.175 data center sales and use tax exemption, announced May 27 2026; Ohio Tax Credit Authority directed to stop accepting applications","source_url":"https://governor.ohio.gov/media/news-and-media/governor-dewine-announces-pause-of-data-center-tax-exemption","source_title":"Governor DeWine Announces Pause of Data Center Tax Exemption — Office of the Governor of Ohio","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Office of the Governor of Ohio; the state agency administering the O.R.C. § 122.175 program","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not applicable — the measure withdraws an inducement rather than imposing an obligation"},{"id":"in-ic-6-2-5-15-15-5-data-center-local-revenue-share-2026","title":"Indiana — IC 6-2.5-15-15.5 Requires Data Centers Holding State Sales Tax Exemptions to Pay LOCAL REVENUE SHARE of Up to 1% Quarterly After June 30, 2026, Returning Money to the Communities That Host Them Rather Than Only to the State That Exempted Them","short_title":"Indiana data center local revenue share, IC 6-2.5-15-15.5 (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Indiana","state_abbr":"IN","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-30","enacted_date":"2026-07-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-22","summary_plain":"Indiana grants data centers long-dated sales tax exemptions — 25- or 50-year certificates under IC 6-2.5-15, available at a $50 million minimum investment, alongside property tax abatement under IC 6-1.1-10-44 for investments of $25 million or more. IC 6-2.5-15-15.5 attaches a condition to that generosity: a LOCAL REVENUE SHARE of UP TO 1%, PAID QUARTERLY, for periods after JUNE 30, 2026. The structural problem it addresses runs through this whole dataset. A state grants the exemption and captures the announcement; the host community absorbs the consequences — the grid load, the water draw, the truck traffic, the noise, the substation, the foregone property tax base that would have funded its schools. The Marion County, Florida commissioner who objected that a 49-megawatt facility is the equivalent of 10,000 to 15,000 households was making a version of this point, as was the Cumberland, Rhode Island sponsor who noted a large data center can use as much water in a day as her entire town. A local revenue share does not reduce any of those burdens. What it does is stop the fiscal benefit accruing entirely to the level of government that does not bear them. This is worth recording as a protection of a specific and limited kind: it is COMPENSATORY rather than preventive. It does not restrict siting, cap size, limit water or require disclosure. A community that does not want a data center gets no help from it. A community that is getting one anyway gets a revenue stream it would otherwise have been denied by the very exemption that attracted the project. Indiana's local response has been substantial regardless — nearly one-third of Indiana counties have adopted restrictions, moratoriums, ordinances or bans.","summary_technical":"INDIANA — IC 6-2.5-15-15.5, LOCAL REVENUE SHARE obligation attaching to the data center sales tax exemption regime, requiring payments of UP TO 1% PAID QUARTERLY for periods AFTER JUNE 30, 2026. THE SURROUNDING INCENTIVE STRUCTURE, which is what makes the provision intelligible: IC 6-2.5-15 grants data center SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS via 25- OR 50-YEAR CERTIFICATES; a 2025 amendment extended the exemptions and set a $50 MILLION MINIMUM INVESTMENT threshold; IC 6-1.1-10-44 provides PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT for investments of $25 MILLION OR MORE. Indiana also maintains IC 8-1-7.9 EXPEDITED GENERATION PATHWAYS (90-150 day IURC approval windows) and IC 8-1-46 multi-year rate plans — both enabling rather than protective — and IC 8-1-45, a FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONSTRUCTION BAN. THE STRUCTURAL ASYMMETRY THE REVENUE SHARE ADDRESSES is recorded repeatedly elsewhere in this dataset from the other direction: the STATE grants the exemption, while the HOST COMMUNITY bears grid load, water consumption, noise, traffic, substation siting and the foregone local tax base. See fl-marion-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (Commissioner Bryant: a 49 MW facility equals 10,000-15,000 households); ri-cumberland-dc-zoning-prohibition-ord-26-22-2026 (sponsor: a large data center can use as much water per day as roughly the number of households in the town); oh-house-bill-prohibit-dc-property-tax-exemptions-2026 (urban-area legislators acting because property tax exemptions hit LOCAL government budgets). CLASSIFICATION — THIS IS A COMPENSATORY PROTECTION, NOT A PREVENTIVE ONE, and the distinction should not be blurred. It imposes no siting restriction, no size cap, no water limit, no noise standard and no disclosure duty. It does not help a community that does not want a data center; it channels revenue to one that is receiving a state-exempted facility regardless. `strength` is recorded as moderate on that basis. COMPARISON: this is the inverse of the exemption-withdrawal approach taken at oh-dewine-pause-dc-sales-tax-exemption-program-2026 and proposed at oh-house-bill-prohibit-dc-property-tax-exemptions-2026 and in nj-quijano-ai-dc-delay-and-commission-bill-2026 — Indiana keeps the inducement and shares its cost locally; Ohio and New Jersey would withdraw it. Both are fiscal instruments operating outside zoning. LOCAL CONTEXT: 'nearly one-third of INDIANA COUNTIES have adopted restrictions, moratoriums, ordinances, or bans,' and the Indianapolis Metropolitan Development Commission moratorium runs through 2027 (indianapolis-dc-moratorium-committee-2026, in-indianapolis-dc-temporary-moratorium-2026, in-indianapolis-marion-county-su-47-special-use-data-center-zoning-district-ordinance-2026). NOT OBTAINED: the enacting bill number and date, 1% OF WHAT BASE (the source says 'up to 1% quarterly payments' without identifying the measure — gross receipts, exempted purchases, assessed value or another figure, and THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT GAP), which local units receive the payments and in what proportion, whether the rate is fixed or negotiated, and any enforcement mechanism.","who_is_protected":"Indiana local government units hosting data centers that hold state sales tax exemptions, and their residents","who_must_comply":"Data centers in Indiana holding sales tax exemption certificates, which must make local revenue share payments of up to 1% quarterly for periods after June 30, 2026","citation":"Ind. Code § 6-2.5-15-15.5, enacted via HEA 1210 (2026) — data center local revenue share, up to 1% quarterly, for periods after June 30, 2026","source_url":"https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/from-incentives-to-moratoriums-how-6138321/","source_title":"From Incentives to Moratoriums: How Several Key States Are Responding to Data Centers — JD Supra (law firm survey)","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Indiana Department of Revenue; the Indiana Economic Development Corporation administers the certificate regime","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"litig-nyt-v-openai-microsoft","title":"The New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp. & OpenAI — Copyright Infringement (S.D.N.Y.)","short_title":"NYT v. OpenAI / Microsoft","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"S.D.N.Y.","topics":["copyright","transparency"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-12-27","last_verified_date":"2026-08-09","summary_plain":"The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft in December 2023, alleging the companies copied millions of Times articles to train GPT models and that ChatGPT regurgitates Times content verbatim. The case is the most consequential of the news-publisher AI training-data suits and is in discovery; in March 2025 Judge Sidney Stein largely denied OpenAI's motion to dismiss, allowing the direct, contributory, and DMCA claims to proceed. On July 9, 2026, the NYT and Daily News filed a motion to sanction OpenAI, alleging OpenAI concealed evidence. On August 6, 2026, Judge Stein denied the NYT's motion to amend its complaint to add Microsoft-specific contributory infringement claims, ruling the motion was untimely given the US Supreme Court's March 2026 ruling raising the bar for platform liability.","summary_technical":"The New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y., filed Dec. 27, 2023; Judge Sidney H. Stein). Claims: direct copyright infringement, vicarious / contributory infringement, DMCA § 1202 (removal of copyright-management information), common-law unfair competition by misappropriation, trademark dilution. March 26, 2025 Opinion & Order: motion to dismiss denied as to direct infringement, contributory infringement, and DMCA claims; trademark dilution and certain state-law claims dismissed. Consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Daily News, Center for Investigative Reporting, and other publisher cases as In re OpenAI ChatGPT Litigation (MDL-3143 pending) — informal coordination before Judge Stein. Discovery ongoing. July 9, 2026: NYT and Daily News group filed motion for sanctions against OpenAI, alleging OpenAI hid evidence of its ability to search chat-log and training-dataset records for copyrighted works; OpenAI response pending. August 6, 2026: Judge Stein denied NYT's motion to amend complaint to add Microsoft-specific 'inducement' and 'services tailored to infringement' contributory theories, ruling the amendment was too late following the US Supreme Court's March 2026 ruling raising the bar for platform contributory liability.","who_is_protected":"Copyright holders whose works were allegedly used to train OpenAI's GPT models without license","who_must_comply":"OpenAI (developer), Microsoft (Azure host and commercial distributor of GPT models)","citation":"The New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68117049/the-new-york-times-company-v-microsoft-corporation/","source_title":"NYT v. Microsoft / OpenAI — CourtListener docket 1:23-cv-11195","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-authors-guild-v-openai","title":"Authors Guild v. OpenAI — Class Action by Fiction Authors (S.D.N.Y.)","short_title":"Authors Guild v. OpenAI","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"S.D.N.Y.","topics":["copyright"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-09-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The Authors Guild plus 17 prominent fiction authors (George R.R. Martin, John Grisham, Jodi Picoult, Jonathan Franzen, Michael Connelly, and others) sued OpenAI alleging it copied their books wholesale to train GPT. Filed September 2023, the case was consolidated with related author suits under Judge Sidney Stein.","summary_technical":"Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc., No. 1:23-cv-08292 (S.D.N.Y., filed Sept. 19, 2023; Judge Sidney H. Stein). Putative class action for direct, vicarious, and contributory copyright infringement based on alleged use of Books2 / Books3 / shadow-library corpora to train GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. Consolidated with Alter v. OpenAI (1:23-cv-10211) and related actions. Microsoft added as defendant April 2024. Discovery ongoing as of June 2026.","who_is_protected":"Published fiction authors and the broader class of book authors whose works appear in the training corpora","who_must_comply":"OpenAI, Inc. and affiliated entities; Microsoft Corp.","citation":"Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc., No. 1:23-cv-08292 (S.D.N.Y.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67810584/authors-guild-v-openai-inc/","source_title":"Authors Guild v. OpenAI — CourtListener 1:23-cv-08292","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-tremblay-v-openai","title":"Tremblay v. OpenAI — Author Copyright Class Action (N.D. Cal.)","short_title":"Tremblay v. OpenAI","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"N.D. Cal.","topics":["copyright"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-06-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Authors Paul Tremblay and Mona Awad filed one of the first author copyright suits against OpenAI in the Northern District of California in June 2023, alleging ChatGPT was trained on their copyrighted books without permission. Now consolidated with Silverman, Chabon, and other West Coast author actions before Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín.","summary_technical":"Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-03223 (N.D. Cal., filed June 28, 2023; Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín). Putative class for direct copyright infringement, vicarious infringement, DMCA § 1202, unfair business practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), negligence, and unjust enrichment. Feb. 12, 2024: court dismissed vicarious infringement, DMCA, negligence, and unjust enrichment claims with leave to amend; direct infringement claim survives. Consolidated for case management with Silverman, Chabon, In re OpenAI ChatGPT Litigation.","who_is_protected":"Class of U.S. book authors whose works appear in OpenAI training corpora","who_must_comply":"OpenAI, Inc.","citation":"Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-03223 (N.D. Cal.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67538258/tremblay-v-openai-inc/","source_title":"Tremblay v. OpenAI — CourtListener 3:23-cv-03223","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-silverman-v-openai","title":"Silverman v. OpenAI — Author Copyright Class Action (N.D. Cal.)","short_title":"Silverman v. OpenAI","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"N.D. Cal.","topics":["copyright"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-07-07","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Comedian and author Sarah Silverman, along with Christopher Golden and Richard Kadrey, sued OpenAI in July 2023 alleging ChatGPT was trained on their books via shadow-library datasets like Books3. The case proceeds in N.D. Cal. consolidated with related author actions.","summary_technical":"Silverman v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-03416 (N.D. Cal., filed July 7, 2023; Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín). Mirror of Tremblay complaint with overlapping plaintiffs; same Feb. 12, 2024 partial dismissal applied. Surviving claim: direct copyright infringement. Consolidated for pretrial purposes with Tremblay and Chabon.","who_is_protected":"Class of U.S. book authors whose works appear in shadow-library training corpora","who_must_comply":"OpenAI, Inc.","citation":"Silverman v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-03416 (N.D. Cal.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67569254/silverman-v-openai-inc/","source_title":"Silverman v. OpenAI — CourtListener 3:23-cv-03416","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-kadrey-v-meta","title":"Kadrey v. Meta Platforms — Author Copyright Class Action against Llama (N.D. Cal.)","short_title":"Kadrey v. Meta","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"N.D. Cal.","topics":["copyright"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-07-07","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Authors Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, Christopher Golden — later joined by Junot Díaz, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Andrew Sean Greer and others — sued Meta in July 2023 over the use of pirated books (LibGen / Books3) to train Llama. In June 2025 Judge Chhabria granted Meta partial summary judgment on fair use for these specific plaintiffs, but the ruling was narrow and the case continues on remaining theories.","summary_technical":"Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-03417 (N.D. Cal., filed July 7, 2023; Judge Vince Chhabria). Claims: direct copyright infringement, DMCA § 1202, unfair competition. Nov. 20, 2023: most non-direct-infringement claims dismissed. June 25, 2025: court granted summary judgment to Meta on fair use as applied to these plaintiffs' Llama-training claim, while emphasizing the result was driven by plaintiffs' failure of proof on market harm and was not a categorical endorsement of training-on-pirated-books as fair use. Other plaintiffs in the consolidated proceedings continue to litigate.","who_is_protected":"Class of U.S. book authors whose works appear in LibGen / Books3 training corpora","who_must_comply":"Meta Platforms, Inc.","citation":"Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-03417 (N.D. Cal.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67569326/kadrey-v-meta-platforms-inc/","source_title":"Kadrey v. Meta — CourtListener 3:23-cv-03417","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-chabon-v-openai","title":"Chabon v. OpenAI — Author Copyright Class Action (N.D. Cal.)","short_title":"Chabon v. OpenAI","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"N.D. Cal.","topics":["copyright"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-09-08","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Pulitzer winner Michael Chabon, Ayelet Waldman, David Henry Hwang, and other authors sued OpenAI in September 2023 alleging ChatGPT was trained on their copyrighted books. Consolidated with Tremblay and Silverman before the same judge.","summary_technical":"Chabon v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-04625 (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 8, 2023; Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín). Parallel complaint to Tremblay; same partial-dismissal disposition. Consolidated with Tremblay and Silverman; surviving claim is direct copyright infringement.","who_is_protected":"Class of U.S. book authors with works in OpenAI training corpora","who_must_comply":"OpenAI, Inc.","citation":"Chabon v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-04625 (N.D. Cal.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67778017/chabon-v-openai-inc/","source_title":"Chabon v. OpenAI — CourtListener 3:23-cv-04625","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-chabon-v-meta","title":"Chabon v. Meta Platforms — Author Copyright Action (N.D. Cal.)","short_title":"Chabon v. Meta","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"N.D. Cal.","topics":["copyright"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-09-12","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The same Chabon plaintiff group filed a parallel action against Meta for Llama training, later consolidated into the broader Kadrey v. Meta proceedings.","summary_technical":"Chabon v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-04663 (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 12, 2023; Judge Vince Chhabria). Consolidated with Kadrey v. Meta. Subject to the June 25, 2025 partial summary-judgment ruling on fair use.","who_is_protected":"Class of U.S. book authors with works in Meta's Llama training corpora","who_must_comply":"Meta Platforms, Inc.","citation":"Chabon v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-04663 (N.D. Cal.)","source_url":"https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2023cv04663/418057","source_title":"Chabon v. Meta — CourtListener 3:23-cv-04663","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-andersen-v-stability-ai","title":"Andersen v. Stability AI — Visual Artist Class Action over Stable Diffusion (N.D. Cal.)","short_title":"Andersen v. Stability AI","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"N.D. Cal.","topics":["copyright"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-01-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Visual artists Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz brought the first major image-generator class action, alleging Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway trained text-to-image models on artists' copyrighted works scraped from the web. After two rounds of motions to dismiss, key claims survived and the case is in discovery.","summary_technical":"Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 3:23-cv-00201 (N.D. Cal., filed Jan. 13, 2023; Judge William H. Orrick). Original complaint largely dismissed Oct. 30, 2023; First Amended Complaint substantially survived an Aug. 12, 2024 ruling: direct copyright infringement claims against Stability AI, Runway, Midjourney and DeviantArt survived; induced infringement and DMCA § 1202(b) claims survived against Stability; Lanham Act and unjust enrichment dismissed. Discovery ongoing 2025–2026.","who_is_protected":"Visual artists whose works were scraped via the LAION dataset for image-generator training","who_must_comply":"Stability AI Ltd., Midjourney Inc., DeviantArt Inc., Runway AI Inc.","citation":"Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 3:23-cv-00201 (N.D. Cal.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66732129/andersen-v-stability-ai-ltd/","source_title":"Andersen v. Stability AI — CourtListener 3:23-cv-00201","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-getty-v-stability-us","title":"Getty Images v. Stability AI — U.S. Copyright Action (D. Del.)","short_title":"Getty Images v. Stability AI (US)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"D. Del.","topics":["copyright"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-02-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Getty Images sued Stability AI in Delaware in February 2023, alleging Stable Diffusion was trained on millions of Getty's copyrighted photos and that the model reproduces Getty's distinctive watermark. A separate parallel proceeding is underway in the UK High Court.","summary_technical":"Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00135 (D. Del., filed Feb. 3, 2023; Judge Jennifer L. Hall). Claims: direct copyright infringement, DMCA § 1202 (removal of CMI), trademark infringement, trademark dilution, deceptive trade practices. UK parallel: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd., [2025] EWHC (Ch.) — trial concluded June 2025, judgment pending. U.S. case in discovery.","who_is_protected":"Getty Images and rights-holders whose works were scraped for Stable Diffusion training","who_must_comply":"Stability AI, Inc.","citation":"Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00135 (D. Del.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66788385/getty-images-us-inc-v-stability-ai-inc/","source_title":"Getty Images v. Stability AI — CourtListener 1:23-cv-00135","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-doe-v-github","title":"Doe v. GitHub / OpenAI / Microsoft — Copilot Code Scraping Class Action: NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS DISMISSAL OF THE DMCA § 1202 CLAIM, Holding That the Absence of Copyright Management Information From a NEW Work Does Not By Itself Show Anyone Removed It (Sept. 2026)","short_title":"Doe v. GitHub (Copilot)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"N.D. Cal.","topics":["copyright","privacy"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2022-11-03","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Anonymous software developers sued GitHub, Microsoft and OpenAI in November 2022, alleging GitHub Copilot trained on their open-source code in violation of open-source licences (which require attribution) and of DMCA § 1202. In September 2026 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the NINTH CIRCUIT REJECTED THE § 1202 THEORY, affirming the district court. Section 1202 prohibits intentionally removing copyright management information — an author's name, a copyright notice — from a copyrighted work. The developers argued that because code generated by the models resembled theirs but came out WITHOUT that information, the information had been unlawfully removed. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, and the holding is narrow but consequential: THE ABSENCE OF COPYRIGHT INFORMATION FROM A NEW WORK DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, MEAN SOMEONE ILLEGALLY REMOVED IT. Removing information from an existing work and creating a new work that never carried it are different acts. This is a LOSS for the plaintiffs and, on EFF's account, a win for programmers and internet users generally, because the opposite rule would have created a new source of liability reaching far past AI — remixes, classroom adaptations, reverse engineering — and would have fallen hardest on independent developers who cannot afford to litigate statutory-damages claims for years and would settle even when their use was lawful. Two things survive. Traditional copyright infringement claims are untouched: a developer can still sue if a model is used to reproduce their code. And the plaintiffs' CONTRACT claims against the AI companies, based on the open-source licence terms, remain live.","summary_technical":"Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-06823 (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 3, 2022; Judge Jon S. Tigar), appeal decided by the U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT in SEPTEMBER 2026. PROCEDURAL SPINE: the original DMCA § 1202(b) claim was dismissed 2024-07-05 for lack of an identical-copy allegation under the Ninth Circuit's identical-copy rule; surviving claims related to breach of open-source licence terms. THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAS NOW AFFIRMED, REJECTING THE PLAINTIFFS' EXPANDED § 1202 THEORY. HOLDING AS CHARACTERISED BY EFF (which filed a brief in the case): 'the absence of copyright information from a new work does not mean, by itself, that someone illegally removed it' — i.e. § 1202 liability requires removal of CMI FROM AN EXISTING COPYRIGHTED WORK, and is not established by the mere fact that model output lacks CMI that the training data carried. EFF's framing of the provision's purpose: § 1202 'was intended to serve as a backstop for traditional copyrights in the digital age — not to create a new, more expansive right to inhibit otherwise non-infringing uses.' WHY THIS IS INDEXED AS A PROTECTION DESPITE BEING A PLAINTIFF LOSS: the counterfactual liability would have run against USERS AND SMALL CREATORS, not only AI developers. On EFF's account, accepting the Does' theory would have exposed 'artists making remixes based on older works, teachers adapting works for a classroom presentation, engineers reverse engineering code' to costly federal suits, with the risk falling 'especially hard on independent software developers and other small creators' — large companies can litigate for years, whereas 'an independent programmer facing massive statutory damages may simply have to settle, even when their underlying use is completely lawful.' The decision therefore forecloses a statutory-damages lever against lawful reuse. WHAT SURVIVES, EXPRESSLY: (1) TRADITIONAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS ARE UNAFFECTED — 'They can still bring copyright infringement claims if someone uses a model to reproduce their code'; (2) THE PLAINTIFFS' CONTRACT CLAIMS AGAINST THE AI COMPANIES ARE STILL IN PLAY, i.e. the open-source licence-breach theory continues. RELATIONSHIP TO THE AI TRAINING-DATA LITIGATION GENERALLY: this narrows § 1202 as a route around the fair-use question rather than resolving fair use, which is untouched. LIMITS: the opinion itself was not retrieved, and NO CASE NUMBER, PANEL, DATE OR CITATION FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION was obtained — see notes.","who_is_protected":"Open-source software developers whose code was used to train Copilot","who_must_comply":"GitHub, Inc., Microsoft Corp., OpenAI, Inc.","citation":"Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-06823 (N.D. Cal.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65669506/doe-1-v-github-inc/","source_title":"Doe v. GitHub — CourtListener 4:22-cv-06823","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-thomson-reuters-v-ross","title":"Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence — First U.S. AI-Training Fair-Use Ruling (D. Del.)","short_title":"Thomson Reuters v. Ross","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"D. Del.","topics":["copyright"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","effective_date":"2025-02-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00613 (D. Del., filed May 6, 2020; Judge Stephanos Bibas, sitting by designation from 3d Cir.). Feb. 11, 2025: Memorandum Opinion granting partial summary judgment to plaintiff: (1) 2,243 Westlaw headnotes infringed; (2) fair use rejected on all four factors, with factor 4 (market effect) decisive because Ross built a competing legal-research product. Case is on appeal to 3d Cir. as of 2026 — likely the first federal appellate ruling on generative-AI training fair use.","who_is_protected":"Copyright holders in legal-research and similar databases vis-à-vis competitive AI products","who_must_comply":"Ross Intelligence, Inc. and similarly situated AI competitors training on a rival's copyrighted database","citation":"Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00613 (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)","source_url":"https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/20-613_5.pdf","source_title":"Thomson Reuters v. Ross — CourtListener 1:20-cv-00613","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-concord-music-v-anthropic","title":"Concord Music Group v. Anthropic — Music Publisher Lyrics Suit (M.D. Tenn.)","short_title":"Concord Music v. Anthropic","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"M.D. Tenn.","topics":["copyright"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-10-18","last_verified_date":"2026-08-16","summary_plain":"Concord, Universal Music Publishing, ABKCO, and other major music publishers sued Anthropic in Tennessee in October 2023, alleging Claude was trained on copyrighted song lyrics and reproduces them on demand. In March 2024 the court declined to grant a preliminary injunction; in 2025 the case was transferred to the Northern District of California where parallel actions are consolidated.","summary_technical":"Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 3:23-cv-01092 (M.D. Tenn., filed Oct. 18, 2023; Judge Aleta A. Trauger). March 2024: PI denied. Anthropic entered into a Jan. 2024 stipulated agreement to apply guardrails preventing lyric reproduction during pendency. Case transferred to N.D. Cal. (No. 5:24-cv-03811) in 2024 for coordination; PI motion re-litigated. Discovery ongoing 2026.","who_is_protected":"Music publishers holding copyrights in song lyrics ingested into Claude training corpus","who_must_comply":"Anthropic PBC","citation":"Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 3:23-cv-01092 (M.D. Tenn.); 5:24-cv-03811 (N.D. Cal.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67894459/concord-music-group-inc-v-anthropic-pbc/","source_title":"Concord Music v. Anthropic — CourtListener 3:23-cv-01092","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-bartz-v-anthropic","title":"Bartz v. Anthropic — Author Class Action and $1.5B Settlement (N.D. Cal.)","short_title":"Bartz v. Anthropic","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"N.D. Cal.","topics":["copyright"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2025-09-05","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 3:24-cv-05417 (N.D. Cal., filed Aug. 19, 2024; Judge William H. Alsup). June 23, 2025 Order: training Claude on lawfully purchased books constituted transformative fair use; downloading pirated copies from Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror was not fair use and constituted infringement. Sept. 5, 2025: parties announced $1.5B class settlement covering ~500,000 works; preliminary approval Sept. 25, 2025; final approval and judgment July 20, 2026 (ECF 680, Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin); fee-allocation appeals filed Aug. 18–19, 2026 (9th Cir. Nos. 26-5391, 26-5455); objector notice Aug. 31, 2026; payments expected end of 2026 at earliest.","who_is_protected":"Class of authors whose works appeared in LibGen / PiLiMi / Books3 corpora used by Anthropic","who_must_comply":"Anthropic PBC","citation":"Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 3:24-cv-05417 (N.D. Cal.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69058235/bartz-v-anthropic-pbc/","source_title":"Bartz v. Anthropic — CourtListener 3:24-cv-05417","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-cir-v-openai","title":"Center for Investigative Reporting v. OpenAI / Microsoft (S.D.N.Y.)","short_title":"CIR v. OpenAI","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"S.D.N.Y.","topics":["copyright"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-06-27","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The nonprofit Center for Investigative Reporting (publisher of Mother Jones and Reveal) sued OpenAI and Microsoft in June 2024 over alleged use of its journalism for training. Joins the consolidated New York publisher actions.","summary_technical":"Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-04872 (S.D.N.Y., filed June 27, 2024; Judge Sidney H. Stein). Claims parallel NYT: direct, vicarious, contributory copyright infringement, DMCA § 1202, common-law misappropriation. Consolidated for pretrial purposes with NYT, Daily News, and other publisher actions.","who_is_protected":"Nonprofit investigative-journalism publishers and their copyrighted reporting","who_must_comply":"OpenAI, Inc., Microsoft Corp.","citation":"Ctr. for Investigative Reporting, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-04872 (S.D.N.Y.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68892274/the-center-for-investigative-reporting-inc-v-openai-inc/","source_title":"CIR v. OpenAI — CourtListener 1:24-cv-04872","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-daily-news-v-openai","title":"Daily News LP v. Microsoft / OpenAI — Newspaper Coalition Copyright Action (S.D.N.Y.)","short_title":"Daily News v. OpenAI","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"S.D.N.Y.","topics":["copyright"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-04-30","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Eight Alden Global Capital newspapers (New York Daily News, Chicago Tribune, Orlando Sentinel, Sun Sentinel, San Jose Mercury News, Denver Post, Orange County Register, St. Paul Pioneer Press) sued OpenAI and Microsoft in April 2024 alleging mass copying of their journalism for GPT training and ChatGPT outputs.","summary_technical":"Daily News LP v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:24-cv-03285 (S.D.N.Y., filed Apr. 30, 2024; Judge Sidney H. Stein). Claims: direct, contributory, vicarious copyright infringement; DMCA § 1202; common-law misappropriation. Consolidated for pretrial purposes with NYT and CIR actions; subject to same March 2025 motion-to-dismiss ruling.","who_is_protected":"Local and regional newspaper publishers in the Alden coalition","who_must_comply":"OpenAI, Inc., Microsoft Corp.","citation":"Daily News LP v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:24-cv-03285 (S.D.N.Y.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68484432/daily-news-lp-v-microsoft-corporation/","source_title":"Daily News v. OpenAI — CourtListener 1:24-cv-03285","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-intercept-v-openai","title":"Intercept Media v. OpenAI — DMCA-Only Newspaper Action (S.D.N.Y.)","short_title":"Intercept v. OpenAI","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"S.D.N.Y.","topics":["copyright"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-02-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The Intercept (and originally Raw Story and AlterNet, since voluntarily dismissed without prejudice) sued OpenAI on a DMCA-only theory — focusing on the alleged stripping of copyright-management information (author, title, terms) from training-data articles. The court allowed The Intercept's case to proceed in February 2025.","summary_technical":"Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01515 (S.D.N.Y., filed Feb. 28, 2024; Judge Jed S. Rakoff). DMCA § 1202(b) claim only — no underlying copyright registration required. Feb. 20, 2025: Judge Rakoff denied OpenAI's motion to dismiss, ruling Intercept adequately alleged CMI removal. Raw Story and AlterNet dismissed Nov. 7, 2024 for lack of Article III injury (sister case 1:24-cv-01514).","who_is_protected":"Independent online journalism publishers asserting DMCA § 1202 stripping claims","who_must_comply":"OpenAI, Inc.","citation":"Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01515 (S.D.N.Y.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68290804/the-intercept-media-inc-v-openai-inc/","source_title":"Intercept v. OpenAI — CourtListener 1:24-cv-01515","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-disney-universal-v-midjourney","title":"Disney & Universal v. Midjourney — Studio Copyright Action Against Image Generator (C.D. Cal.)","short_title":"Disney v. Midjourney","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"C.D. Cal.","topics":["copyright"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-06-11","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Disney and Universal — the first major Hollywood studios to sue a generative-AI company — filed a copyright action against Midjourney in June 2025 alleging Midjourney is a 'bottomless pit of plagiarism' that reproduces Star Wars, Marvel, Minions and other studio characters on demand.","summary_technical":"Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-05275 (C.D. Cal., filed June 11, 2025). Claims: direct and contributory copyright infringement against image and video generators. Seeks injunction and statutory damages. Discovery began Q1 2026.","who_is_protected":"Major motion-picture studios and franchise rights-holders","who_must_comply":"Midjourney, Inc.","citation":"Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-05275 (C.D. Cal.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70513159/disney-enterprises-inc-v-midjourney-inc/","source_title":"Disney and Universal Sue Midjourney for Copyright Infringement — Variety","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-umg-v-suno","title":"UMG Recordings v. Suno — Music Label Suit Against AI Music Generator (D. Mass.)","short_title":"UMG v. Suno","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"D. Mass.","topics":["copyright"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-06-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The three major record labels — UMG, Sony Music, Warner — sued AI music generator Suno in Boston in June 2024, alleging Suno trained on copyrighted recordings and produces output that closely mimics specific tracks. A parallel suit was filed in S.D.N.Y. against competitor Udio.","summary_technical":"UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-11611 (D. Mass., filed June 24, 2024). Claims: direct copyright infringement based on training and outputs that allegedly reproduce protected sound recordings. Suno conceded in mid-2024 that its model was trained on copyrighted music. Discovery ongoing.","who_is_protected":"Major record labels and recording-rights holders","who_must_comply":"Suno, Inc.","citation":"UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-11611 (D. Mass.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68878608/umg-recordings-inc-v-suno-inc/","source_title":"UMG v. Suno — CourtListener 1:24-cv-11611","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-umg-v-udio","title":"UMG Recordings v. Udio (Uncharted Labs) — Music Label Suit Against AI Music Generator (S.D.N.Y.)","short_title":"UMG v. Udio","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"S.D.N.Y.","topics":["copyright"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-06-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Companion to the Suno suit. UMG, Sony, and Warner sued Uncharted Labs (Udio) the same day, alleging Udio's training corpus included copyrighted master recordings and that outputs reproduce signature elements of identifiable tracks.","summary_technical":"UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-04777 (S.D.N.Y., filed June 24, 2024). Claims: direct copyright infringement. Discovery ongoing.","who_is_protected":"Major record labels and recording-rights holders","who_must_comply":"Uncharted Labs, Inc. (d/b/a Udio)","citation":"UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-04777 (S.D.N.Y.)","source_url":"https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2024cv04777/623701","source_title":"UMG v. Udio — CourtListener 1:24-cv-04777","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-patel-v-facebook-bipa","title":"Patel v. Facebook — $650M BIPA Settlement over Tag Suggestions (N.D. Cal.)","short_title":"Patel v. Facebook (BIPA)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"N.D. Cal.","topics":["biometrics","privacy","facial-recognition"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2021-02-26","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The largest biometric-privacy settlement in U.S. history at the time — $650 million paid by Facebook to roughly 1.6 million Illinois users whose facial templates were extracted by the 'Tag Suggestions' feature without BIPA consent. Each class member received about $400.","summary_technical":"In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation (Patel v. Facebook, Inc.), No. 3:15-cv-03747 (N.D. Cal., filed May 14, 2015; Judge James Donato). Final approval Feb. 26, 2021: $650M common fund (increased from initial $550M); 1.6M class members, ~$397/claimant. Ninth Circuit affirmed class certification in 2019 (Patel v. Facebook, 932 F.3d 1264). Foundational ruling that BIPA's intangible-harm violation satisfies Article III standing.","who_is_protected":"Illinois users whose face geometry was extracted by Facebook between June 7, 2011 and Aug. 19, 2020","who_must_comply":"Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.)","citation":"In re Facebook Biometric Info. Privacy Litig., No. 3:15-cv-03747 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2021); 932 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2019)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4182107/in-re-facebook-biometric-information-privacy-litigation/","source_title":"In re Facebook BIPA Litigation — CourtListener 3:15-cv-03747","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-tiktok-bipa-92m","title":"In re TikTok Consumer Privacy Litigation — $92M Multi-District BIPA Settlement (N.D. Ill.)","short_title":"In re TikTok ($92M)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"N.D. Ill.","topics":["biometrics","privacy","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2022-07-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"TikTok agreed to a $92 million multi-district settlement in 2021 (final approval July 2022) over claims it collected facial geometry, voiceprints, and biometric identifiers from minor and adult users without BIPA consent — among the first major social-media settlements covering algorithmic face/voice analysis on short-form video.","summary_technical":"In re TikTok, Inc. Consumer Privacy Litigation, MDL No. 2948 (N.D. Ill., final approval July 28, 2022; Judge John Z. Lee). Settlement: $92M common fund covering BIPA, Video Privacy Protection Act, and California UCL claims; injunctive relief restricting biometric collection from U.S. users without consent and limiting cross-border data transfer.","who_is_protected":"TikTok U.S. users (including minors) whose biometric data was processed between 2014 and 2022","who_must_comply":"TikTok Inc., ByteDance Ltd.","citation":"In re TikTok, Inc. Consumer Privacy Litig., MDL No. 2948 (N.D. Ill. 2022)","source_url":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/mdl-details.aspx?i3mxb9gEBxL2sL90OMEQ2A=%3D","source_title":"In re TikTok Consumer Privacy Litigation — CourtListener MDL 2948","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-rivera-v-google-bipa","title":"Rivera / In re Google Photos BIPA Settlement (Cook County, Ill.)","short_title":"In re Google Photos BIPA","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty.","topics":["biometrics","privacy","facial-recognition"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2022-09-28","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Illinois Google Photos users won a $100 million settlement in 2022 over allegations Google extracted face templates from uploaded photos without BIPA consent. Each claimant was estimated to receive between $200 and $400.","summary_technical":"Rivera v. Google LLC (and related In re Google Inc. Google Photos Litigation), Cook County Cir. Ct. No. 2019-CH-00990 (Ill. Cir. Ct., final approval Sept. 28, 2022). Settlement: $100M; ~420,000 estimated class members; 687,484 valid claims reported by the settlement administrator. Related multi-district federal action consolidated procedurally.","who_is_protected":"Illinois Google Photos users whose face geometry was extracted between May 1, 2015 and Apr. 25, 2022","who_must_comply":"Google LLC","citation":"Rivera v. Google LLC, No. 2019-CH-00990 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty.)","source_url":"https://www.classaction.org/media/rivera-et-al-v-google-llc-settlement-agreement.pdf","source_title":"Rivera v. Google LLC — Class Action Settlement Agreement (Cir. Ct. Cook County, No. 2019-CH-00990)","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-google-tx-1375b-2025","title":"Texas v. Google — $1.375B Settlement on Biometric and Location AI Surveillance","short_title":"Texas v. Google ($1.375B)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"TX","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["biometrics","privacy","facial-recognition"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-05-09","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Texas AG Ken Paxton secured a $1.375 billion settlement from Google in May 2025 over voiceprint, faceprint, and Incognito-mode tracking claims under the Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Largest single-state privacy recovery against a tech company.","summary_technical":"State of Texas v. Google LLC, No. 22-0913-A (Dist. Ct. Harrison Cty., Tex., settled May 9, 2025). Claims: CUBI (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 503.001) for voice/face data captured by Google Assistant, Photos, and Nest; a second suit over location-data tracking (Victoria County). Settlement requires conduct changes plus the $1.375B payment.","who_is_protected":"Texas residents whose biometric or location data was collected by Google products","who_must_comply":"Google LLC","citation":"State of Texas v. Google LLC (Harrison Cty., Tex., May 9, 2025)","source_url":"https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-secures-historic-1375-billion-settlement-google-related-texans-data","source_title":"TX AG — Historic $1.375B Google Settlement","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-clearview-acluil-2022","title":"ACLU v. Clearview AI — Illinois BIPA Consent Order Restricting Faceprint Sales","short_title":"ACLU v. Clearview AI","level":"state","jurisdiction":"IL","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2022-05-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Clearview AI, which scraped billions of online photos to build a face-search engine sold to police, agreed to a nationwide consent order in May 2022. Clearview is permanently barred from selling its faceprint database to most private U.S. businesses, with additional Illinois-specific restrictions on government contracts.","summary_technical":"ACLU v. Clearview AI, Inc., No. 2020-CH-04353 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., Ill., consent order May 9, 2022). Permanent nationwide injunction under BIPA: (1) Clearview cannot sell access to its face-vector database to private entities or most non-law-enforcement government users; (2) five-year ban on selling to any Illinois state or local government, including police; (3) maintain opt-out program for Illinois residents.","who_is_protected":"Illinois residents and U.S. private-sector consumers vis-à-vis Clearview face-search service","who_must_comply":"Clearview AI, Inc.","citation":"ACLU v. Clearview AI, Inc., No. 2020-CH-04353 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., Ill.)","source_url":"https://www.aclu.org/cases/aclu-v-clearview-ai","source_title":"ACLU v. Clearview AI — ACLU case page","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-clearview-class-settlement-2024","title":"In re Clearview AI Consumer Privacy Litigation — Equity-Based Class Settlement (N.D. Ill.)","short_title":"In re Clearview AI Class Settlement","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"N.D. Ill.","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","effective_date":"2024-06-21","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"A nationwide BIPA class action against Clearview AI settled in 2024 on an unusual basis: rather than cash, class members receive a 23 percent equity interest in Clearview, valued by plaintiffs at up to $51 million depending on company valuation. The arrangement reflected Clearview's inability to pay cash damages of the magnitude BIPA would require.","summary_technical":"In re Clearview AI, Inc. Consumer Privacy Litigation, MDL No. 2967, No. 1:21-cv-00135 (N.D. Ill., final approval June 21, 2024; Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman). Settlement structure: class receives 23% post-money equity stake in Clearview (or 17% with cash sale option). Objections from 22 state AGs over inadequacy; approved over objections.","who_is_protected":"Nationwide class of individuals whose photos were scraped into Clearview's faceprint database","who_must_comply":"Clearview AI, Inc.","citation":"In re Clearview AI, Inc. Consumer Privacy Litig., MDL 2967, No. 1:21-cv-00135 (N.D. Ill.)","source_url":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/mdl-details.aspx?oPAvB95Dk3B80hctYPQzdQ=%3D","source_title":"In re Clearview AI Litigation — CourtListener MDL 2967","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-rosenbach-v-six-flags","title":"Rosenbach v. Six Flags — Illinois Supreme Court Foundational BIPA Standing Decision","short_title":"Rosenbach v. Six Flags","level":"state","jurisdiction":"IL","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["biometrics","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2019-01-25","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in January 2019 that a BIPA plaintiff does not need to plead actual injury to be 'aggrieved' under the statute — a violation of BIPA's notice/consent requirements is itself the injury. This made BIPA the most consequential biometric-privacy statute in the U.S. and triggered a wave of AI-faceprint, voiceprint, and fingerprint litigation.","summary_technical":"Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186, 129 N.E.3d 1197 (Ill. Jan. 25, 2019). Holding: 'aggrieved' under 740 ILCS 14/20 does not require allegation of actual injury; a violation of BIPA § 15 by itself confers private right of action.","who_is_protected":"Illinois residents subject to biometric data collection without statutory consent","who_must_comply":"Private entities collecting biometric identifiers in Illinois","citation":"Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entm't Corp., 2019 IL 123186, 129 N.E.3d 1197","source_url":"https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Resources/f71510f1-fb2a-43d8-ba14-292c8009dfd9/123186.pdf","source_title":"Rosenbach v. Six Flags — Illinois Supreme Court opinion","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-cothron-v-white-castle","title":"Cothron v. White Castle — Illinois Supreme Court Per-Scan BIPA Damages Accrual","short_title":"Cothron v. White Castle","level":"state","jurisdiction":"IL","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["biometrics","privacy","employment"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-02-17","last_verified_date":"2026-08-16","summary_plain":"The Illinois Supreme Court held in February 2023 that BIPA claims accrue each time a biometric identifier is captured or disclosed — so a fingerprint scan to clock in twice a day for years generates thousands of separate violations per worker. The ruling forced the Illinois legislature to amend BIPA in 2024 to cap per-method accrual (P.A. 103-0769).","summary_technical":"Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., 2023 IL 128004 (Ill. Feb. 17, 2023). Holding: BIPA § 15(b) and (d) violations accrue each time biometric data is collected or disclosed, not only at the first instance. Damages: $1,000 negligent / $5,000 intentional per violation. Aug. 2, 2024: P.A. 103-0769 amended BIPA to limit recovery to a single accrual per person per collection method going forward.","who_is_protected":"Illinois workers and consumers subject to repeated biometric scans","who_must_comply":"Illinois employers and private entities using biometric authentication","citation":"Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc., 2023 IL 128004","source_url":"https://courts.illinois.gov/Resources/3f8a6e2d-a611-489f-bfb3-c1ce5f17a8df/128004.pdf","source_title":"Cothron v. White Castle — Illinois Supreme Court opinion","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-eeoc-v-itutorgroup-2023","title":"EEOC v. iTutorGroup — First Federal AI Hiring Discrimination Consent Decree (E.D.N.Y.)","short_title":"EEOC v. iTutorGroup","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"E.D.N.Y.","topics":["employment","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2023-09-08","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"The EEOC's first AI-hiring-discrimination case ended with a $365,000 consent decree in September 2023. iTutorGroup's online application system was programmed to auto-reject female applicants 55+ and male applicants 60+ — a clear ADEA violation through algorithmic age screening.","summary_technical":"EEOC v. iTutorGroup, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-02565 (E.D.N.Y., consent decree Sept. 11, 2023; Judge Pamela K. Chen). $365,000 settlement plus injunctive relief: rewrite application software to remove date-of-birth-based exclusion, post anti-discrimination policy, three-year EEOC monitoring, train recruiters and developers on ADEA compliance for automated screening.","who_is_protected":"U.S. workers age 40+ subject to automated employment decisions","who_must_comply":"iTutorGroup, Inc. and similarly situated employers using algorithmic age-screening","citation":"EEOC v. iTutorGroup, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-02565 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2023)","source_url":"https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/itutorgroup-pay-365000-settle-eeoc-discriminatory-hiring-suit","source_title":"EEOC v. iTutorGroup — EEOC press release","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-harper-v-sirius-xm-2025","title":"Harper v. Sirius XM Radio — AI Hiring Discrimination Class Action (E.D. Mich.)","short_title":"Harper v. Sirius XM","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"E.D. Mich.","topics":["employment","automated-decisions"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-04","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"A private class action filed in August 2025 in the Eastern District of Michigan alleges that Sirius XM Radio's automated applicant-screening tools produced unlawful disparate impact against Black and minority job applicants under Title VII. Filed shortly after the EEOC's FY2024 enforcement-focus announcement targeting Sirius XM's AI hiring systems, the case is one of the first private Title VII class actions to directly challenge a corporate AI hiring algorithm.","summary_technical":"Harper v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 2:25-cv-12403 (E.D. Mich., filed Aug. 4, 2025). Putative class action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, asserting disparate-impact theory — plaintiffs allege the automated screening system disproportionately excluded Black and minority applicants without job-related justification. Related EEOC enforcement-focus announcement: see litig-eeoc-sirius-xm-2024. Active as of June 2026.","who_is_protected":"Black and minority job applicants screened by Sirius XM's automated hiring tool","who_must_comply":"Sirius XM Radio Inc.","citation":"Harper v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 2:25-cv-12403 (E.D. Mich., filed Aug. 4, 2025)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/?q=harper+v+sirius+xm&type=r&order_by=score+desc","source_title":"Harper v. Sirius XM Radio — CourtListener search (2:25-cv-12403, E.D. Mich.)","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-walters-v-openai","title":"Walters v. OpenAI — First U.S. AI Defamation Trial (Ga. Super. Ct., Gwinnett)","short_title":"Walters v. OpenAI","level":"state","jurisdiction":"GA","state_abbr":"GA","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-05-19","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Georgia radio host Mark Walters sued OpenAI after ChatGPT fabricated a story that he had embezzled from a gun-rights nonprofit. In May 2025, Judge Tracie Cason granted summary judgment to OpenAI, holding that no reasonable reader would treat ChatGPT output as a statement of fact and that OpenAI's disclaimers about hallucinations defeated 'actual malice.' The first U.S. AI defamation case to reach a merits ruling.","summary_technical":"Walters v. OpenAI, L.L.C., No. 23-A-04860-2 (Gwinnett Cty. Super. Ct., Ga., summary judgment May 19, 2025; Judge Tracie Cason). Public-figure plaintiff failed to establish actual malice; court emphasized that ChatGPT outputs were not statements of fact for defamation purposes given OpenAI's published warnings about hallucinations.","who_is_protected":"Public figures defamed by generative-AI output (no liability absent actual malice + statement-of-fact)","who_must_comply":"OpenAI L.L.C.","citation":"Walters v. OpenAI, L.L.C., No. 23-A-04860-2 (Gwinnett Cty. Super. Ct., Ga.)","source_url":"https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/egvblxokkvq/Walters%20v%20OpenAI%20-%20order.pdf","source_title":"OpenAI wins summary judgment in first ChatGPT defamation suit — Courthouse News","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-battle-v-microsoft","title":"Battle v. Microsoft — AI Hallucination Defamation Suit Dismissed (D. Md.)","short_title":"Battle v. Microsoft","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"D. Md.","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"repealed","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-22","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Aerospace consultant Jeffery Battle sued Microsoft alleging Bing/Copilot conflated him with a convicted terrorist of the same name. The case was dismissed in 2024 — among the early dismissals signaling that AI hallucination defamation suits face uphill battles on actual malice and statement-of-fact grounds.","summary_technical":"Battle v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:23-cv-01822 (D. Md., dismissed Aug. 22, 2024; Judge Adam B. Abelson). Court dismissed defamation, false light, and Lanham Act claims; plaintiff failed to plausibly allege Microsoft had actual knowledge of falsity and to plead Bing's outputs as actionable statements of fact.","who_is_protected":"(N/A — dismissed; defamation by AI claims face significant pleading hurdles)","who_must_comply":"Microsoft Corp.","citation":"Battle v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:23-cv-01822 (D. Md.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67597344/battle-v-microsoft-corporation/","source_title":"Battle v. Microsoft — CourtListener 1:23-cv-01822","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-lehrman-v-lovo","title":"Lehrman v. Lovo — Voice Cloning Class Action (S.D.N.Y.)","short_title":"Lehrman v. Lovo","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"S.D.N.Y.","topics":["deepfakes","consumer-protection"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-05-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Voice actors Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage sued AI voice-cloning startup Lovo, alleging Lovo cloned their voices through deceptive Fiverr commissions and resold the clones without consent. The case is the highest-profile U.S. voice-cloning right-of-publicity action and was certified in part in 2025.","summary_technical":"Lehrman v. Lovo, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03770 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 16, 2024; Judge Jesse M. Furman). Claims: federal Lanham Act false endorsement, NY Civil Rights Law §§ 50 / 51 right-of-publicity, fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment. Feb. 2025: motion-to-dismiss largely denied; right-of-publicity and Lanham Act claims survive.","who_is_protected":"Voice actors and performers whose voices are cloned without consent","who_must_comply":"Lovo, Inc. and similarly situated AI voice-cloning services","citation":"Lehrman v. Lovo, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03770 (S.D.N.Y.)","source_url":"https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2024cv03770/621575","source_title":"Lehrman v. Lovo — CourtListener 1:24-cv-03770","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-young-v-neocortext","title":"Young v. NeoCortext — Reface App Right-of-Publicity Action (C.D. Cal.)","short_title":"Young v. NeoCortext (Reface)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"C.D. Cal.","topics":["deepfakes","consumer-protection","ai-images"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-04-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Reality TV personality Kyland Young sued NeoCortext (developer of the Reface face-swap app) under California's right-of-publicity statute, alleging Reface used his image in its in-app catalog without consent. In 2024 the Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of NeoCortext's anti-SLAPP motion, allowing the case to proceed.","summary_technical":"Young v. NeoCortext, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02496 (C.D. Cal., filed Apr. 3, 2023; Judge Wesley L. Hsu). Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 right-of-publicity class action. 9th Cir. June 10, 2024 affirmance: NeoCortext's anti-SLAPP motion denied; commercial use is not protected expressive activity. Case in discovery.","who_is_protected":"California individuals whose likenesses are used by face-swap apps without consent","who_must_comply":"NeoCortext, Inc. and similarly situated face-swap/deepfake services","citation":"Young v. NeoCortext, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02496 (C.D. Cal.); 9th Cir. Dec. 2024","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67127939/kyland-young-v-neocortext-inc/","source_title":"Young v. NeoCortext — CourtListener 2:23-cv-02496","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-banner-v-tesla","title":"Benavides v. Tesla — Autopilot Wrongful Death Verdict (S.D. Fla.)","short_title":"Benavides v. Tesla (Autopilot)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"S.D. Fla.","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","effective_date":"2025-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"Benavides v. Tesla, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-21940 (S.D. Fla., verdict Aug. 1, 2025; Judge Beth Bloom). Jury allocated 33% fault to Tesla and 67% to the driver; awarded $129M compensatory and $200M punitive damages, left in place when the court denied Tesla's post-trial motions on Feb. 19, 2026 (ECF 612); Tesla appealed on Mar. 16, 2026 (11th Cir. No. 26-10858, pending). Distinct from Banner v. Tesla (Jeremy Banner, 2019 Delray Beach crash), a separate Florida state-court action. Theory: Autopilot defective design and failure to warn under Florida products-liability law; Tesla allegedly marketed Autopilot beyond its actual ODD (operational design domain).","who_is_protected":"Pedestrians, cyclists, and bystanders injured by Autopilot-engaged Teslas","who_must_comply":"Tesla, Inc.","citation":"Benavides v. Tesla, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-21940 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2025)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59932667/benavides-v-tesla-inc/","source_title":"Tesla Autopilot $243M Verdict — Reuters","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-huang-v-tesla","title":"Huang v. Tesla — Autopilot Engineer Crash Wrongful Death Settlement (Cal. Super.)","short_title":"Huang v. Tesla","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CA","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-08","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Apple engineer Walter Huang died in 2018 when his Tesla Model X on Autopilot crashed into a highway divider. His family sued; the case settled confidentially on the eve of trial in April 2024 — the first Autopilot wrongful-death case to reach (and settle on the eve of) a jury verdict.","summary_technical":"Huang v. Tesla, Inc., No. 19-CV-346663 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., settled April 8, 2024). Products-liability and negligence claims tied to Autopilot's failure to detect a damaged highway barrier and inadequate driver attention monitoring. Confidential settlement.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and passengers in Autopilot-engaged Teslas","who_must_comply":"Tesla, Inc.","citation":"Huang v. Tesla, Inc., No. 19CV346663 (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa Clara Cty.)","source_url":"https://www.trellis.law/case/19cv346663/sz-huang-et-al-vs-tesla-inc-et-al","source_title":"Tesla Settles Walter Huang Autopilot Death Lawsuit — CNBC","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-cruise-pedestrian-2024","title":"GM Cruise — San Francisco Pedestrian Dragging Incident Settlements (Cal. Super.)","short_title":"Cruise SF Pedestrian Incident","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CA","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-10-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"A San Francisco pedestrian was struck by a hit-and-run driver, thrown into the path of a GM Cruise robotaxi, and then dragged ~20 feet by the Cruise vehicle in October 2023. NHTSA fined Cruise; the California PUC suspended its driverless permit; Cruise reached confidential settlement with the victim and ultimately shut down driverless robotaxi operations in 2024.","summary_technical":"Confidential settlement between Cruise LLC and the injured pedestrian. Regulatory parallel actions: NHTSA consent order announced Sept. 30, 2024 for reporting failures (49 C.F.R. § 579); CPUC indefinite suspension of driverless deployment permit (Oct. 24, 2023); DOJ subpoena issued late 2023; Cruise wound down its driverless service in 2024.","who_is_protected":"Pedestrians and other road users interacting with autonomous-vehicle operations","who_must_comply":"GM Cruise LLC and similarly situated AV operators","citation":"In re GM Cruise LLC — NHTSA Consent Order (Sept. 2024); confidential personal-injury settlement","source_url":"https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/consent-order-cruise-crash-reporting","source_title":"NHTSA — Cruise LLC $1.5M Civil Penalty","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-character-ai-wrongful-death-multi","title":"Garcia & Multi-Plaintiff Wrongful Death / Injury Suits v. Character.AI (M.D. Fla. + N.D. Tex.)","short_title":"Character.AI Companion Chatbot Suits","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"M.D. Fla. + E.D. Tex.","topics":["children","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-10-22","last_verified_date":"2026-06-28","summary_plain":"Five plaintiffs across two jurisdictions sued Character.AI in 2024 alleging the companion chatbot service caused minors' suicide, self-harm, sexual abuse, and severe mental injury. Garcia v. Character.AI in Florida was the first AI companion wrongful-death suit; in Texas a federal court issued a landmark May 2025 ruling that AI chatbot outputs are not protected First Amendment speech.","summary_technical":"Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla., filed Oct. 22, 2024; Judge Anne C. Conway); A.F. v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01014 (E.D. Tex., filed Dec. 9, 2024; Judge J. Campbell Barker). Claims: products-liability, negligence, deceptive trade practices, wrongful death (Garcia). May 21, 2025: Judge Conway denied dismissal, holding chatbot outputs are not First-Amendment-protected speech of the developer and that Section 230 immunity does not categorically apply. Cases confidentially settled or in active discovery as of June 2026 (per Bloomberg Law Jan. 7, 2026).","who_is_protected":"Minor users (and bereaved families) harmed by companion AI chatbots","who_must_comply":"Character Technologies, Inc. and similarly situated chatbot platforms","citation":"Garcia v. Character Techs., Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.); A.F. v. Character Techs., Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01014 (E.D. Tex.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69300919/garcia-v-character-technologies-inc/","source_title":"Garcia v. Character.AI — CourtListener 6:24-cv-01903","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-raine-v-openai-2025","title":"Raine v. OpenAI — ChatGPT Teen Suicide Wrongful Death Action (Cal. Super., San Francisco)","short_title":"Raine v. OpenAI","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CA","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["children","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-08-26","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The parents of 16-year-old Adam Raine sued OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman in August 2025, alleging ChatGPT provided their son with detailed information on suicide methods and encouraged him in conversations preceding his death. The first wrongful-death suit against a general-purpose LLM developer.","summary_technical":"Raine v. OpenAI, L.L.C., No. CGC-25-628065 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., filed Aug. 26, 2025). Claims: products-liability (defective design, failure to warn), negligence, wrongful death, deceptive business practices. Allegations include that GPT-4o's safety guardrails degraded over a 7-month conversation history. OpenAI motion to dismiss pending as of June 2026.","who_is_protected":"Minor users (and bereaved families) harmed by general-purpose LLMs","who_must_comply":"OpenAI L.L.C., Samuel Altman","citation":"Raine v. OpenAI, Inc., No. CGC-25-628528 (Cal. Super. Ct., S.F. Cty.)","source_url":"https://www.law.com/radar/card/wn-california-sanfrancisco-1230012-matthew-raine-v-openai-inc-a-delaware-corporation/","source_title":"OpenAI sued by parents of teen who killed himself after ChatGPT chats — Reuters","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-doj-yardi-2025","title":"In re Multifamily / RealPage Antitrust Litigation — Yardi Algorithmic Rent Action (W.D. Wash.)","short_title":"DOJ / Multistate v. Yardi","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"W.D. Wash.","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-12-29","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Renters brought a parallel class action against Yardi Systems — RealPage's main competitor in algorithmic rent-pricing — alleging it likewise coordinated multifamily rents across competing landlords. State AGs joined as enforcement actors; the case is moving in parallel with the DOJ-RealPage proceeding.","summary_technical":"Duffy v. Yardi Systems, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-01391 (W.D. Wash., filed Sept. 8, 2023; Judge Robert S. Lasnik). Class action alleging Sherman Act § 1 conspiracy: Yardi's RENTmaximizer product used competitors' nonpublic data to coordinate rents. State AG civil investigative demands pending in multiple jurisdictions. Discovery ongoing.","who_is_protected":"Multifamily-housing renters in markets using Yardi RENTmaximizer","who_must_comply":"Yardi Systems, Inc. and participating property managers","citation":"Duffy v. Yardi Systems, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-01391 (W.D. Wash.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67775053/duffy-v-yardi-systems-inc/","source_title":"Duffy v. Yardi — CourtListener 2:23-cv-01391","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-doj-amicus-housing-2024","title":"DOJ + HUD Statement of Interest on Algorithmic Pricing — Cherry v. Yardi / Duffy v. Yardi","short_title":"DOJ/HUD Statement of Interest (algorithmic rent)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"DOJ / HUD","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","effective_date":"2024-03-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"The Justice Department's Antitrust Division and the FTC (not HUD) filed a joint Statement of Interest in Duffy v. Yardi Systems (W.D. Wash.), arguing that competing landlords' joint use of Yardi's common pricing algorithm can constitute per-se illegal price fixing under the Sherman Act, even when landlords retain some discretion to deviate from the algorithm's recommendations.","summary_technical":"Statement of Interest of the United States, filed in Duffy v. Yardi Systems, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-01391 (W.D. Wash., Mar. 1, 2024, ECF 149); the separate RealPage MDL statement was Nov. 2023. Position: Sherman Act § 1 does not require direct competitor exchange of information; algorithmic coordination via shared software using competitors' nonpublic data states a claim. Adopted by multiple district courts subsequently.","who_is_protected":"Renters in markets where landlords use common pricing algorithms","who_must_comply":"Landlords and software vendors providing algorithmic pricing tools","citation":"Statement of Interest of the United States, McKenna Duffy v. Yardi Systems, Inc., et al., W.D. Wash. (Mar. 2024)","source_url":"https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-03/420301.pdf","source_title":"DOJ Statement of Interest on Algorithmic Pricing — DOJ Antitrust","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-netchoice-v-bonta-sb976","title":"NetChoice v. Bonta — California SB 976 (Kids' Algorithmic Feeds): Ninth Circuit Appeal, With EFF, CDT and the Wikimedia Foundation Filing an Amicus Arguing the Law Violates TEEN USERS' Own First Amendment Rights, Not Only the Platforms'","short_title":"NetChoice v. Bonta (SB 976)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"N.D. Cal.","topics":["children","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"NetChoice (the tech-industry trade group) challenged California's SB 976 — which restricts addictive algorithmic feeds for minors — and won a preliminary injunction blocking key portions on First Amendment grounds in December 2024. The Ninth Circuit is reviewing. IN SEPTEMBER 2026 THE ARGUMENT WIDENED IN A WAY WORTH RECORDING. The challenge had 'largely centered on how the law violates SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES' First Amendment rights to curate user-generated content and present it as they see fit' — a platform-rights theory. A friend-of-the-court brief filed by the ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION together with the CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY & TECHNOLOGY and the WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION argues that the law violates TEEN USERS' First Amendment rights TOO. SB 976 requires that teen social media users get their PARENTS' PERMISSION before seeing other users' recommended speech in their feeds. The brief's argument is that recommendation systems serve a DUAL purpose: they help users discover other people's speech, and they get the user's OWN speech in front of a wider audience. On that reading a parental-consent gate on recommendations is not merely a restriction on what a teenager may read — it is a restriction on how far what they say can travel. The brief argues SB 976 'frustrates young people's ability to use the internet to its full potential, prohibiting them from relying on tools that disseminate their speech and help them view and interact with other users' speech,' and that it creates 'significant, constitutionally violative, burdens on young users' ability to read and comment on the news, discuss politics, find and share art, share their religious beliefs, or even practice their religion.' This entry is indexed as a protection-relevant record precisely because the interests here point in opposite directions: SB 976 is a child-safety measure, and the parties arguing it is unconstitutional include digital-rights organisations arguing on behalf of the minors it was written to protect.","summary_technical":"NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 4:24-cv-07885 (N.D. Cal., PI granted Dec. 31, 2024; Judge Edward J. Davila). Section-by-section enjoined SB 976's content-personalization restrictions for minors; design-features and notification-window provisions allowed to take effect. 9th Cir. expedited appeal pending. [SEPT 2026 DEVELOPMENT] NINTH CIRCUIT APPEAL PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF filed by the ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, the CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY & TECHNOLOGY and the WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION advancing a THEORY DISTINCT FROM THE ONE THAT HAS DRIVEN THE CASE. Per EFF, 'the legal challenge to SB 976 has largely centered on how the law violates SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES' First Amendment rights to curate user-generated content and present it as they see fit'; the amicus 'shows that the law violates TEEN USERS' First Amendment rights, too.' THE OPERATIVE PROVISION ATTACKED: SB 976 'requires that teen social media users get their PARENTS' PERMISSION BEFORE SEEING OTHER USERS' RECOMMENDED SPEECH on their social media feeds.' THE ARGUMENT TURNS ON THE DUAL FUNCTION OF RECOMMENDATION SYSTEMS, which is the analytically interesting move: they 'help all users discover speech and content by other users, AND to get their own speech in front of a wider audience.' A consent gate on receiving recommendations therefore also operates as a constraint on DISSEMINATION by the minor — a listener-side restriction with speaker-side effects. Quoted from the brief: SB 976 'frustrates young people's ability to use the internet to its full potential, prohibiting them from relying on tools that disseminate their speech and help them view and interact with other users' speech'; and it creates 'significant, constitutionally violative, burdens on young users' ability to read and comment on the news, discuss politics, find and share art, share their religious beliefs, or even practice their religion.' EFF also notes the practical premise that 'there is simply too much content on services for users to sift through manually.' WHY THIS IS RECORDED IN A PROTECTION DATASET: the alignment is inverted from the usual pattern. The challenger of record is an industry trade group asserting platform rights, but the amicus coalition is composed of digital-rights and public-interest organisations asserting the rights OF THE MINORS THE STATUTE WAS ENACTED TO PROTECT. A child-safety measure is being contested as a speech restriction on children — which is the same structural tension recorded on the Meta 52-state settlement material (deferred in the triage ledger, where EFF argues age gating suppresses youth organising). NO RULING ON THE AMICUS OR THE APPEAL IS REPORTED; the preliminary injunction posture from December 2024 is unchanged by this filing.","who_is_protected":"(Disputed — minors targeted by personalized feeds vs. social-media First Amendment rights)","who_must_comply":"Social-media platforms operating in California","citation":"NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 5:24-cv-07885 (N.D. Cal.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69365699/netchoice-v-bonta/","source_title":"NetChoice v. Bonta (SB 976) — CourtListener 4:24-cv-07885","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-netchoice-v-yost","title":"NetChoice v. Yost — Ohio Social Media Parental Notification Act Permanent Injunction (S.D. Ohio)","short_title":"NetChoice v. Yost (Ohio)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"S.D. Ohio","topics":["children","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"litigation","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2025-04-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, No. 2:24-cv-00047 (S.D. Ohio, perm. inj. Apr. 30, 2024; Judge Algenon L. Marbley). Permanent injunction: Ohio R.C. § 1349.09 facially violates First Amendment; not narrowly tailored, content-based regulation of speech.","who_is_protected":"(Disputed — Ohio minors vs. social-media users' free-speech rights)","who_must_comply":"Social-media platforms operating in Ohio","citation":"NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, No. 2:24-cv-00047 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 16, 2025)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68139317/netchoice-llc-v-yost/","source_title":"NetChoice v. Yost — CourtListener 2:24-cv-00047","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-ccia-netchoice-v-paxton-houseb18","title":"CCIA & NetChoice v. Paxton — Texas SCOPE Act Partial Preliminary Injunction (W.D. Tex.)","short_title":"CCIA v. Paxton (TX SCOPE)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"W.D. Tex.","topics":["children","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-08-30","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice partially enjoined Texas's SCOPE Act (HB 18), which restricts targeted advertising and algorithmic content curation for minors, before its September 2024 effective date.","summary_technical":"CCIA v. Paxton, No. 1:24-cv-00849 (W.D. Tex., PI granted Aug. 30, 2024; Judge Robert Pitman). Enjoined: portions of SCOPE Act regulating 'monitoring and filtering' of minors' speech and restrictions on targeted advertising; remainder of statute (age-verification, parental controls) allowed to take effect.","who_is_protected":"(Disputed — Texas minors vs. platforms' free-speech and editorial rights)","who_must_comply":"Social-media platforms operating in Texas","citation":"CCIA v. Paxton, No. 1:24-cv-00849 (W.D. Tex.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68991184/computer-communications-industry-association-v-paxton/","source_title":"CCIA v. Paxton — CourtListener 1:24-cv-00849","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-ftc-rite-aid-2023","title":"FTC v. Rite Aid — Five-Year Facial Recognition Ban Consent Order","short_title":"FTC v. Rite Aid","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"FTC","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2024-02-26","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"FTC v. Rite Aid Corp., No. 2:23-cv-05023 (E.D. Pa., consent order Dec. 19, 2023). Section 5 FTC Act unfairness theory: deploying FRT without reasonable accuracy, bias-mitigation, or consumer-redress safeguards is an unfair practice causing substantial consumer injury. Order: 5-year FRT ban; if Rite Aid resumes after, it must implement a comprehensive monitoring program; delete all face vectors collected; notify affected consumers.","who_is_protected":"Retail customers — particularly women and people of color disproportionately misidentified by FRT","who_must_comply":"Rite Aid Corporation and any successor or affiliated entity","citation":"FTC v. Rite Aid Corp., No. 2:23-cv-05023 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2023)","source_url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/12/rite-aid-banned-using-ai-facial-recognition-after-ftc-says-retailer-deployed-technology-without","source_title":"FTC: Rite Aid Banned From Using AI Facial Recognition — FTC press release","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-ftc-amazon-ring-2023","title":"FTC v. Amazon (Ring) — $5.8M Settlement and Surveillance Restrictions","short_title":"FTC v. Amazon (Ring)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"FTC","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-06-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"The FTC settled with Amazon's Ring subsidiary for $5.8M in 2023 over privacy and security failures — including allowing employees and contractors to view customer videos without consent and failing to prevent stalkers from compromising accounts. The settlement restricts Ring's use of customer videos for product / AI development.","summary_technical":"FTC v. Ring LLC, No. 1:23-cv-01549 (D.D.C., consent order July 31, 2023). $5.8M monetary relief for consumer refunds; conduct relief: Ring must delete customer videos and face data unlawfully retained; implement comprehensive privacy and security program; limit employee/contractor access to videos; obtain explicit user consent before using videos to train algorithms.","who_is_protected":"Ring camera owners and individuals captured by Ring devices","who_must_comply":"Amazon.com, Inc. and Ring LLC","citation":"Federal Trade Commission v. Ring LLC, No. 1:23-cv-01549 (D.D.C. 2023)","source_url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/05/ftc-says-ring-employees-illegally-surveilled-customers-failed-stop-hackers-taking-control-users","source_title":"FTC: Ring Employees Illegally Surveilled Customers — FTC press release","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-ftc-amazon-alexa-2023","title":"FTC v. Amazon (Alexa) — $25M COPPA + Alexa Voice Recording Settlement","short_title":"FTC v. Amazon (Alexa)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"FTC","topics":["children","privacy","biometrics","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-07-19","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Companion FTC action settled with Amazon's Alexa division for $25M in 2023, alleging Amazon retained children's voice recordings indefinitely despite COPPA, deleted records when parents requested but kept transcripts and the underlying voice models, and used the data to train Alexa's voice-recognition AI.","summary_technical":"United States v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Alexa), No. 2:23-cv-00811 (W.D. Wash., consent order July 25, 2023). COPPA + FTC Act § 5 violations. $25M civil penalty; conduct relief: delete inactive children's accounts' voice recordings and transcripts; delete geolocation data; delete neural-net models trained on those voice recordings; ongoing privacy program.","who_is_protected":"Children using Alexa (and parents) under COPPA","who_must_comply":"Amazon.com, Inc.","citation":"United States v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00811 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2023)","source_url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/05/ftc-doj-charge-amazon-violating-childrens-privacy-law-keeping-kids-alexa-voice-recordings-forever","source_title":"FTC + DOJ Charge Amazon with Children's Privacy Violations — FTC press release","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-ftc-ngl-labs-2024","title":"FTC v. NGL Labs — Anonymous AI Chatbot Children's App Settlement","short_title":"FTC v. NGL Labs","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"FTC","topics":["children","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-07-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"The FTC and the Los Angeles DA settled with anonymous-messaging app NGL Labs for $5M in July 2024, alleging the company used fake AI-generated 'anonymous' messages to manipulate teen users into paying for premium features that wouldn't actually reveal sender identities. NGL is banned from marketing to under-18 users.","summary_technical":"FTC v. NGL Labs, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-05753 (C.D. Cal., consent order July 9, 2024). FTC Act § 5 unfairness + deception, COPPA, ROSCA. $5M civil penalty; banned from offering NGL service to users under 18; required to delete all data collected from under-18 users; disclose use of AI-generated content as such.","who_is_protected":"Minor users of anonymous-messaging apps","who_must_comply":"NGL Labs, LLC and similarly situated chatbot apps marketing to minors","citation":"United States v. NGL Labs, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-05753 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/ngl","source_title":"NGL Banned from Offering Anonymous Messaging to Minors — FTC press release","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-ftc-doNotPay-2024","title":"FTC v. DoNotPay — 'AI Lawyer' False-Claims Settlement","short_title":"FTC v. DoNotPay","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"FTC","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-01-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"The FTC settled with 'AI lawyer' DoNotPay in September 2024 over claims the company falsely marketed an AI chatbot as a substitute for a human lawyer, without ever testing whether its outputs matched a competent attorney's work. Part of the FTC's 'Operation AI Comply' sweep.","summary_technical":"In re DoNotPay, Inc., No. C-4796 (FTC, consent order Sept. 25, 2024). FTC Act § 5 deception. $193,000 monetary relief to consumers; conduct relief: cease AI-lawyer substitution claims absent substantiation; notify past subscribers about the limitations of the service.","who_is_protected":"Consumers misled by AI-as-professional-substitute marketing","who_must_comply":"DoNotPay, Inc. and similarly situated AI service marketers","citation":"In re DoNotPay, Inc., FTC No. C-4796 (Sept. 25, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/ftc-announces-crackdown-deceptive-ai-claims-schemes","source_title":"FTC Announces Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims and Schemes — FTC press release (Operation AI Comply)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-ftc-rytr-2024","title":"FTC v. Rytr — AI Fake-Review Generator Settlement","short_title":"FTC v. Rytr","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"FTC","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"repealed","strength":"unknown","effective_date":"2024-09-25","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Part of Operation AI Comply: the FTC ordered AI writing service Rytr to stop offering a 'testimonial and review' generator that produced fake consumer reviews on demand. The first FTC action against an AI product specifically designed to generate deceptive content.","summary_technical":"In re Rytr LLC, FTC No. C-4795 (Sept. 25, 2024). FTC Act § 5 deception; FTC Trade Regulation Rule on Fake Reviews and Testimonials (cited prospectively). Order: cease provision of AI tools that generate consumer testimonials or reviews unless tied to verified consumer experience.","who_is_protected":"Consumers reading product reviews online","who_must_comply":"Rytr LLC and similarly situated AI content generators marketing fake-review functionality","citation":"In re Rytr LLC, FTC No. C-4795 (Sept. 25, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/ftc-announces-crackdown-deceptive-ai-claims-schemes","source_title":"FTC Operation AI Comply — Rytr action — FTC press release","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-ftc-cleo-iva-2024","title":"FTC Operation AI Comply (Sweep)","short_title":"FTC Operation AI Comply (Sept. 2024)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"FTC","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-09-25","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"On September 25, 2024 the FTC announced 'Operation AI Comply' — a coordinated sweep against five companies (DoNotPay, Rytr, Ascend Ecom, Ecommerce Empire Builders, FBA Machine) accused of using AI claims to defraud consumers. Marked the FTC's first systemic AI enforcement sweep.","summary_technical":"FTC Operation AI Comply sweep, Sept. 25, 2024 — five coordinated actions under FTC Act § 5 deception and the FTC Business Opportunity Rule. Cumulative monetary relief in millions; injunctive bans on AI-business-opportunity scam marketing.","who_is_protected":"Consumers and small-business operators targeted by AI-claim-based scams","who_must_comply":"Companies marketing AI products or services with unsubstantiated efficacy claims","citation":"FTC Press Release, Operation AI Comply (Sept. 25, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/ftc-announces-crackdown-deceptive-ai-claims-schemes","source_title":"FTC Operation AI Comply — FTC press release","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-ftc-evolv-2024","title":"FTC v. Evolv Technology — AI Weapons-Detection Marketing Settlement","short_title":"FTC v. Evolv","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"FTC","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency","education","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-12-05","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"The FTC settled with Evolv Technology in November 2024 over claims it falsely marketed its AI-powered scanners as accurately detecting weapons in schools and venues, when in fact the systems missed weapons (including the knife in the Utica, NY school stabbing) and flagged everyday objects. Customers can cancel contracts.","summary_technical":"FTC v. Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-12940 (D. Mass.) (Nov. 26, 2024). FTC Act § 5 deception. Order: prohibits unsubstantiated efficacy claims for AI weapons-detection; allows K-12 school customers to cancel contracts; injunctive monitoring.","who_is_protected":"Schools, venues, and event-goers relying on AI weapons-detection systems","who_must_comply":"Evolv Technologies, Inc. and similar AI security-product vendors","citation":"Federal Trade Commission v. Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-12940 (D. Mass. Nov. 26, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/11/ftc-finalizes-order-evolv-technology-over-deceptive-ai-weapons-detection-claims","source_title":"FTC Order on Evolv Technology AI Weapons-Detection Claims — FTC press release","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-ftc-intellivision-2024","title":"FTC v. IntelliVision Technologies — Facial Recognition Accuracy / Bias Claims Settlement","short_title":"FTC v. IntelliVision","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"FTC","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-01-13","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"The FTC settled with IntelliVision in December 2024, alleging the company falsely claimed its facial-recognition product had 'zero gender or racial bias' without testing-data to support that — and that its accuracy claims were unsubstantiated. Builds on the FTC's Rite Aid theory.","summary_technical":"In re IntelliVision Technologies Corp., FTC No. C-4813 (Dec. 19, 2024). FTC Act § 5 deception. Order: cease unsupported accuracy / bias claims; conduct ongoing testing across demographic groups; disclose performance characteristics; maintain compliance program.","who_is_protected":"Consumers and downstream deployers of facial-recognition systems making bias-free / accuracy claims","who_must_comply":"IntelliVision Technologies Corp. and similar FRT vendors","citation":"In re IntelliVision Techs. Corp., FTC No. C-4813 (Dec. 19, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/232-3023-intellivision-matter","source_title":"FTC Action Against IntelliVision — FTC press release","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-thaler-v-vidal","title":"Thaler v. Vidal — AI as Patent Inventor Denied (Fed. Cir., cert. denied)","short_title":"Thaler v. Vidal (DABUS)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"Fed. Cir.","topics":["transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2022-08-05","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Stephen Thaler, inventor of the 'DABUS' AI system, sought to list DABUS as the inventor on two patent applications. The Federal Circuit ruled in August 2022 that under the Patent Act 'inventor' must be a natural person. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in April 2023, settling U.S. law: AI systems cannot be inventors of record.","summary_technical":"Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1783 (2023). Held: 35 U.S.C. § 100(f) limits 'inventor' to a natural person; no statutory ambiguity permitting AI inventorship. USPTO issued February 2024 inventorship guidance applying this rule and requiring named human inventors with significant contributions.","who_is_protected":"(Doctrinal — establishes that AI cannot be a patent inventor of record)","who_must_comply":"Patent applicants before USPTO and U.S. federal courts","citation":"Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1783 (2023)","source_url":"https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/08-05-2022-21-2347-thaler-v-vidal-opinion-21-2347-opinion-8-5-2022_1988142/","source_title":"Thaler v. Vidal — CourtListener Fed. Cir. opinion","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-thaler-v-perlmutter","title":"Thaler v. Perlmutter — AI as Copyright Author Denied (D.C. Cir.)","short_title":"Thaler v. Perlmutter (Copyright)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"D.C. Cir.","topics":["copyright","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2025-03-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), aff'g 687 F. Supp. 3d 140 (D.D.C. 2023). Held: 17 U.S.C. § 102(a) requires human authorship; Copyright Office's denial of registration was correct. Part 2 (Copyrightability, Jan. 29, 2025) and Part 2 (Jan. 2025) AI guidance applies the same rule and addresses human-AI hybrid works.","who_is_protected":"(Doctrinal — establishes that purely AI-generated works are uncopyrightable)","who_must_comply":"Copyright applicants before the U.S. Copyright Office and federal courts","citation":"Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)","source_url":"https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2025/03/23-5233.pdf","source_title":"Thaler v. Perlmutter — CourtListener D.C. Cir. opinion","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-louis-v-saferent","title":"Louis v. SafeRent Solutions — AI Tenant Screening Fair Housing Settlement (D. Mass.)","short_title":"Louis v. SafeRent","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"D. Mass.","topics":["housing-credit","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2024-11-20","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"Louis v. SafeRent Solutions, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-10800 (D. Mass., final approval Nov. 20, 2024; Judge Angel Kelley). FHA disparate-impact theory; ECOA. Settlement: $2.275M to class; 5-year prohibition on using SafeRent Score (or recommendation against tenancy based on the score) for applicants using housing vouchers; required retraining and revalidation of the algorithm.","who_is_protected":"Black and Hispanic housing applicants — particularly Section 8 voucher holders — subject to algorithmic tenant screening","who_must_comply":"SafeRent Solutions, LLC","citation":"Louis v. SafeRent Solutions, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-10800 (D. Mass.)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-mad-1_22-cv-10800","source_title":"Louis v. SafeRent — CourtListener 1:22-cv-10800","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-huskey-v-state-farm","title":"Huskey v. State Farm — Algorithmic Insurance Discrimination Class Action (N.D. Ill.)","short_title":"Huskey v. State Farm","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"N.D. Ill.","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","housing-credit"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2022-12-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"Black homeowners sued State Farm in 2022, alleging the insurer's claims-handling AI subjected them to greater scrutiny — more documentation requests, more delays, and higher denial rates — than white homeowners. One of the leading insurance-AI disparate-treatment cases.","summary_technical":"Huskey v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 1:22-cv-07014 (N.D. Ill., filed Dec. 14, 2022; Judge Sara L. Ellis). Fair Housing Act §§ 3604, 3605 disparate-treatment and disparate-impact. Sept. 11, 2023: court denied State Farm's motion to dismiss, finding plaintiffs adequately alleged discriminatory algorithm-driven claims handling. Discovery ongoing.","who_is_protected":"Black insurance policyholders subject to AI-driven claims handling","who_must_comply":"State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. and similarly situated insurers","citation":"Huskey v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 1:22-cv-07014 (N.D. Ill.)","source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66635423/huskey-v-state-farm-fire-casualty-company/","source_title":"Huskey v. State Farm — CourtListener 1:22-cv-07014","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-estrada-v-iqvia","title":"G.T. v. Cigna / IQVIA — AI Healthcare Coverage Denial Class Action (D. Conn.)","short_title":"Cigna PXDX AI Denial Class Action","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"E.D. Cal.","topics":["healthcare","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-07-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Patients sued Cigna in 2023 alleging its 'PxDx' algorithm reviewed and denied roughly 300,000 claims in two months — averaging 1.2 seconds per denial — without genuine physician review, violating California and federal law. Triggered a wave of similar AI healthcare-denial suits against UnitedHealth (NaviHealth) and Humana.","summary_technical":"Kisting-Leung v. Cigna Corp., No. 2:23-cv-01477 (E.D. Cal., filed July 24, 2023; Judge Daniel J. Calabretta). Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1367 + ERISA + breach of contract + UCL claims tied to PxDx automated denials. Class certification briefing 2025–2026; parallel actions against UnitedHealthcare (NaviHealth) and Humana also active.","who_is_protected":"Patients with health-insurance claims subject to automated coverage-denial algorithms","who_must_comply":"Cigna Corp. and similarly situated insurers using algorithmic claims-denial systems","citation":"Kisting-Leung v. Cigna Corp., No. 2:23-cv-01477 (E.D. Cal.)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01477/context","source_title":"Kisting-Leung v. Cigna — CourtListener 2:23-cv-01477","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-lokken-v-unitedhealth","title":"Lokken v. UnitedHealth Group — nH Predict AI Medicare Advantage Class Action (D. Minn.)","short_title":"Lokken v. UnitedHealth (nH Predict)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"D. Minn.","topics":["healthcare","automated-decisions"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-11-14","last_verified_date":"2026-08-05","summary_plain":"Families of deceased Medicare Advantage patients sued UnitedHealth in November 2023 over the 'nH Predict' algorithm, alleging the AI tool overrode physicians and prematurely terminated post-acute care coverage with an error rate above 90 percent in appeals — accelerating patient harms and deaths. On March 9, 2026, the court issued a significant discovery order compelling UnitedHealth to produce broad documentation of the nH Predict algorithm, including training data, model documentation, and internal performance audits.","summary_technical":"Estate of Lokken v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., No. 0:23-cv-03514 (D. Minn., filed Nov. 14, 2023; Judge Wilhelmina Wright). Claims: breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith, insurance bad faith, unjust enrichment, declaratory relief; ties to NaviHealth subsidiary's deployment of nH Predict. Motion to dismiss partially granted Feb. 2024; surviving claims in discovery. March 9, 2026 court order: Judge Wright granted plaintiffs' motion to compel, ordering UnitedHealth to produce nH Predict algorithm training data, model documentation, internal validation and performance reports, and communications regarding the algorithm's development and deployment in Medicare Advantage claims processing. Discovery order seen as a potential template for algorithmic-accountability discovery in healthcare AI litigation.","who_is_protected":"Medicare Advantage members subject to algorithmic post-acute-care coverage decisions","who_must_comply":"UnitedHealth Group, Inc., UnitedHealthcare, NaviHealth Inc.","citation":"Estate of Lokken v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., No. 0:23-cv-03514 (D. Minn.)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-mnd-0_23-cv-03514","source_title":"Estate of Lokken v. UnitedHealth — CourtListener 0:23-cv-03514","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-mata-v-avianca","title":"Mata v. Avianca — ChatGPT Fake Citations Sanctions Order (S.D.N.Y.)","short_title":"Mata v. Avianca (ChatGPT fake cites)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"S.D.N.Y.","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-06-22","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Two New York attorneys submitted a brief containing six fictitious case citations generated by ChatGPT. In June 2023 Judge P. Kevin Castel sanctioned them $5,000 each — the first formal federal sanction for AI-hallucinated legal citations, and the most-cited case in subsequent bar opinions on attorney AI use.","summary_technical":"Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023). Rule 11 sanctions of $5,000 against attorneys Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca for submitting brief with six fabricated ChatGPT-generated case citations. Court emphasized attorneys' duty to verify citations regardless of source.","who_is_protected":"Courts and opposing parties against AI-fabricated legal authorities","who_must_comply":"Attorneys practicing in U.S. federal court","citation":"Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)","source_url":"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13849516024529169137","source_title":"Mata v. Avianca — CourtListener opinion","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"litig-robles-v-domino-precedent","title":"Robles v. Domino's Pizza — ADA Web Accessibility (foundational for AI accessibility claims)","short_title":"Robles v. Domino's","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"9th Cir.","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2019-10-07","last_verified_date":"2026-08-16","summary_plain":"While predating modern generative AI, the Ninth Circuit's 2019 Robles v. Domino's ruling — followed by Supreme Court cert. denial — established that ADA Title III applies to web and mobile apps that interact with brick-and-mortar services. The decision is now the doctrinal anchor for AI chatbot and voice-assistant accessibility claims.","summary_technical":"Robles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 122 (2019). Held: ADA Title III covers websites and mobile apps connected to physical places of public accommodation; lack of clear DOJ rules does not defeat the duty.","who_is_protected":"Disabled users of websites, apps, AI chatbots, and voice assistants","who_must_comply":"Businesses operating public-accommodation websites or AI interfaces","citation":"Robles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 122","source_url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/01/15/17-55504.pdf","source_title":"Robles v. Domino's — CourtListener 9th Cir. opinion","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"litig-flores-v-stanley-black-decker","title":"OpenAI Voice Actor Cohort — Threatened 'Sky' Voice Likeness Claims (no filing)","short_title":"Sky / Scarlett Johansson voice-likeness threat","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"(threatened — no filed case)","topics":["deepfakes","consumer-protection"],"status":"unknown","strength":"unknown","effective_date":"2024-05-20","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Scarlett Johansson publicly threatened legal action against OpenAI in May 2024 after the company released a 'Sky' voice for GPT-4o that closely resembled hers — after she had declined to license her voice. OpenAI withdrew the voice. No lawsuit was filed, but the episode became a touchstone for voice-likeness AI right-of-publicity policy debates and shaped the NO FAKES Act.","summary_technical":"Public legal threat by Scarlett Johansson, May 20, 2024, asserting Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 / Lanham Act § 43(a) right-of-publicity and false endorsement claims. OpenAI 'paused' the Sky voice. No public docket; relevant for tracking voice-likeness AI policy and the NO FAKES Act path.","who_is_protected":"Recording artists, voice actors, and other performers vis-à-vis AI voice cloning","who_must_comply":"AI voice and generative-audio platforms","citation":"Public legal threat by Scarlett Johansson re: OpenAI 'Sky' voice (May 2024)","source_url":"https://www.npr.org/2024/05/20/1252495087/openai-pulls-ai-voice-that-was-compared-to-scarlett-johansson-in-the-movie-her","source_title":"OpenAI Pulls 'Sky' Voice After Scarlett Johansson Comment — NPR","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"dc-ai-training-mandate-2025","title":"Washington DC — Mandatory Responsible AI Training Requirement (first major US city)","short_title":"DC AI Training Mandate","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Washington, DC","state_abbr":"DC","county":"Washington","city":"Washington","topics":["public-sector","employment"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-04-01","enacted_date":"2025-04-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"OCTO-led Responsible AI Training: mandatory for DC government employees and contractors; covers Values application, risk identification, bias mitigation, and incident reporting. Delivered through InnovateUS partnership.","who_is_protected":"DC residents through DC workforce AI competency","who_must_comply":"DC government employees and contractors","citation":"OCTO Responsible AI Training Program (effective 2025)","source_url":"https://octo.dc.gov/release/dc-becomes-first-major-us-city-require-responsible-ai-training-government-workforce","source_title":"DC Becomes First Major US City to Require Responsible AI Training — OCTO","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"OCTO / Department of Human Resources","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"dc-stop-discrimination-algorithms-act-proposed","title":"DC Stop Discrimination by Algorithms Act (B24-0558, reintroduced)","short_title":"DC SDAA (B24-0558)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Washington, DC","state_abbr":"DC","county":"Washington","city":"Washington","topics":["automated-decisions","employment","housing-credit","healthcare","consumer-protection"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"B24-0558 / SDAA: prohibits algorithmic discrimination in covered consequential decisions; mandates annual bias audits and public algorithmic impact reports; consumer notice and adverse-action explanation requirements; private right of action with statutory damages up to $10,000 per violation.","who_is_protected":"DC residents subject to algorithmic decisions in housing, employment, education, credit, healthcare, insurance","who_must_comply":"Covered entities using algorithmic decision-making in DC","citation":"B24-0558 (DC Council, 2021; reintroduced)","source_url":"https://oag.dc.gov/release/ag-racine-introduces-legislation-stop","source_title":"AG Racine Introduces Legislation to Stop Algorithm Discrimination — DC OAG","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"DC Office of the Attorney General + private right of action","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation"},{"id":"syracuse-ny-surveillance-policy-2020","title":"Syracuse NY Surveillance Technology Policy + Working Group","short_title":"Syracuse Surveillance Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Syracuse, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"Onondaga","city":"Syracuse","topics":["law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2020-12-15","enacted_date":"2020-12-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Mayor Walsh executive order created a citywide Surveillance Technology Policy and a 9-employee/6-community Working Group that biweekly reviews each department's proposed surveillance technologies.","summary_technical":"Syracuse Surveillance Technology Policy (2020): EO requires departments to submit surveillance technology proposals to a Working Group that meets biweekly; Working Group recommends approval/denial to Mayor; public reporting required.","who_is_protected":"Syracuse residents","who_must_comply":"Syracuse city departments and police","citation":"Syracuse Surveillance Technology Policy (Dec. 2020)","source_url":"https://www.syr.gov/Departments/API/API-Initiatives/Surveillance-Technology","source_title":"Surveillance Technology — City of Syracuse","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Syracuse / Working Group","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"nyc-int-1003-2024-ai-hrc","title":"NYC Int 1003-2024 — AI Working Group within NYC Commission on Human Rights","short_title":"NYC Int 1003-2024","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"New York","city":"New York","topics":["employment","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"NYC Int 1003-2024 would amend the admin code to create an AI working group at the Commission on Human Rights to study AI's impact on employment and AEDT effects on protected classes — complementing Local Law 144.","summary_technical":"Int 1003-2024 (Restler): creates an AI Working Group within CCHR with members representing labor, civil rights, AI ethics, employment law, and technology. Working Group studies AI in employment and AEDT effects on protected classes, recommends regulations and reports to Council.","who_is_protected":"New Yorkers from employment-AI discrimination (would expand under LL144)","who_must_comply":"Would expand reach of NYC employment-AI regulation","citation":"NYC Int 1003-2024","source_url":"https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6831638&GUID=D87A96B3-4F36-4FEC-8412-6D0B61364F6B","source_title":"Int 1003-2024 — NYC Council Legistar","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NYC Commission on Human Rights","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"nyc-int-1196-2025-agency-ai","title":"NYC Int 1196-2025 — Prohibiting the Unauthorized Depiction of Public Officials by Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"NYC Int 1196-2025","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"New York","city":"New York","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"NYC Int 1196-2025 proposes to amend the administrative code of the City of New York to prohibit the unauthorized depiction of public officials by artificial intelligence; it is not about additional requirements on city agencies' use of AI tools.","summary_technical":"Int 1196-2025: builds on GUARD Act (Int 199-A/926-A/1024-A); adds further agency reporting and impact assessment requirements, contractor disclosure rules, and pre-deployment review pathways.","who_is_protected":"New Yorkers interacting with city agencies that use AI","who_must_comply":"NYC government agencies and contractors","citation":"NYC Int 1196-2025","source_url":"https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7137390&GUID=488F6287-CE1F-453F-9EFF-90EB1317AFEE","source_title":"Int 1196-2025 — NYC Council Legistar","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of Algorithmic Data Accountability (created by GUARD Act)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"providence-cpra-amend-rtcc-alpr-proposed","title":"Providence RI — Amendments to Community-Police Relations Act (RTCC / ALPR Limits)","short_title":"Providence CPRA Amendments","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Providence, RI","state_abbr":"RI","county":"Providence","city":"Providence","topics":["law-enforcement","public-sector","biometrics"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Providence Council Committee advanced amendments to the Community-Police Relations Act that would bar RTCC/ALPR use to assist federal immigration enforcement absent a judicial warrant, prohibit demographic data collection via city surveillance, and require written agreements with data-accessing partner agencies.","summary_technical":"Proposed amendments to Providence Community-Police Relations Act: limit Real-Time Crime Center and ALPR data sharing with federal immigration enforcement without judicial warrant; demographic data collection prohibition; mandatory MOUs with partner agencies accessing data.","who_is_protected":"Providence residents, especially immigrant communities, from federal immigration enforcement use of city surveillance","who_must_comply":"Providence PD and partner agencies accessing city surveillance","citation":"Providence CPRA amendments (introduced Oct. 6, 2025)","source_url":"https://council.providenceri.gov/2025/10/06/committee-advances-immigration-and-policing-reforms-to-full-council/","source_title":"Committee Advances Immigration and Policing Reforms — Providence Council","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Providence City Council oversight","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"hartford-ct-drone-surveillance-proposed","title":"Hartford CT — Proposed Drone and Surveillance-Technology Oversight Ordinance","short_title":"Hartford Surveillance Oversight (proposed)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Hartford, CT","state_abbr":"CT","county":"Hartford","city":"Hartford","topics":["law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Hartford's proposed surveillance-oversight ordinance would ban weaponization of police drones, require HPD public reporting on drone use, and require Council approval of all future police surveillance technology acquisitions.","summary_technical":"Proposed Hartford ordinance: (1) prohibits weaponization of police drones; (2) requires public reporting on HPD drone use; (3) requires Council approval of all future police surveillance technology acquisitions; CCOPS-style oversight structure.","who_is_protected":"Hartford residents","who_must_comply":"Hartford Police Department and city agencies","citation":"Hartford proposed surveillance oversight ordinance (2024)","source_url":"https://www.acluct.org/en/news/im-hartford-resident-and-aclu-ct-staff-member-mass-surveillance-threatens-people-my-city","source_title":"Mass Surveillance Threatens People in My City — ACLU CT","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Hartford City Council oversight","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"nyc-ll3-biometric-identifier-law","title":"NYC Biometric Identifier Information Law (Local Law 3 of 2021)","short_title":"NYC Biometric Identifier Law (LL3)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York City, NY","state_abbr":"NY","city":"New York","topics":["biometrics","privacy","consumer-protection","facial-recognition"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2021-07-09","enacted_date":"2021-01-11","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"NYC retail stores, restaurants, and entertainment venues that collect customers' biometric data (face scans, fingerprints, iris scans, voiceprints) must post clear signs at entrances disclosing it. Selling or otherwise profiting from customers' biometric data is flatly banned. Customers can sue: $500 per signage or negligent-sale violation and $5,000 per intentional or reckless sale, plus attorneys' fees.","summary_technical":"Local Law 3 of 2021 (NYC Admin. Code §§ 22-1201–22-1205) requires conspicuous entrance signage by commercial establishments collecting customer biometric identifier information and prohibits any sale or profit from such data, with a private right of action (30-day cure period for signage claims only).","who_is_protected":"Customers of NYC entertainment venues, retail stores, and food and drink establishments","who_must_comply":"Commercial establishments operating in NYC (financial institutions exempt from signage rule; government use excluded)","citation":"NYC Admin. Code §§ 22-1201–22-1205 (Local Law 3 of 2021)","source_url":"https://intro.nyc/local-laws/2021-3","source_title":"Local Law 3 of 2021, Local Laws of the City of New York","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Private enforcement via courts; signage form prescribed by DCWP","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"$500 per signage violation (after cure); $500 per negligent sale; $5,000 per intentional/reckless sale; attorneys' fees and injunctive relief"},{"id":"nyc-ll35-algorithmic-tools-reporting","title":"NYC Local Law 35 of 2022 — Annual Reporting on Algorithmic Tools Used by City Agencies","short_title":"NYC Algorithmic Tools Reporting (LL35)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York City, NY","state_abbr":"NY","city":"New York","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2022-01-15","enacted_date":"2022-01-14","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Every NYC agency must publicly report, each year, every algorithmic tool it used to make or assist decisions that materially affect the public's rights, benefits, or access to services. Reports must describe each tool's purpose, the data it uses, and any vendor involvement, and are published as an open dataset.","summary_technical":"Local Law 35 of 2022 (Int. 1806-A) added NYC Admin. Code § 3-119.5, requiring each agency to report covered algorithmic tools annually by December 31, with a citywide compilation by March 31; OTI manages compliance under Executive Order 3 of 2022.","who_is_protected":"Members of the public affected by NYC agency algorithmic decision-making","who_must_comply":"All New York City agencies","citation":"NYC Admin. Code § 3-119.5 (Local Law 35 of 2022)","source_url":"https://intro.nyc/local-laws/2022-35","source_title":"Local Law 35 of 2022, Local Laws of the City of New York","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NYC Office of Technology and Innovation; Mayor's Office of Operations","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"nyc-ai-action-plan-2023","title":"New York City Artificial Intelligence Action Plan (2023)","short_title":"NYC AI Action Plan","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York City, NY","state_abbr":"NY","city":"New York","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2023-10-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"NYC's AI Action Plan is the city's roadmap for responsible government AI use, with 37 action items covering AI principles, agency guidance, procurement standards, risk assessment, and public engagement. It is policy guidance from the mayor's Office of Technology and Innovation rather than binding law; annual progress reports have followed.","summary_technical":"NYC AI Action Plan (OTI, Oct. 2023) sets 37 actions for AI governance across city agencies; Year 2 progress report issued Oct. 16, 2025.","who_is_protected":"New York City residents interacting with city agencies that use AI","who_must_comply":"NYC agencies (via OTI guidance); not directly binding as law","citation":"NYC OTI, AI Action Plan (Oct. 2023)","source_url":"https://www.nyc.gov/assets/oti/downloads/pdf/reports/artificial-intelligence-action-plan.pdf","source_title":"The New York City Artificial Intelligence Action Plan (October 2023)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NYC Office of Technology and Innovation","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"san-jose-ai-policy-genai-guidelines","title":"San José AI Policy (City Policy Manual 1.7.12) and Generative AI Guidelines","short_title":"San José AI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Jose, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Santa Clara","city":"San Jose","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"San José adopted a citywide AI policy and generative AI guidelines governing how city staff use AI tools. Employees must register AI uses with the city's Privacy and AI team, may not let AI make actionable decisions about residents (like approving applications), and must review AI outputs. San José also founded the GovAI Coalition, whose AI policy templates have been adopted by 100+ public agencies.","summary_technical":"City Policy Manual § 1.7.12 (AI Policy) and the San José Generative AI Guidelines (first released July 2023) govern city employee and vendor AI use, including use reporting, human review, and an AI review process; templates shared nationally via the GovAI Coalition.","who_is_protected":"San José residents affected by city AI use","who_must_comply":"City of San José employees, departments, and AI vendors contracting with the city","citation":"City of San José Policy Manual § 1.7.12; GenAI Guidelines (2023, as updated)","source_url":"https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/information-technology/itd-generative-ai-guideline","source_title":"San José AI Guidelines and Policies — City of San José","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of San José IT Department (Digital Privacy Office / Privacy and AI team)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"boston-generative-ai-interim-guidelines","title":"City of Boston Interim Guidelines for Using Generative AI","short_title":"Boston GenAI Guidelines","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Boston, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Suffolk","city":"Boston","topics":["public-sector","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-05-18","enacted_date":"2023-05-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Boston was one of the first major US cities to issue generative AI guidance for its workforce. The interim guidelines tell city employees to never put confidential or personally identifying information into AI prompts, to fact-check all AI-generated content, and to disclose AI use, while encouraging responsible experimentation.","summary_technical":"City of Boston Interim Guidelines for Using Generative AI v1.1 (CIO, May 18, 2023) set disclosure, fact-checking, and confidentiality requirements for employee generative AI use across city agencies (excluding Boston Public Schools).","who_is_protected":"Boston residents and city employees","who_must_comply":"City of Boston employees and departments (except Boston Public Schools)","citation":"City of Boston, Interim GenAI Guidelines v1.1 (May 18, 2023)","source_url":"https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/file/2023/05/Guidelines-for-Using-Generative-AI-2023.pdf","source_title":"City of Boston Interim Guidelines for Using Generative AI v1.1","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Boston Department of Innovation and Technology","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"seattle-generative-ai-policy-pol209","title":"City of Seattle Generative AI Policy (POL-209) and Responsible AI Program","short_title":"Seattle Generative AI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Seattle, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"King","city":"Seattle","topics":["public-sector","transparency","privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-11-01","enacted_date":"2023-11-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Seattle's generative AI policy governs how city employees use tools like ChatGPT. It requires attribution of AI-generated work, human review of all AI output before release, and limits on feeding personal information into AI systems, built around seven principles including bias reduction, transparency, and explainability.","summary_technical":"Seattle Generative AI Policy POL-209 (eff. Nov. 1, 2023, reviewed annually) sets responsible-use requirements for city employee generative AI use, administered through Seattle IT's Responsible AI Program; a broader AI policy (POL-211) and 2025 Responsible AI Plan followed.","who_is_protected":"Seattle residents and recipients of city services","who_must_comply":"City of Seattle employees and departments","citation":"City of Seattle, GenAI Policy POL-209 (eff. Nov. 1, 2023)","source_url":"https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SeattleIT/City-of-Seattle-Generative-Artificial-Intelligence-Policy.pdf","source_title":"City of Seattle Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy POL-209","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Seattle Information Technology Department (CTO; Responsible AI Program)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"sf-generative-ai-guidelines","title":"San Francisco Generative AI Guidelines for City Staff","short_title":"SF Generative AI Guidelines","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Francisco, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"San Francisco","city":"San Francisco","topics":["public-sector","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-12-11","enacted_date":"2023-12-11","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"San Francisco's citywide generative AI guidelines apply to employees, contractors, consultants, volunteers, and vendors working for the city. They require human review and disclosure of AI-generated content, prohibit entering non-public information into AI tools, ban concealing AI use, and bar generating deepfake-style images, audio, or video. Most recently revised in July 2025.","summary_technical":"San Francisco Generative AI Guidelines (City Administrator's Office, Dec. 11, 2023; rev. July 2025) govern generative AI use by city staff and vendors, operating alongside the Ch. 19B surveillance technology ordinance.","who_is_protected":"San Francisco residents and members of the public receiving city services","who_must_comply":"CCSF employees, contractors, consultants, volunteers, and vendors performing city work","citation":"CCSF, Generative AI Guidelines (Dec. 2023, rev. July 2025)","source_url":"https://www.sf.gov/reports--july-2025--san-francisco-generative-ai-guidelines","source_title":"San Francisco Generative AI Guidelines (July 2025 revision) — SF.gov","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of the City Administrator (Digital & Data Services; COIT)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"king-county-genai-guidelines","title":"King County Generative AI Guidelines for Employees","short_title":"King County GenAI Guidelines","level":"county","jurisdiction":"King County, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"King","topics":["public-sector","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-09-27","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"King County issued guidelines for employee use of generative AI, developed jointly by King County IT and the Office of Equity, Racial and Social Justice. The guidelines aim to reduce bias and protect sensitive personal data entrusted to the county, with a software review process for GenAI tools.","summary_technical":"King County GenAI guidelines (announced Sept. 27, 2024), developed by KCIT and OERSJ under the county's IT policy framework, set responsible-use expectations with a tool review/intake process from 2025.","who_is_protected":"King County residents whose data the county holds","who_must_comply":"King County employees and agencies","citation":"King County, GenAI Guidelines for Employees (Sept. 2024)","source_url":"https://kcemployees.com/2024/09/27/generative-artificial-intelligence-genai-guidelines-for-king-county-employees/","source_title":"GenAI guidelines for King County employees — King County Employee News","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"King County Information Technology (KCIT)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"dc-mayors-order-2024-028-ai-values","title":"DC Mayor's Order 2024-028 — DC's AI Values and Strategic Benchmarks","short_title":"DC AI Values Mayor's Order","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Washington, DC","state_abbr":"DC","city":"Washington","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-02-08","enacted_date":"2024-02-08","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"Mayor's Order 2024-028 (Feb. 8, 2024) binds District agencies to six AI Values before AI deployment, convenes an OCTO-led AI Taskforce and advisory group (sunset Dec. 31, 2026), and sets benchmark deadlines including phased agency AI strategic plans through Oct. 1, 2026.","who_is_protected":"District of Columbia residents and users of DC government services","who_must_comply":"District of Columbia government agencies","citation":"D.C. Mayor's Order 2024-028 (Feb. 8, 2024)","source_url":"https://mayor.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mayormb/release_content/attachments/Mayor'sOrder2024-028ArticulatingDCsArtificialIntelligenceValues.pdf","source_title":"Mayor's Order 2024-028, Articulating DC's Artificial Intelligence Values","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO); Office of the Mayor","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"long-beach-generative-ai-guidance","title":"City of Long Beach Generative AI Guidance and Citywide AI Strategy","short_title":"Long Beach GenAI Guidance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Long Beach, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Los Angeles","city":"Long Beach","topics":["public-sector","privacy","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Long Beach's Smart City program issued Generative AI Guidance (now v1.3) for city staff, covering AI bias, data privacy, and cybersecurity, and in 2025 published a citywide AI Strategy committing to an AI use-case registry, workforce training, and community engagement. It builds on the city's council-approved 2021 Data Privacy Guidelines.","summary_technical":"City of Long Beach Generative AI Guidance v1.3 (Technology & Innovation Department) and AI Strategy (2025) establish staff use rules and governance principles; the Long Beach Data Privacy Guidelines (council-approved Mar. 9, 2021) supply the privacy framework.","who_is_protected":"Long Beach residents","who_must_comply":"City of Long Beach employees and departments","citation":"City of Long Beach, GenAI Guidance v1.3; AI Strategy (2025)","source_url":"https://www.longbeach.gov/smartcity/projects/generative-ai-guidance/","source_title":"Generative AI Guidance — City of Long Beach Smart City Initiative","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Long Beach Technology and Innovation Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"santa-cruz-county-ai-policy","title":"County of Santa Cruz Artificial Intelligence Use Policy","short_title":"Santa Cruz County AI Policy","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Santa Cruz County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Santa Cruz","topics":["public-sector","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-09-19","enacted_date":"2023-09-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"County of Santa Cruz AI policy (approved Sept. 19, 2023), codified in the county Procedures Manual, governs employee use of AI/generative AI tools in county operations.","who_is_protected":"Santa Cruz County residents","who_must_comply":"County of Santa Cruz employees and departments","citation":"County of Santa Cruz, AI Policy (Sept. 19, 2023)","source_url":"https://www.santacruzcountyca.gov/portals/0/county/CAO/press%20releases/2023/AIPolicy.09192023.pdf","source_title":"County of Santa Cruz press release: AI Policy (Sept. 19, 2023)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"County Administrative Office / Information Services","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pittsburgh-generative-ai-internal-policy","title":"City of Pittsburgh Internal Policy on Use of Generative AI Tools","short_title":"Pittsburgh GenAI Use Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Pittsburgh, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Allegheny","city":"Pittsburgh","topics":["public-sector","privacy","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Pittsburgh adopted an internal policy on generative AI use by city staff, informed by the University of Pittsburgh's Task Force on Public Algorithms. It bars staff from entering private city data into tools like ChatGPT, prohibits AI use in applications that affect residents' rights or safety, forbids relying on generative AI for decisions, and requires AI use to be disclosed and logged.","summary_technical":"City of Pittsburgh generative AI policy (drafted Oct. 2023, updated Feb. 2024 per PublicSource) restricts staff generative AI use; the Pittsburgh Task Force on Public Algorithms recommendations remain non-binding; no algorithmic accountability ordinance enacted.","who_is_protected":"Pittsburgh residents","who_must_comply":"City of Pittsburgh employees and departments","citation":"City of Pittsburgh internal GenAI policy (2023, updated 2024)","source_url":"https://www.publicsource.org/city-pittsburgh-generative-ai-artificial-intelligence-policy-allegheny-county/","source_title":"Read the City of Pittsburgh's policy on use of AI tools — PublicSource","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Pittsburgh Department of Innovation and Performance","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"nyc-guard-act-2025","title":"NYC GUARD Act — Algorithmic Accountability for City Government (Intros 199-A/926-A/1024-A)","short_title":"NYC GUARD Act (Gov't AI Accountability)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York City, NY","state_abbr":"NY","city":"New York","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-12-26","enacted_date":"2025-12-26","last_verified_date":"2026-06-23","summary_plain":"The NYC City Council unanimously passed three bills on November 25, 2025 known as the GUARD Act (Guaranteeing Unbiased AI Regulation and Disclosure), creating independent oversight of city government AI use. The package creates an independent Office of Algorithmic Data Accountability, sets mandatory fairness-testing and transparency standards for all agency AI tools, and requires a public registry of every AI system that has undergone a pre-deployment assessment. Because Mayor Adams neither signed nor vetoed the bills within the 30-day window, they lapsed into law on December 26, 2025. Intro 1024-A was assigned Local Law 195 of 2025; the Local Law numbers for Intros 199-A and 926-A still await Legistar confirmation.","summary_technical":"NYC Council Int. Nos. 199-A (Gutiérrez), 926-A (Menin), and 1024-A (Gutiérrez), passed unanimously Nov. 25, 2025: Intro 199 creates an independent Office of Algorithmic Data Accountability to audit, monitor, and regulate agency AI tools and investigate public complaints; Intro 926 establishes mandatory citywide fairness-testing, privacy, transparency, and independent-evaluation standards; Intro 1024 requires the Office to publish a list of all AI systems for which a pre-deployment assessment was conducted. Under NYC Admin. Code § 35, bills become law 30 days after council passage if the mayor neither signs nor vetoes — here the bills lapsed into law unsigned on Dec. 26, 2025. Intro 1024-A = Local Law 195 of 2025.","who_is_protected":"NYC residents affected by city agency AI and automated decision systems","who_must_comply":"New York City agencies using AI or automated decision systems","citation":"NYC Council Int. Nos. 199-A, 926-A, 1024-A (GUARD Act, passed Nov. 25, 2025; lapsed into law Dec. 26, 2025; Intro 1024-A = Local Law 195 of 2025)","source_url":"https://council.nyc.gov/jennifer-gutierrez/2025/11/25/city-council-establishes-new-ai-oversight-office-other-ai-initiatives/","source_title":"City Council Establishes New AI Oversight Office + Other AI Initiatives — Council Member Gutiérrez","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Proposed independent Office of Algorithmic Data Accountability"},{"id":"warren-county-va-dc-ord-2025","title":"Warren County VA — Data Center Zoning Text Amendment (SUP required, design standards)","short_title":"Warren County VA","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Warren County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Warren","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-04-15","enacted_date":"2026-04-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Removes by-right data-center development; requires a special-use permit in industrial zones with site-specific noise, lighting, water-use, and 300-ft residential setback conditions; bans data centers in agricultural districts.","summary_technical":"Removes by-right data-center development; requires a special-use permit in industrial zones with site-specific noise, lighting, water-use, and 300-ft residential setback conditions; bans data centers in agricultural districts. Citation: Warren County Zoning Text Amendment (application filed 2026-04-15; public hearing scheduled 2026-07-08). Surfaced via the jurisdiction's CivicPlus / CivicClerk agenda or municipal website portal.","who_is_protected":"Warren County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators seeking approvals in Warren County","citation":"Warren County Zoning Text Amendment (application filed 2026-04-15; public hearing scheduled 2026-07-08) (2026-04-15)","source_url":"https://www.warrencountyva.gov/government/planning-zoning/data-centers","source_title":"Warren County VA — Data Center Zoning Text Amendment (SUP required, design standards) — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Warren County government / planning / clerk's office"},{"id":"shenandoah-county-va-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Shenandoah County VA — 12-Month Moratorium on Data Center Applications","short_title":"Shenandoah County VA","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Shenandoah County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Shenandoah","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-03-24","enacted_date":"2026-03-24","expires_date":"2027-03-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"One-year pause on accepting and processing data-center rezoning, special-use, and site-plan applications while county drafts use-specific standards covering noise, water, and rural-character impacts.","summary_technical":"One-year pause on accepting and processing data-center rezoning, special-use, and site-plan applications while county drafts use-specific standards covering noise, water, and rural-character impacts. Citation: Shenandoah BoS resolution 2026-03-24. Surfaced via the jurisdiction's CivicPlus / CivicClerk agenda or municipal website portal.","who_is_protected":"Shenandoah County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators seeking approvals in Shenandoah County","citation":"Shenandoah BoS resolution 2026-03-24 (2026-03-24)","source_url":"https://www.nvdaily.com/nvdaily/planners-move-data-center-ordinance-forward-after-charged-hearing/article_dd7ff212-54bc-59dc-b5d3-7b45d6813ad3.html","source_title":"Shenandoah County VA — 12-Month Moratorium on Data Center Applications — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Shenandoah County government / planning / clerk's office"},{"id":"henry-county-ga-dc-ord-2026","title":"Henry County GA — Data Center Ordinance (UDC Amendment)","short_title":"Henry County GA","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Henry County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Henry","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-02-18","enacted_date":"2026-02-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Data centers allowed in M-1 (light manufacturing) and M-2 (heavy manufacturing) zones with a conditional use permit; 1,000-ft setback from any existing residential building, 200-ft undisturbed landscape buffer around the property, 500-ft setback from non-industrial zoning, noise compatibility standards, water-use disclosure, and additional design and screening requirements.","summary_technical":"Data centers allowed in M-1 (light manufacturing) and M-2 (heavy manufacturing) zones with a conditional use permit; 1,000-ft setback from any existing residential building, 200-ft undisturbed landscape buffer around the property, 500-ft setback from non-industrial zoning, noise compatibility standards, water-use disclosure, and additional design and screening requirements. Citation: BoC UDC amendment 2026-02-18. Surfaced via the jurisdiction's CivicPlus / CivicClerk agenda or municipal website portal.","who_is_protected":"Henry County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators seeking approvals in Henry County","citation":"BoC UDC amendment 2026-02-18 (2026-02-18)","source_url":"https://www.henrycountyga.gov/314/Planning-Zoning","source_title":"Henry County GA — Data Center Ordinance (UDC Amendment) — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Henry County government / planning / clerk's office"},{"id":"fairfax-county-va-dc-zoa-2024","title":"Fairfax County Data Center Zoning Ordinance Amendment","short_title":"Fairfax County Data Center Zoning Ordinance Amendment","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Fairfax County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Fairfax","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-09-10","enacted_date":"2024-09-10","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Adds use-specific standards for data centers covering noise, building design, and proximity to residential uses; tightens permitted districts.","summary_technical":"Adds use-specific standards for data centers covering noise, building design, and proximity to residential uses; tightens permitted districts. Citation: ZOA (Data Centers, 2024-09-10).","who_is_protected":"Fairfax County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Fairfax County","citation":"ZOA (Data Centers, 2024-09-10) (2024-09-10)","source_url":"https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/data-centers","source_title":"Fairfax County Data Center Zoning Ordinance Amendment — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Fairfax County government / planning"},{"id":"fauquier-county-va-dc-policy","title":"Fauquier County Data Center Development Policy Guidance (BP/PCID only)","short_title":"Fauquier County Data Center Development Policy Guidance (BP/PCID only)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Fauquier County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Fauquier","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-12-14","enacted_date":"2023-12-14","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Restricts data centers to Business Park and PCID overlay districts and prohibits siting adjacent to residential, parks, schools, or medical uses.","summary_technical":"Restricts data centers to Business Park and PCID overlay districts and prohibits siting adjacent to residential, parks, schools, or medical uses. Citation: BoS Resolution 2023-12-14.","who_is_protected":"Fauquier County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Fauquier County","citation":"BoS Resolution 2023-12-14 (2023-12-14)","source_url":"https://www.pecva.org/wp-content/uploads/fauquier-data-center-policy-december-14-2023.pdf","source_title":"Fauquier County Data Center Development Policy Guidance (BP/PCID only) — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Fauquier County government / planning"},{"id":"fauquier-county-va-vint-hill-pcid","title":"Fauquier Vint Hill PCID Large-Building Special Exception Amendment","short_title":"Fauquier Vint Hill PCID Large-Building Special Exception Amendment","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Fauquier County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Fauquier","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-03-14","enacted_date":"2024-03-14","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Requires Board special-exception approval for any building >50,000 sq ft in the Vint Hill PCID, effectively capturing all data centers.","summary_technical":"Requires Board special-exception approval for any building >50,000 sq ft in the Vint Hill PCID, effectively capturing all data centers. Citation: ZOA (March 2024).","who_is_protected":"Fauquier County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Fauquier County","citation":"ZOA (March 2024) (2024-03-14)","source_url":"https://www.fauquiercounty.gov/government/departments-a-g/community-development/codes-ordinances/zoning-ordinance","source_title":"Fauquier Vint Hill PCID Large-Building Special Exception Amendment — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Fauquier County government / planning"},{"id":"culpeper-county-va-tech-zone-repeal","title":"Culpeper County Repeal of Brandy Station Technology Zone","short_title":"Culpeper County Repeal of Brandy Station Technology Zone","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Culpeper County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Culpeper","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-01-03","enacted_date":"2023-01-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Unanimously eliminated the Brandy Station Technology Zone, removing tax incentives for data-center / tech development near Culpeper Battlefields State Park.","summary_technical":"Unanimously eliminated the Brandy Station Technology Zone, removing tax incentives for data-center / tech development near Culpeper Battlefields State Park. Citation: BoS resolution (Jan 3, 2023).","who_is_protected":"Culpeper County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Culpeper County","citation":"BoS resolution (Jan 3, 2023) (2023-01-03)","source_url":"https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/culpeper-county-officials-vote-to-remove-brandy-station-technology-zone/","source_title":"Culpeper County Repeal of Brandy Station Technology Zone — source","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Culpeper County government / planning"},{"id":"culpeper-county-va-dc-cup-2025","title":"Culpeper County CUP Requirement for Data Centers on Industrial Land (outside Tech Zone)","short_title":"Culpeper County CUP Requirement for Data Centers on Industrial Land (outside Tec","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Culpeper County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Culpeper","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-09-02","enacted_date":"2025-09-02","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Requires conditional use permit (CUP) for new data centers on light and heavy industrial land (2,200+ acres on 140 parcels of light industrial; 867 acres heavy industrial) OUTSIDE the Culpeper Technology Zone — data centers in CTZ remain by-right. Does not apply to vested/already-approved projects.","summary_technical":"Requires conditional use permit (CUP) for new data centers on light and heavy industrial land (2,200+ acres on 140 parcels of light industrial; 867 acres heavy industrial) OUTSIDE the Culpeper Technology Zone — data centers in CTZ remain by-right. Does not apply to vested/already-approved projects. Citation: ZOA 2025-09-02.","who_is_protected":"Culpeper County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Culpeper County","citation":"ZOA 2025-09-02 (2025-09-02)","source_url":"https://fredericksburg.com/news/local/business/article_b8720f25-cd96-48ed-bb24-a19129b85f8e.html","source_title":"Culpeper County CUP Requirement for Data Centers on Industrial Land (outside Tech Zone) — source","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Culpeper County government / planning"},{"id":"spotsylvania-county-va-end-by-right","title":"Spotsylvania County End of By-Right Data-Center Zoning","short_title":"Spotsylvania County End of By-Right Data-Center Zoning","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Spotsylvania County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Spotsylvania","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-03-25","enacted_date":"2025-03-25","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Adds data centers as Special Use (requiring Planning Commission hearing) in commercial and office zones; data centers remain by-right permitted uses in Industrial 1 (I-1) and Industrial 2 (I-2) districts — by-right development was NOT universally ended.","summary_technical":"Adds data centers as Special Use (requiring Planning Commission hearing) in commercial and office zones; data centers remain by-right permitted uses in Industrial 1 (I-1) and Industrial 2 (I-2) districts — by-right development was NOT universally ended. Citation: BoS action December 2025 (Ordinance adopted ~Dec 9, 2025; design guidelines adopted Feb 24, 2026).","who_is_protected":"Spotsylvania County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Spotsylvania County","citation":"BoS action December 2025 (Ordinance adopted ~Dec 9, 2025; design guidelines adopted Feb 24, 2026) (2025-03-25)","source_url":"https://www.spotsylvania.va.us/DocumentCenter/View/36127/BOS---Draft-Ord-REDLINE-11-18-2025","source_title":"Spotsylvania County End of By-Right Data-Center Zoning — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Spotsylvania County government / planning"},{"id":"spotsylvania-county-va-design-standards","title":"Spotsylvania County Data Center Design Standards Ordinance","short_title":"Spotsylvania County Data Center Design Standards Ordinance","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Spotsylvania County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Spotsylvania","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-12-09","enacted_date":"2025-12-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Adopts 300-ft buffer, 400-ft residential setback, 75-ft height cap, plus force-and-effect grandfather clause for previously approved rezonings.","summary_technical":"Adopts 300-ft buffer, 400-ft residential setback, 75-ft height cap, plus force-and-effect grandfather clause for previously approved rezonings. Citation: Ordinance 23-190.","who_is_protected":"Spotsylvania County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Spotsylvania County","citation":"Ordinance 23-190 (2025-12-09)","source_url":"https://www.spotsylvania.va.us/DocumentCenter/View/36127/BOS---Draft-Ord-REDLINE-Final-11-18-2025","source_title":"Spotsylvania County Data Center Design Standards Ordinance — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Spotsylvania County government / planning"},{"id":"stafford-county-va-dc-ord-2025","title":"Stafford County Data Center Zoning Ordinance + Comp Plan Amendment","short_title":"Stafford County Data Center Zoning Ordinance + Comp Plan Amendment","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Stafford County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Stafford","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-10-21","enacted_date":"2025-10-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Requires 750-ft setback from residential property lines, 100-ft from commercial; mandates CUP; adds tree-preservation, noise, and buffer rules; grandfathers approvals on or before 2025-10-21.","summary_technical":"Requires 750-ft setback from residential property lines, 100-ft from commercial; mandates CUP; adds tree-preservation, noise, and buffer rules; grandfathers approvals on or before 2025-10-21. Citation: O25-29 / R25-208.","who_is_protected":"Stafford County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Stafford County","citation":"O25-29 / R25-208 (2025-10-21)","source_url":"https://staffordcountyva.gov/government/departments_p-z/planning_and_zoning/data_centers/index.php","source_title":"Stafford County Data Center Zoning Ordinance + Comp Plan Amendment — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Stafford County government / planning"},{"id":"grove-city-oh-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Grove City OH 12-Month Moratorium on High-Density Computing Facilities","short_title":"Grove City OH 12-Month Moratorium on High-Density Computing Facilities","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Grove City, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Franklin","city":"Grove City","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-02","enacted_date":"2026-06-02","expires_date":"2027-06-02","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"6-1 vote pausing establishment, review, and approval of high-density computing facilities for 12 months with 6-month task-force check-in; triggered by Headwaters Site Development proposal.","summary_technical":"6-1 vote pausing establishment, review, and approval of high-density computing facilities for 12 months with 6-month task-force check-in; triggered by Headwaters Site Development proposal. Citation: Grove City Council moratorium (June 2026).","who_is_protected":"Grove City residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Grove City","citation":"Grove City Council moratorium (June 2026) (2026-06-02)","source_url":"https://grovecityoh.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3659/files/agenda/6025","source_title":"Grove City OH 12-Month Moratorium on High-Density Computing Facilities — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Grove City government / planning"},{"id":"jackson-township-oh-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Jackson Township OH One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers","short_title":"Jackson Township OH One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Jackson Township, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Franklin","city":"Jackson Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-05-12","enacted_date":"2026-05-12","expires_date":"2027-05-12","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Blocks permits and zoning approvals for data centers on unincorporated township land while regulations are studied; follows Stream Data Centers proposal off Rensch Road.","summary_technical":"Blocks permits and zoning approvals for data centers on unincorporated township land while regulations are studied; follows Stream Data Centers proposal off Rensch Road. Citation: Trustees resolution May 12, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Jackson Township residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Jackson Township","citation":"Trustees resolution May 12, 2026 (2026-05-12)","source_url":"https://jacksontwp.com/board-of-trustees-meeting-minutes/","source_title":"Jackson Township OH One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Jackson Township government / planning"},{"id":"vienna-township-oh-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Vienna Township OH 180-Day Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Vienna Township OH 180-Day Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Vienna Township, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Trumbull","city":"Vienna Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-02-15","enacted_date":"2026-02-15","expires_date":"2026-08-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"2-1 vote for 180-day pause while drafting zoning that caps decibel levels and megawatt draw rather than banning the use outright.","summary_technical":"2-1 vote for 180-day pause while drafting zoning that caps decibel levels and megawatt draw rather than banning the use outright. Citation: Trustees resolution Feb 2026.","who_is_protected":"Vienna Township residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Vienna Township","citation":"Trustees resolution Feb 2026 (2026-02-15)","source_url":"http://www.viennatownship.com/township-information/meeting-minutes","source_title":"Vienna Township OH 180-Day Data Center Moratorium — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Vienna Township government / planning"},{"id":"hubbard-township-oh-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Hubbard Township OH One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers","short_title":"Hubbard Township OH One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Hubbard Township, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Trumbull","city":"Hubbard Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-02-10","enacted_date":"2026-02-10","expires_date":"2027-02-10","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"2-1 trustee vote in response to 'Project Milo'; county planning commission asked to evaluate zoning text amendment.","summary_technical":"2-1 trustee vote in response to 'Project Milo'; county planning commission asked to evaluate zoning text amendment. Citation: Trustees resolution Feb 10, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Hubbard Township residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Hubbard Township","citation":"Trustees resolution Feb 10, 2026 (2026-02-10)","source_url":"https://www.hubbardtwpohio.gov/meetings-minutes","source_title":"Hubbard Township OH One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Hubbard Township government / planning"},{"id":"boardman-township-oh-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Boardman Township OH One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers","short_title":"Boardman Township OH One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Boardman Township, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Mahoning","city":"Boardman Township","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-04-28","enacted_date":"2026-04-28","expires_date":"2027-04-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Unanimous trustee vote pausing data centers for one year to develop zoning addressing noise, energy and water-rate impacts.","summary_technical":"Unanimous trustee vote pausing data centers for one year to develop zoning addressing noise, energy and water-rate impacts. Citation: Trustees resolution Apr 28, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Boardman Township residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Boardman Township","citation":"Trustees resolution Apr 28, 2026 (2026-04-28)","source_url":"https://www.boardmantwp.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/4-28-2026-Final-Agenda.pdf","source_title":"Boardman Township OH One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Boardman Township government / planning"},{"id":"massillon-oh-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Massillon OH Data Center Moratorium (60-day stay; extended through Aug 21, 2026)","short_title":"Massillon OH Data Center Moratorium (60-day stay; extended through Aug 21, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Massillon, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Stark","city":"Massillon","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-04-06","enacted_date":"2026-04-06","expires_date":"2026-08-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Council unanimously passed a 180-day moratorium on data center permits April 6, 2026; voted 8-0 on April 13 to scale it to a 60-day stay; allocated $15K for consultant review; extended another 60 days at the June 15 meeting (set to expire June 22, now extended through ~August 21, 2026).","summary_technical":"Council unanimously passed a 180-day moratorium on data center permits April 6, 2026; voted 8-0 on April 13 to scale it to a 60-day stay; allocated $15K for consultant review; extended another 60 days at the June 15 meeting (set to expire June 22, now extended through ~August 21, 2026). Citation: Resolution Apr 6, 2026; extended June 15, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Massillon residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Massillon","citation":"Resolution Apr 6, 2026; extended June 15, 2026 (2026-04-06)","source_url":"https://www.whbc.com/massillon-extends-data-center-ban-but-after-that/","source_title":"Massillon OH Data Center Moratorium (60-day stay; extended through Aug 21, 2026) — source","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Massillon government / planning"},{"id":"linn-county-ia-dc-ordinance-2026","title":"Linn County IA Data Center Ordinance for Unincorporated Areas","short_title":"Linn County IA Data Center Ordinance for Unincorporated Areas","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Linn County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Linn","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-02-18","enacted_date":"2026-02-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Strict zoning: 1,000-ft residential setbacks; mandatory water study and binding Water Use Agreement; noise/light limits; road/infrastructure compensation; community betterment contribution.","summary_technical":"Strict zoning: 1,000-ft residential setbacks; mandatory water study and binding Water Use Agreement; noise/light limits; road/infrastructure compensation; community betterment contribution. Citation: Linn County BOS data center ordinance (3rd consideration approved 2026-02-18).","who_is_protected":"Linn County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Linn County","citation":"Linn County BOS data center ordinance (3rd consideration approved 2026-02-18) (2026-02-18)","source_url":"https://www.linncountyiowa.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/4325?arc=7843","source_title":"Linn County IA Data Center Ordinance for Unincorporated Areas — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Linn County government / planning"},{"id":"newton-county-ga-dc-moratorium-2025","title":"Newton County GA Data Center Moratorium (extended through 2025-10-07)","short_title":"Newton County GA Data Center Moratorium (extended through 2025-10-07)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Newton County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Newton","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-02-17","enacted_date":"2025-02-17","expires_date":"2025-10-07","last_verified_date":"2026-06-22","summary_plain":"Moratorium on acceptance/processing of data center applications, rezonings, and SUPs in unincorporated Newton County while a modified UDO is drafted.","summary_technical":"Moratorium on acceptance/processing of data center applications, rezonings, and SUPs in unincorporated Newton County while a modified UDO is drafted. Citation: BOC resolution (Feb 2025; extended Apr 2025).","who_is_protected":"Newton County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Newton County","citation":"BOC resolution (Feb 2025; extended Apr 2025) (2025-02-17)","source_url":"https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/194/Resolutions","source_title":"Newton County GA Data Center Moratorium (extended through 2025-10-07) — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Newton County government / planning"},{"id":"covington-ga-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"City of Covington GA 180-Day Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"City of Covington GA 180-Day Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Covington, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Newton","city":"Covington","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-01-20","enacted_date":"2026-01-20","expires_date":"2026-07-19","last_verified_date":"2026-07-02","summary_plain":"Halts new data center applications; council moving to require Special Use Permit in M1/M2 districts plus supplemental standards. Expires ~July 19, 2026; second unanimous vote initiated SUP ordinance amendment process.","summary_technical":"Halts new data center applications; council moving to require Special Use Permit in M1/M2 districts plus supplemental standards. Expires ~July 19, 2026; second unanimous vote initiated SUP ordinance amendment process. Citation: Covington Ord. (Jan 2026).","who_is_protected":"Covington residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Covington","citation":"Covington Ord. (Jan 2026) (2026-01-20)","source_url":"https://www.covnews.com/news/cities/city-covington-imposes-moratorium-new-data-center-requests/","source_title":"City of Covington GA 180-Day Data Center Moratorium — source","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Covington government / planning"},{"id":"coweta-county-ga-dc-ord-2025","title":"Coweta County GA Data Center Ordinance (UDO Amendment)","short_title":"Coweta County GA Data Center Ordinance (UDO Amendment)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Coweta County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Coweta","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-12-16","enacted_date":"2025-12-16","last_verified_date":"2026-08-06","summary_plain":"Permits data centers only in light-industrial and industrial districts; imposes 300-ft buffer, noise, lighting, traffic, and utility capacity standards.","summary_technical":"Permits data centers only in light-industrial and industrial districts; imposes 300-ft buffer, noise, lighting, traffic, and utility capacity standards. Citation: UDO amendment Dec 2025.","who_is_protected":"Coweta County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Coweta County","citation":"UDO amendment Dec 2025 (2025-12-16)","source_url":"https://library.municode.com/ga/coweta_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_APXAZODE","source_title":"Coweta County GA Data Center Ordinance (UDO Amendment) — source","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Coweta County government / planning"},{"id":"fayetteville-ga-dc-ord-2026","title":"City of Fayetteville GA Ordinance 26-O-12 — Prohibits Data Centers in All Zoning Districts","short_title":"City of Fayetteville GA Ordinance 26-O-12","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Fayetteville, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Fayette","city":"Fayetteville","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-03-05","enacted_date":"2026-03-05","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Prohibits new data centers in every City of Fayetteville zoning district — one of the first U.S. permanent (non-moratorium) data center prohibitions.","summary_technical":"Prohibits new data centers in every City of Fayetteville zoning district — one of the first U.S. permanent (non-moratorium) data center prohibitions. Citation: Ord. 26-O-12.","who_is_protected":"Fayetteville residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Fayetteville","citation":"Ord. 26-O-12 (2026-03-05)","source_url":"https://www.fayetteville-ga.gov/746/Data-Center-Discussion","source_title":"City of Fayetteville GA Ordinance 26-O-12 — Prohibits Data Centers in All Zoning Districts — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Fayetteville government / planning"},{"id":"douglas-county-ga-dc-moratorium-2025","title":"Douglas County GA 90-Day Data Center Moratorium (extended Aug 2025)","short_title":"Douglas County GA 90-Day Data Center Moratorium (extended Aug 2025)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Douglas County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Douglas","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-03-15","enacted_date":"2025-03-15","expires_date":"2025-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-06-22","summary_plain":"Halts land-use map amendments, rezonings, SUPs, and variances for data-processing/web-hosting facilities or campuses larger than 50,000 sq ft.","summary_technical":"Halts land-use map amendments, rezonings, SUPs, and variances for data-processing/web-hosting facilities or campuses larger than 50,000 sq ft. Citation: BOC resolution (Mar 2025, extended Aug 2025).","who_is_protected":"Douglas County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Douglas County","citation":"BOC resolution (Mar 2025, extended Aug 2025) (2025-03-15)","source_url":"https://www.douglascountysentinel.com/douglasville_sentinel/commissioners-to-consider-extending-data-center-moratorium/article_3c91f2a3-b590-5236-902b-3fefa954caa1.html","source_title":"Douglas County GA 90-Day Data Center Moratorium (extended Aug 2025) — source","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Douglas County government / planning"},{"id":"bartow-county-ga-dc-ord-2026","title":"Bartow County GA Data Center Ordinance (UDO Amendment)","short_title":"Bartow County GA Data Center Ordinance (UDO Amendment)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Bartow County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Bartow","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-01-07","enacted_date":"2026-01-07","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Allows data centers with 200-ft buffer from property boundary and noise compatibility standards.","summary_technical":"Allows data centers with 200-ft buffer from property boundary and noise compatibility standards. Citation: UDO amendment Jan 2026.","who_is_protected":"Bartow County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Bartow County","citation":"UDO amendment Jan 2026 (2026-01-07)","source_url":"https://library.municode.com/ga/bartow_county/codes/code_of_ordinances","source_title":"Bartow County GA Data Center Ordinance (UDO Amendment) — source","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Bartow County government / planning"},{"id":"cobb-county-ga-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Cobb County GA Temporary Data Center Moratorium (up to 180 days)","short_title":"Cobb County GA Temporary Data Center Moratorium (up to 180 days)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Cobb County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Cobb","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-02-25","enacted_date":"2026-02-25","expires_date":"2027-02-07","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Pauses new data center applications in unincorporated Cobb while staff reviews development regs; does not apply inside Marietta city limits.","summary_technical":"Pauses new data center applications in unincorporated Cobb while staff reviews development regs; does not apply inside Marietta city limits. Citation: Resolution Feb 2026 (2026-02-25).","who_is_protected":"Cobb County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Cobb County","citation":"Resolution Feb 2026 (2026-02-25) (2026-02-25)","source_url":"https://cobbcoga.portal.civicclerk.com/event/1182/overview","source_title":"Cobb County GA Temporary Data Center Moratorium (up to 180 days) — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Cobb County government / planning"},{"id":"forsyth-county-ga-dc-ord-2025","title":"Forsyth County GA Data Center Regulations (UDC Amendment)","short_title":"Forsyth County GA Data Center Regulations (UDC Amendment)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Forsyth County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Forsyth","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-09-15","enacted_date":"2025-09-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Prohibits use of county water system for data center cooling; siting guardrails described as effectively eliminating data center / crypto operations.","summary_technical":"Prohibits use of county water system for data center cooling; siting guardrails described as effectively eliminating data center / crypto operations. Citation: UDC amendment, Version 131 (November 20, 2025).","who_is_protected":"Forsyth County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Forsyth County","citation":"UDC amendment, Version 131 (November 20, 2025) (2025-09-15)","source_url":"https://www.forsythco.com/udc","source_title":"Forsyth County GA Data Center Regulations (UDC Amendment) — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Forsyth County government / planning"},{"id":"dekalb-county-ga-dc-moratorium-extension-2026","title":"DeKalb County GA Data Center Moratorium (latest extension to Sept 30, 2026)","short_title":"DeKalb County GA Data Center Moratorium (latest extension to Sept 30, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"DeKalb County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"DeKalb","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-09","enacted_date":"2026-06-09","expires_date":"2026-09-30","last_verified_date":"2026-07-02","summary_plain":"Blocks issuance of new data center licenses/permits countywide pending Chapter 27 text amendment establishing definitions and standards (industrial-only, special land use permit).","summary_technical":"Blocks issuance of new data center licenses/permits countywide pending Chapter 27 text amendment establishing definitions and standards (industrial-only, special land use permit). Citation: Item 2025-1694 extension; further 100-day extension 2026-06-09.","who_is_protected":"DeKalb County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in DeKalb County","citation":"Item 2025-1694 extension; further 100-day extension 2026-06-09 (2026-06-09)","source_url":"https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2026/06/09/dekalb-county-extends-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"DeKalb County GA Data Center Moratorium (latest extension to Sept 30, 2026) — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"DeKalb County government / planning"},{"id":"rockdale-county-ga-dc-bess-moratorium-2026","title":"Rockdale County GA Data Center & BESS Moratorium (extended through Sept 8, 2026)","short_title":"Rockdale County GA Data Center & BESS Moratorium (extended through Sept 8, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Rockdale County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Rockdale","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-03-15","enacted_date":"2026-03-15","expires_date":"2026-09-08","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Moratorium on acceptance, processing, and approval of applications for establishment/expansion of data centers and battery energy storage systems pending zoning and infrastructure review.","summary_technical":"Moratorium on acceptance, processing, and approval of applications for establishment/expansion of data centers and battery energy storage systems pending zoning and infrastructure review. Citation: BOC resolution (extension).","who_is_protected":"Rockdale County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Rockdale County","citation":"BOC resolution (extension) (2026-03-15)","source_url":"https://www.rockdalecountyga.gov/our-government/board-of-commissioners/county-resolutions/","source_title":"Rockdale County GA Data Center & BESS Moratorium (extended through Sept 8, 2026) — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Rockdale County government / planning"},{"id":"social-circle-ga-dc-moratorium-2025","title":"Social Circle GA 90-Day Data Center Moratorium (extended; lifted upon code adoption Jan 2026)","short_title":"Social Circle GA 90-Day Data Center Moratorium (extended; lifted upon code adopt","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Social Circle, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Walton","city":"Social Circle","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-09-16","enacted_date":"2025-09-16","expires_date":"2026-01-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-22","summary_plain":"Moratorium on new data center applications; replaced by amended city code on data centers and special-use permitting in January 2026.","summary_technical":"Moratorium on new data center applications; replaced by amended city code on data centers and special-use permitting in January 2026. Citation: Council Ord. (Sept 2025, extended Dec 2025).","who_is_protected":"Social Circle residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Social Circle","citation":"Council Ord. (Sept 2025, extended Dec 2025) (2025-09-16)","source_url":"https://www.socialcirclega.gov/about-us/code-of-ordinances","source_title":"Social Circle GA 90-Day Data Center Moratorium (extended; lifted upon code adoption Jan 2026) — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Social Circle government / planning"},{"id":"hill-county-tx-dc-moratorium-rescinded-2026","title":"Hill County TX 1-Year Data Center & Energy Storage Moratorium (ADOPTED May 12, RESCINDED June 5 2026)","short_title":"Hill County TX 1-Year Data Center & Energy Storage Moratorium (ADOPTED May 12, R","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Hill County, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Hill","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"repealed","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-05-12","enacted_date":"2026-05-12","expires_date":"2026-06-05","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"First Texas county moratorium pausing new data center and energy storage construction in unincorporated areas for up to one year; rescinded June 5, 2026 after $100M developer lawsuit and replaced by developer checklist.","summary_technical":"First Texas county moratorium pausing new data center and energy storage construction in unincorporated areas for up to one year; rescinded June 5, 2026 after $100M developer lawsuit and replaced by developer checklist. Citation: BoC resolution (rescinded).","who_is_protected":"Hill County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Hill County","citation":"BoC resolution (rescinded) (2026-05-12)","source_url":"https://www.co.hill.tx.us/upload/template/28749/docs/CC%202026/Commissioners%20Court%20Agenda%20May%2012%202026.pdf","source_title":"Hill County TX 1-Year Data Center & Energy Storage Moratorium (ADOPTED May 12, RESCINDED June 5 2026) — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Hill County government / planning"},{"id":"mesa-az-dc-zoning-2025","title":"Mesa AZ Data Center Zoning Ordinance (Ord. No. 5957)","short_title":"Mesa AZ Data Center Zoning Ordinance (Ord. No. 5957)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Mesa, AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Maricopa","city":"Mesa","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-07-14","enacted_date":"2025-07-14","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Council approved data center zoning rules — reclassifies data centers out of Indoor Warehousing/Storage, imposes infrastructure, noise, and environmental standards.","summary_technical":"Council approved data center zoning rules — reclassifies data centers out of Indoor Warehousing/Storage, imposes infrastructure, noise, and environmental standards. Citation: Ord. No. 5957.","who_is_protected":"Mesa residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Mesa","citation":"Ord. No. 5957 (2025-07-14)","source_url":"https://mcclibraryfunctions.azurewebsites.us/api/ordinanceDownload/15749/1367318/pdf","source_title":"Mesa AZ Data Center Zoning Ordinance (Ord. No. 5957) — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Mesa government / planning"},{"id":"chandler-az-dc-ord-5033","title":"Chandler AZ Ordinance No. 5033 — Data Center Regulations (and Dec 2025 AI data center denial)","short_title":"Chandler AZ Ordinance No. 5033","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chandler, AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Maricopa","city":"Chandler","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2022-09-12","enacted_date":"2022-09-12","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Limits data centers to PAD areas, makes them ancillary use, requires noise studies/mitigation, expanded notice. December 11, 2025 — Council rejected a $2.5B AI data center at Queen Creek/Dobson Rd.","summary_technical":"Limits data centers to PAD areas, makes them ancillary use, requires noise studies/mitigation, expanded notice. December 11, 2025 — Council rejected a $2.5B AI data center at Queen Creek/Dobson Rd. Citation: Ord. 5033 (2022); Council 7-0 denial Dec 11, 2025.","who_is_protected":"Chandler residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Chandler","citation":"Ord. 5033 (2022); Council 7-0 denial Dec 11, 2025 (2022-09-12)","source_url":"https://www.chandleraz.gov/sites/default/files/departments/development-services/PLH22-0053-Ordinance-No-5033-Data-Center.pdf","source_title":"Chandler AZ Ordinance No. 5033 — Data Center Regulations (and Dec 2025 AI data center denial) — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Chandler government / planning"},{"id":"maricopa-county-az-dc-zoning-2025","title":"Maricopa County AZ Modernized Zoning Ordinance — Data Center Provisions","short_title":"Maricopa County AZ Modernized Zoning Ordinance","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Maricopa County, AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Maricopa","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-12-10","enacted_date":"2025-12-10","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"BoS unanimous adoption. Data centers permitted only in IND-2 (general industrial) and IND-3 (heavy industrial). Other land requires rezoning with suitability review.","summary_technical":"BoS unanimous adoption. Data centers permitted only in IND-2 (general industrial) and IND-3 (heavy industrial). Other land requires rezoning with suitability review. Citation: BoS adoption Dec 10 2025.","who_is_protected":"Maricopa County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Maricopa County","citation":"BoS adoption Dec 10 2025 (2025-12-10)","source_url":"https://www.maricopa.gov/m/newsflash/home/detail/3541","source_title":"Maricopa County AZ Modernized Zoning Ordinance — Data Center Provisions — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Maricopa County government / planning"},{"id":"goodyear-az-microsoft-air-cooling","title":"Goodyear AZ Microsoft Updated Development Agreement (air-cooling mandate)","short_title":"Goodyear AZ Microsoft Updated Development Agreement (air-cooling mandate)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Goodyear, AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Maricopa","city":"Goodyear","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-04-01","enacted_date":"2024-04-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Amended development agreement requires Microsoft's 4th and 5th data center buildings to use air cooling; $36M Microsoft commitment toward the $90M wastewater capacity expansion, $5M sewer-line financial assurance, $800K city coordinator funding.","summary_technical":"Amended development agreement requires Microsoft's 4th and 5th data center buildings to use air cooling; $36M Microsoft commitment toward the $90M wastewater capacity expansion, $5M sewer-line financial assurance, $800K city coordinator funding. Citation: Amended Development Agreement 2024.","who_is_protected":"Goodyear residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Goodyear","citation":"Amended Development Agreement 2024 (2024-04-01)","source_url":"https://www.goodyearaz.gov/government/departments/city-clerk-s-office/agenda-and-minutes","source_title":"Goodyear AZ Microsoft Updated Development Agreement (air-cooling mandate) — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Goodyear government / planning"},{"id":"the-dalles-or-asr-google-water","title":"The Dalles OR Aquifer Storage and Recovery System + Google Water Infrastructure Transfer","short_title":"The Dalles OR Aquifer Storage and Recovery System + Google Water Infrastructure ","level":"city","jurisdiction":"The Dalles, OR","state_abbr":"OR","county":"Wasco","city":"The Dalles","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-10-15","enacted_date":"2025-10-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"City completed ASR system; Google-built water/sewer infrastructure transferred to city ownership. ~33% of city water now goes to Google data centers (vs 12% in 2012). HR 655 Dalles Watershed Development Act pending.","summary_technical":"City completed ASR system; Google-built water/sewer infrastructure transferred to city ownership. ~33% of city water now goes to Google data centers (vs 12% in 2012). HR 655 Dalles Watershed Development Act pending. Citation: City infrastructure agreement (completed Oct 2025).","who_is_protected":"The Dalles residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in The Dalles","citation":"City infrastructure agreement (completed Oct 2025) (2025-10-15)","source_url":"https://www.thedalles.org/business/google_data_centers/google_water_infrastructure_contributions.php","source_title":"The Dalles OR Aquifer Storage and Recovery System + Google Water Infrastructure Transfer — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"The Dalles government / planning"},{"id":"umatilla-county-or-amazon-ez","title":"Umatilla County OR Amazon Greater Enterprise Zone Tax Exemption Agreement","short_title":"Umatilla County OR Amazon Greater Enterprise Zone Tax Exemption Agreement","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Umatilla County, OR","state_abbr":"OR","county":"Umatilla","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-10-15","enacted_date":"2024-10-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"BOC granted property tax exemptions to Amazon Data Services Hermiston campus; Amazon to pay $2M/year minimum in lieu of levies, split with Hermiston. Sabey SDC Umatilla also in Enterprise Zone with 5-year 100% exemption.","summary_technical":"BOC granted property tax exemptions to Amazon Data Services Hermiston campus; Amazon to pay $2M/year minimum in lieu of levies, split with Hermiston. Sabey SDC Umatilla also in Enterprise Zone with 5-year 100% exemption. Citation: BoC EZ agreement Oct 2024.","who_is_protected":"Umatilla County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Umatilla County","citation":"BoC EZ agreement Oct 2024 (2024-10-15)","source_url":"https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/officials-agree-tax-breaks-awss-new-oregon-campus/","source_title":"Umatilla County OR Amazon Greater Enterprise Zone Tax Exemption Agreement — source","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Umatilla County government / planning"},{"id":"grant-pud-wa-dc-rate-restructure-2026","title":"Grant County PUD WA Unbundled Rate Restructure + Data Center Load Caps","short_title":"Grant County PUD WA Unbundled Rate Restructure + Data Center Load Caps","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Grant County, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"Grant","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-04-01","enacted_date":"2026-04-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Commission approved unbundled rate structure stripping data centers of cheap Priest Rapids hydro access. Industrial rates rise 8-11% April 2026, 9.5%/yr through 2036. Separate load-growth caps on DC customers.","summary_technical":"Commission approved unbundled rate structure stripping data centers of cheap Priest Rapids hydro access. Industrial rates rise 8-11% April 2026, 9.5%/yr through 2036. Separate load-growth caps on DC customers. Citation: PUD Commission approval 2026-01-27.","who_is_protected":"Grant County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Grant County","citation":"PUD Commission approval 2026-01-27 (2026-04-01)","source_url":"https://www.grantpud.org/blog/commission-recap-1-27-2026-rate-increase-approved","source_title":"Grant County PUD WA Unbundled Rate Restructure + Data Center Load Caps — source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Grant County government / planning"},{"id":"az-data-center-tax-moratorium-2026","title":"Arizona Three-Year Moratorium on New Data Center Sales Tax Exemptions (FY 2027 Budget)","short_title":"Arizona Data Center Tax Incentive Moratorium (3-year, 2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arizona","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-06-13","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs signed the state's $18.3 billion FY 2027 budget on June 13, 2026, which included a bipartisan provision imposing a three-year pause on new sales tax exemptions for data centers (July 1, 2026 – June 30, 2029). Arizona's 2013 data-center sales-tax break costs the state roughly $38 million per year; existing exemptions remain in effect, but no new certificates can be issued until the moratorium lifts. The measure is projected to save $57 million over three fiscal years while policymakers study whether the incentives still serve the state's interests.","summary_technical":"Arizona FY 2027 budget bill (signed June 13, 2026; effective July 1, 2026 as FY2027 start) includes a three-year moratorium on new data center sales tax exemption certificates under the program established in 2013 (July 1, 2026 – June 30, 2029); existing holders are grandfathered. Saves an estimated $57M over the moratorium period ($38M/yr). Bipartisan budget deal between Gov. Hobbs and the Republican-led Legislature.","who_is_protected":"Arizona taxpayers and ratepayers; intended to force scrutiny of subsidy costs relative to water/energy impacts","who_must_comply":"Arizona Department of Revenue; data center developers seeking new sales-tax exemption certificates","citation":"Arizona FY 2027 Budget Bill (signed June 13, 2026); three-year data center sales tax exemption moratorium","source_url":"https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/57leg/2R/bills/HB4166H.pdf","source_title":"Arizona budget deal includes 3-year pause on data center tax exemptions — azfamily.com","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Arizona Department of Revenue"},{"id":"cochise-county-az-dc-ordinance-2026","title":"Cochise County, AZ Ordinance 26-09 — Data Center Special Use Authorization Standards","short_title":"Cochise County AZ Ordinance 26-09 (Data Center Standards)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Cochise County, AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Cochise","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-04-07","enacted_date":"2026-04-07","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Cochise County, Arizona's Board of Supervisors voted 3-0 on April 7, 2026 to adopt Ordinance 26-09, the county's first regulatory framework for data centers. The ordinance defines data centers in county code for the first time and requires all facilities to obtain a Special Use Authorization in designated zoning districts. Applicants must submit noise impact analyses, water use plans, and proof that they will not adversely affect existing utility users; most uses of potable water for server cooling are prohibited.","summary_technical":"Cochise County Ordinance 26-09 (BoS 3-0, April 7, 2026): defines 'data center' in county zoning code; requires Special Use Authorization for all data center facilities in permitted zoning districts; applicants must demonstrate noise impact, water use, and that power supply will not adversely affect existing users; prohibits potable water for cooling in most circumstances. No moratorium — regulation of prospective proposals. No active applications as of adoption date.","who_is_protected":"Cochise County residents, agricultural users, and existing utility customers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Cochise County seeking land use approvals","citation":"Cochise County, Ariz., Ordinance No. 26-09 (adopted April 7, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.cochise.az.gov/m/newsflash/home/detail/418","source_title":"Cochise County Establishes Clear Standards for Data Centers — Cochise County official newsflash","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Cochise County Planning and Zoning Commission; Board of Supervisors"},{"id":"millville-nj-dc-ban-2026","title":"City of Millville, NJ — Data Center Prohibition Ordinance (Chapter 30 Land Use Amendment)","short_title":"Millville NJ Data Center Ban (May 19, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Millville, NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","county":"Cumberland","city":"Millville","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-05-19","enacted_date":"2026-05-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Millville, New Jersey's City Commissioners voted on May 19, 2026 to ban data centers citywide by amending Chapter 30 (Land Use and Development) to categorically prohibit facilities used to house computer systems, cloud services, AI/machine-learning workloads, and blockchain/crypto mining. The ban blocked what would have been the largest data center facility ever proposed in New Jersey — a 2.6-million-square-foot facility that would have drawn 1.4 gigawatts from the grid and billions of gallons of water annually for cooling.","summary_technical":"Millville City Commission ordinance amending Chapter 30 of the city's Land Use and Development code to prohibit 'data centers' (defined as facilities housing computer systems and associated components, including cloud services, video streaming, blockchain/crypto mining, AI/ML, and virtual reality) as a use in all districts. Adopted May 19, 2026. Blocked New Jersey's largest-ever proposed data center (2.6M sq ft, 1.4 GW, billions of gallons of cooling water).","who_is_protected":"Millville residents, utility ratepayers, and the surrounding environment","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking land use approvals in the City of Millville","citation":"City of Millville, N.J., Chapter 30 Land Use and Development Amendment (adopted May 19, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.millvillenj.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/20700?fileID=27324","source_title":"Millville bans data centers, rejecting largest proposed facility in N.J. — ROI-NJ","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Millville Land Use / Zoning"},{"id":"madison-nj-dc-ban-2026","title":"Borough of Madison, NJ — Ordinance 27-2026: Data Centers Prohibited (Chapter 195 Amendment)","short_title":"Madison NJ Ordinance 27-2026 (Data Center Ban)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Madison, NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","county":"Morris","city":"Madison","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-06-16","enacted_date":"2026-06-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The Borough of Madison, New Jersey's Common Council unanimously adopted Ordinance 27-2026 on June 16, 2026, amending Chapter 195 of the borough's land development code to prohibit data centers as a use within the borough. Madison operates its own municipal electric utility and cited energy, water, and infrastructure concerns. The borough is the latest in a growing wave of New Jersey municipalities to permanently ban data center facilities.","summary_technical":"Madison Borough Ordinance 27-2026 amends Chapter 195 (Land Development) to categorically prohibit data centers as a principal or accessory use in all zones. Adopted unanimously by Common Council on June 16, 2026, following planning board review for master-plan consistency. Madison is a Morris County borough with a municipal electric utility.","who_is_protected":"Madison Borough residents and municipal electric utility customers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in the Borough of Madison","citation":"Borough of Madison, N.J., Ordinance No. 27-2026 (adopted June 16, 2026)","source_url":"https://ecode360.com/MA0608","source_title":"Data Centers Now Prohibited In Madison After Unanimous Council Vote — Madison NJ Patch","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Borough of Madison (zoning and code enforcement)"},{"id":"monterey-park-ca-dc-ban-measure-ndc-2026","title":"Monterey Park, CA Measure NDC — Voter-Approved Permanent Data Center Ban","short_title":"Monterey Park Data Center Ban (Measure NDC)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Monterey Park, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Los Angeles","city":"Monterey Park","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-06-02","enacted_date":"2026-06-02","last_verified_date":"2026-08-10","summary_plain":"Monterey Park voters approved Measure NDC on June 2, 2026, amending the city's Municipal Code to permanently prohibit data centers anywhere in the city. The ban followed a 45-day moratorium the City Council first adopted January 21, 2026 (later extended to January 21, 2027) after a proposed data center drew strong neighborhood opposition. With voter approval, the prohibition is now a permanent citywide ban.","summary_technical":"Measure NDC (June 2, 2026 special municipal election) amends the Monterey Park Municipal Code to prohibit all data center uses citywide. Bridged by an urgency moratorium adopted Jan. 21, 2026 (Council Member Vinh Ngo) and extended through Jan. 21, 2027. Operative upon certification of the election results.","who_is_protected":"Monterey Park residents","who_must_comply":"Anyone seeking to develop or operate a data center in Monterey Park","citation":"Monterey Park, Cal., Measure NDC (June 2, 2026); Municipal Code amendment","source_url":"https://www.montereypark.ca.gov/1710/Data-Center-Information","source_title":"Monterey Park voters approve Measure NDC, banning data centers within city limits — ABC7 Los Angeles","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Monterey Park (planning/zoning)"},{"id":"coachella-ca-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Coachella, CA — Permanent Citywide Ban on Data Centers (Ordinance No. 1231, Adopted August 26, 2026)","short_title":"Coachella Permanent Data Center Ban","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Coachella, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Riverside","city":"Coachella","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-25","enacted_date":"2026-08-26","last_verified_date":"2026-08-31","summary_plain":"The Coachella City Council unanimously passed the second and final reading of Ordinance No. 1231 on August 26, 2026, enacting a permanent citywide ban on large-scale data centers. The ordinance defines a data center as a structure or site used to house computers or equipment for storing, processing, or transmitting digital data, with exemptions for accessory server rooms and small IT facilities. The ban takes effect 30 days after adoption, approximately September 25, 2026. Coachella is the first city in the Coachella Valley to enact a permanent prohibition. The path to the ban began June 4, 2026 (urgency moratorium), extended July 9 through June 3, 2027, with the Planning Commission recommending permanent prohibition July 15-16 and the first reading passing unanimously August 12, 2026.","summary_technical":"Coachella Ordinance No. 1231 (adopted unanimously on second/final reading Aug. 26, 2026; effective ~Sept. 25, 2026 per CA 30-day municipal ordinance rule) permanently prohibits data centers (defined as structures or sites housing computers/equipment for storing, processing, or transmitting digital data). Exempts accessory server rooms, data processing equipment, and small IT facilities. Planning Commission recommended permanent prohibition July 15-16, 2026; first reading passed unanimously Aug. 12, 2026. Preceded by urgency moratorium (June 4, 2026) and one-year extension (July 9, 2026 through June 3, 2027). Prior entry was the moratorium; this upgrade reflects permanent ban adoption.","who_is_protected":"Coachella residents, through permanent prohibition on new large-scale data centers within city limits.","who_must_comply":"Data center developers — no new large-scale data centers may be permitted in Coachella under the permanent ban.","citation":"Coachella, Cal., Ordinance No. 1231 — Permanent Data Center Ban (adopted Aug. 26, 2026; effective Sept. 25, 2026)","source_url":"https://kesq.com/news/2026/08/25/coachella-city-council-passes-permanent-ban-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Coachella City Council passes permanent ban on data centers — KESQ","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Coachella (planning/zoning)"},{"id":"lysander-ny-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Town of Lysander, NY Six-Month Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Lysander Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lysander, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"Onondaga","city":"Lysander","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-05-07","enacted_date":"2026-05-07","expires_date":"2026-11-07","last_verified_date":"2026-08-17","summary_plain":"On May 7, 2026 the Lysander Town Board (Onondaga County, near Syracuse) unanimously approved a six-month moratorium barring development and construction of new data centers. More than 350 residents packed the meeting in opposition to the proposed 300-megawatt Ranalli Lysander Data Center on a 120-acre site.","summary_technical":"Town of Lysander six-month moratorium (adopted unanimously May 7, 2026) prohibiting development and construction of new data centers while the town considers regulations; prompted by the proposed 300 MW Ranalli Lysander Data Center (120-acre campus).","who_is_protected":"Lysander / Onondaga County residents near the proposed data center site","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in the Town of Lysander","citation":"Town of Lysander, N.Y., 6-month data center moratorium (adopted May 7, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.rockinst.org/blog/updates-on-the-cloud-more-moratoriums-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Lysander Town Board approves 6-month moratorium on data centers — Syracuse.com","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Lysander (planning/zoning/code enforcement)"},{"id":"bangor-me-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Bangor, ME 180-Day Data Center Moratorium (Extended a Further 180 Days, September 2026)","short_title":"Bangor Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Bangor, ME","state_abbr":"ME","county":"Penobscot","city":"Bangor","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-04-13","enacted_date":"2026-04-13","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Bangor's City Council voted 9-0 on April 13, 2026 for a 180-day moratorium on data center development, saying the city is 'suddenly experiencing increased development pressure from data centers' and needs time to study impacts on water and electricity and to amend its Land Development Code before approving any.","summary_technical":"Bangor City Council 180-day moratorium on data center development (adopted unanimously, 9-0, April 13, 2026) to allow the city to evaluate impacts and amend the Land Development Code; the ordinance recites sudden increased data-center development pressure. EXTENSION: Ordinance 26-270 ('Moratorium Extension Ordinance on Data Centers in the City of Bangor, Maine', assigned Councilor Carson) adds an additional 180-day moratorium; first reading Sept. 14, 2026; adopted 8-0 on Sept. 28, 2026 (WABI). The city found it 'has made reasonable progress' but needs more time to amend the Land Development Code. The original moratorium was due to expire in mid-October 2026 (Planning Officer, committee minutes). The extension's exact start/end dates are not stated in sources opened; if it runs 180 days from the original mid-October expiry it would end around mid-April 2027 — expires_date left null pending the adopted ordinance text.","who_is_protected":"Bangor residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Bangor","citation":"Bangor, Me., 180-day data center moratorium (adopted Apr. 13, 2026)","source_url":"https://bangormaine.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04272026-764","source_title":"Bangor City Council passes ban on data centers — Bangor Daily News","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Bangor (planning / code enforcement)"},{"id":"groton-ct-dc-size-cap-2026","title":"Groton, CT Data Center Zoning Size Cap (Post-Moratorium)","short_title":"Groton Data Center Zoning Limit","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Groton, CT","state_abbr":"CT","county":"New London","city":"Groton","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-07-14","enacted_date":"2023-06-27","last_verified_date":"2026-08-17","summary_plain":"Groton's Planning and Zoning Commission adopted zoning regulations on June 27, 2023 that permanently limit data centers to no more than 12,500 square feet and prohibit water cooling systems — effectively barring hyperscale facilities that typically run 150,000 to 350,000 square feet. The regulations became effective July 14, 2023 (codified at Section 5.1-6.F of the Groton zoning code), making Groton one of the first US municipalities to cap data center size by right.","summary_technical":"Groton Planning and Zoning Commission adopted conditional-use data center regulations effective July 14, 2023 (Town of Groton Zoning Regs § 5.1-6.F Data Center), limiting data center buildings to 12,500 sq ft and prohibiting water cooling systems; follows a prior moratorium. A developer appealed the regulations in July 2023 (The Day, July 28, 2023).","who_is_protected":"Groton residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Groton","citation":"Groton, Conn., Zoning Regs § 5.1-6.F Data Center (adopted June 27, 2023; eff. July 14, 2023)","source_url":"https://www.groton-ct.gov/departments/plandev/regulations.php","source_title":"Groton, Connecticut announces year-long moratorium on large data centers — Data Center Dynamics","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Town of Groton Planning and Zoning Commission"},{"id":"seattle-data-center-moratorium-2026","title":"Seattle Emergency Moratorium on New Large Data Centers (Council Bill 121214)","short_title":"Seattle Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Seattle, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"King","city":"Seattle","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-09","enacted_date":"2026-06-09","expires_date":"2027-06-09","last_verified_date":"2026-08-17","summary_plain":"On June 9, 2026 the Seattle City Council unanimously passed an emergency one-year moratorium on siting new large data centers (power capacity over 20 megavolt-amperes) while the city studies impacts on the electric grid, water, utility rates, land use, jobs, and public health. It is a temporary pause on large facilities, not a permanent citywide ban: existing data centers may continue operating and expand up to the 20 MVA cap, and the moratorium can be extended once for six months. Mayor Katie Wilson signed the ordinance; it took effect immediately upon signature.","summary_technical":"Amended Council Bill 121214 (emergency ordinance, adopted unanimously June 9, 2026) imposes a 365-day moratorium, extendable six months, on establishment of data centers exceeding 20 MVA, paired with a resolution directing impact studies; a public hearing is required within 60 days of adoption.","who_is_protected":"Seattle residents and utility ratepayers, particularly South Seattle industrial-adjacent communities","who_must_comply":"Developers and operators proposing new data centers over 20 MVA in Seattle city limits","citation":"Seattle Council Bill 121214 (adopted June 9, 2026)","source_url":"https://council.seattle.gov/2026/06/09/city-council-passes-emergency-data-center-moratorium-and-policy-framework/","source_title":"City Council passes emergency data center moratorium and policy framework — Seattle City Council","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections; Seattle City Light"},{"id":"charlotte-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Charlotte, NC 150-Day Moratorium on New Data Centers","short_title":"Charlotte Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Charlotte, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Mecklenburg","city":"Charlotte","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-08","enacted_date":"2026-06-08","expires_date":"2026-11-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Charlotte City Council voted 11-0 on June 8, 2026 to pause new data centers for 150 days while the city studies their impacts and hears from residents worried about noise and rising electric and water costs. Already-approved projects — including the five-building, 122-acre 'Powerhouse Charlotte' campus in north Charlotte that could draw 300-400 megawatts — are NOT affected, because the city lacks legal authority over approved projects.","summary_technical":"150-day moratorium on new data center approvals adopted unanimously (11-0) by the Charlotte City Council June 8, 2026; previously approved projects proceed unaffected. Intended to give council time for research and public input toward data-center regulations.","who_is_protected":"Charlotte residents and utility ratepayers near proposed data center sites","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking new data center approvals in Charlotte","citation":"Charlotte, N.C., data center moratorium (adopted June 8, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.charlottenc.gov/City-News/Data-Centers-Moratorium-FAQs","source_title":"Charlotte City Council approves 150-day moratorium on new data centers — WBTV","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Charlotte Planning, Design & Development"},{"id":"reno-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Reno, NV Data Center Moratorium Through August 2027","short_title":"Reno Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Reno, NV","state_abbr":"NV","county":"Washoe","city":"Reno","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-01","enacted_date":"2026-06-01","expires_date":"2027-08-31","last_verified_date":"2026-08-17","summary_plain":"Reno froze new data center applications until August 31, 2027 — or until the city adopts new data center regulations, whichever comes first. The City Council voted 6-1 on June 1, 2026 to extend a 30-day pause it first imposed in May, and directed staff to draft rules covering water use, energy use, and community benefit agreements. The vote reversed several council members' earlier opposition to regulating data centers.","summary_technical":"Moratorium on acceptance, processing, and approval of new data center applications through Aug. 31, 2027 or adoption of new regulations; adopted 6-1 (Taylor dissenting) June 1, 2026, extending the 30-day pending moratorium on conditional-use-permit applications adopted May 2026 (6-1); staff directed to draft regulations on water, energy, and community benefits.","who_is_protected":"Reno residents and utility ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking new data center approvals within Reno city limits","citation":"Reno, Nev., data center moratorium (adopted June 1, 2026; through Aug. 31, 2027)","source_url":"https://www.reno.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/32728/","source_title":"Reno City Council approves data center moratorium through August 2027 — This Is Reno","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Reno Community Development Department"},{"id":"bloomington-il-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Bloomington, IL Six-Month Moratorium on Data Centers Over 5 MW","short_title":"Bloomington Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Bloomington, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"McLean","city":"Bloomington","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-05-26","enacted_date":"2026-05-26","expires_date":"2026-11-26","last_verified_date":"2026-08-24","summary_plain":"Bloomington, Illinois paused data center development for six months. The City Council voted unanimously on May 26, 2026 to halt any facility designed with a capacity greater than 5 megawatts while the city writes data center regulations, with at least two public hearings required during the pause. The council can extend the moratorium beyond six months if needed.","summary_technical":"Six-month moratorium (adopted unanimously May 26, 2026) on data center facilities designed with >5 MW capacity, with a minimum of two public hearings during the moratorium period and extension authority confirmed by the city manager; intended to allow adoption of regulations modeled on Aurora's and McLean County's approaches.","who_is_protected":"Bloomington residents near potential data center sites","who_must_comply":"Developers of data center facilities over 5 MW within Bloomington city limits","citation":"Bloomington, Ill., data center moratorium (adopted May 26, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.bloomingtonil.gov/departments/administration/data-center-information-hub","source_title":"Bloomington approves 6-month moratorium on data centers — WGLT","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Bloomington (planning/zoning administration)"},{"id":"normal-il-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Normal, IL Data Center Moratorium (Adopted May 18, 2026; Extended Through May 31, 2027)","short_title":"Normal Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Normal, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"McLean","city":"Normal","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-05-18","enacted_date":"2026-05-18","expires_date":"2026-11-18","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"The Town of Normal, Illinois approved a six-month moratorium on data centers on May 18, 2026 — a week before neighboring Bloomington passed its own — pausing new data center development town-wide while local regulations are drafted. Unlike Bloomington's version, Normal's pause is not limited to facilities over 5 megawatts. UPDATE 2026-10-01: On September 21, 2026 the Normal Town Council extended the moratorium by six months, through May 31, 2027, with only Council member Andy Byars voting no. Town staff said they were not ready to recommend regulations and wanted to see whether the Illinois General Assembly acts on data centers, and the town wants to align with Bloomington's rules.","summary_technical":"Six-month town-wide moratorium on data center development adopted by the Normal Town Council May 18, 2026, without a megawatt threshold; companion to Bloomington's May 26 moratorium (>5 MW) and McLean County's June 11 zoning requirements.","who_is_protected":"Normal residents near potential data center sites","who_must_comply":"Data center developers within the Town of Normal","citation":"Normal, Ill., data center moratorium (adopted May 18, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wglt.org/local-news/2026-05-15/normal-to-vote-on-6-month-data-center-moratorium","source_title":"Normal Town Council OKs 6-month data center moratorium; Bloomington poised to do the same — WGLT","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Normal (planning/zoning administration)"},{"id":"atlanta-beltline-marta-dc-ban","title":"Atlanta Ordinances Banning Data Centers in Beltline Overlay and Near Transit (+ 2025 Citywide Special-Use Permits)","short_title":"Atlanta Beltline/MARTA Data Center Ban","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Atlanta, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Fulton","city":"Atlanta","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","enacted_date":"2024-09-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"On September 3, 2024 the Atlanta City Council banned new data centers within the Beltline Overlay District and within a half mile of high-capacity MARTA transit stops, to reserve that land for housing and mixed-use development. In June 2025 the council went further, requiring special-use permits for new data centers citywide and banning them in several additional neighborhoods.","summary_technical":"City of Atlanta Ordinances 24-O-1218 (Beltline Overlay prohibition) and 24-O-1222 (data center definition + prohibition within 2,640 feet of high-capacity transit stops), adopted Sept. 3, 2024; expanded June 2025 by citywide special-use-permit requirement.","who_is_protected":"Residents and businesses near the Beltline corridor and MARTA stations","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and property owners in affected areas; citywide SUP applicants from 2025","citation":"City of Atlanta Ords. 24-O-1218 & 24-O-1222 (2024); June 2025 SUP ordinance","source_url":"https://citycouncil.atlantaga.gov/Home/Components/News/News/3928/","source_title":"Atlanta City Council Votes to Define Data Centers, Limit Locations","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Atlanta Department of City Planning / Office of Zoning and Development","penalties":"Zoning enforcement; non-conforming projects denied permits"},{"id":"fayetteville-ga-dc-prohibition","title":"Fayetteville, GA Citywide Prohibition of New Data Centers (Ordinance 26-0-12)","short_title":"Fayetteville GA Data Center Prohibition","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Fayetteville, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Fayette","city":"Fayetteville","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-03-05","enacted_date":"2026-03-05","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"After community backlash over the existing 6.2-million-square-foot QTS data center campus and its water use, Fayetteville passed a 90-day moratorium in January 2026, then adopted Ordinance 26-0-12 on March 5, 2026, which prohibits new data centers in every city zoning district. The city's official FAQ confirms: new data centers are prohibited citywide.","summary_technical":"City of Fayetteville Ordinance 26-0-12 (eff. Mar. 5, 2026) amended chapters 200 and 400 of the Unified Development Ordinance to remove data centers as a permitted or conditional use in all zoning districts.","who_is_protected":"Fayetteville residents and water/utility customers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals within Fayetteville city limits","citation":"City of Fayetteville, Ga., Ord. 26-0-12 (eff. Mar. 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.fayetteville-ga.gov/746/Data-Center-Discussion","source_title":"Data Center Discussion | City of Fayetteville, GA","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Fayetteville Planning and Zoning Department","penalties":"Zoning enforcement; new data center applications not accepted"},{"id":"warrenton-amazon-dc-sup-litigation","title":"Warrenton, VA Amazon Data Center Special Use Permit and Citizen Litigation","short_title":"Warrenton Amazon Data Center Fight","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Warrenton, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Fauquier","city":"Warrenton","topics":["data-centers","transparency"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2023-02-14","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Warrenton's zoning requires a special use permit for data centers; in February 2023 the Town Council narrowly approved one for an Amazon facility. Citizens for Fauquier County sued over both the zoning approval and related public-records (FOIA) access. In 2024, the Virginia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and sided with the citizens' group on the FOIA matter, ordering review of over 3,100 withheld emails. The underlying land-use challenge and construction delays continued into 2025–2026.","summary_technical":"Town of Warrenton SUP for Amazon Data Services (Feb. 2023, 4–3) challenged in Citizens for Fauquier County v. Town of Warrenton (Fauquier Cnty. Cir. Ct.; trial Mar. 2025), with companion VFOIA litigation (Va. Ct. App. remand, July 2024).","who_is_protected":"Warrenton and Fauquier County residents (via discretionary SUP review and judicial challenge)","who_must_comply":"Amazon Data Services and the Town of Warrenton (permit conditions; records obligations)","citation":"Town of Warrenton SUP (Feb. 2023); Citizens for Fauquier County v. Town of Warrenton","source_url":"https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/crt-app-vir-arl/116435671.html","source_title":"Trial begins in lawsuit delaying Amazon data center (Fauquier Times)","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Warrenton zoning administration; Fauquier County Circuit Court","private_right_of_action":true},{"id":"chandler-az-dc-noise-ordinance","title":"Chandler, AZ Data Center Zoning Ordinance No. 5033 (Noise and Siting Standards)","short_title":"Chandler Data Center Noise Ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chandler, AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Maricopa","city":"Chandler","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-01-05","enacted_date":"2022-12-05","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Responding to resident complaints about constant noise from cooling equipment and crypto-mining operations, Chandler unanimously adopted zoning rules governing where and how data centers operate. New primary-use data centers are permitted only in Planned Area Development zones and must do baseline sound studies, keep operational noise below that baseline, repeat noise studies annually for five years, notify nearby residents, and limit backup-generator testing to weekday business hours.","summary_technical":"City of Chandler Ordinance No. 5033 (PLH22-0053, adopted Dec. 5, 2022; eff. Jan. 5, 2023) defines data centers, restricts them to PAD zoning, and imposes noise-baseline, annual sound-study, resident-notification, and generator-testing requirements.","who_is_protected":"Residents near data center and crypto-mining facilities in Chandler","who_must_comply":"Operators and developers of primary-use data centers in Chandler","citation":"City of Chandler, Ariz., Ord. No. 5033 (eff. Jan. 5, 2023)","source_url":"https://www.chandleraz.gov/news-center/chandlers-data-center-ordinance-now-effect","source_title":"Chandler's data center ordinance now in effect | City of Chandler","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Chandler Development Services / Planning Division","penalties":"Zoning code enforcement"},{"id":"minneapolis-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Minneapolis Six-Month Interim Moratorium on Large Data Centers","short_title":"Minneapolis Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Minneapolis, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Hennepin","city":"Minneapolis","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-25","enacted_date":"2026-06-25","expires_date":"2026-12-25","last_verified_date":"2026-08-24","summary_plain":"On June 25, 2026 the Minneapolis City Council voted 8–5 to impose a six-month moratorium on new large data centers while the city studies environmental and grid impacts and drafts zoning regulations. The pause targets facilities larger than 350,000 square feet and exempts smaller downtown developments — a size- and location-limited pause, not a total ban.","summary_technical":"Minneapolis interim ordinance (June 25, 2026, 8–5) imposing a six-month moratorium on data center development over 350,000 sq ft, exempting downtown projects under that threshold, pending zoning study; expires ~December 25, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Minneapolis residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Developers proposing large data centers in Minneapolis","citation":"Minneapolis, Minn., interim data center moratorium (June 25, 2026, 8–5 vote)","source_url":"https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/05/22/minneapolis-city-council-imposes-six-month-halt-on-data-centers","source_title":"Minneapolis City Council imposes six-month halt on data centers | MPR News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Minneapolis Community Planning & Economic Development (CPED)"},{"id":"indianapolis-dc-pause-resolution","title":"Indianapolis City-County Council Resolution Urging Pause on Data Center Approvals (Proposal No. 158)","short_title":"Indianapolis Data Center Pause Resolution","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Indianapolis, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Marion","city":"Indianapolis","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"In May 2026 the Indianapolis City-County Council unanimously passed a resolution urging the Metropolitan Development Commission to stop approving new data centers until May 7, 2027 or until permanent regulations pass. Because it is a resolution rather than a binding ordinance, it is a soft pause; a companion draft ordinance would create a special-use zoning district with noise and setback requirements.","summary_technical":"Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council Special Resolution, Proposal No. 158 of 2026 (adopted unanimously May 2026), urging an MDC stay on data center approvals through May 7, 2027; companion draft would create an SU-47 district with a 65 dB property-line noise limit and 200-ft separation from protected districts.","who_is_protected":"Indianapolis/Marion County residents, ratepayers, and neighborhoods near proposed hyperscale sites","who_must_comply":"Metropolitan Development Commission (urged); data center developers if the pause is honored","citation":"Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council, Proposal No. 158 (2026)","source_url":"https://www.indy.gov/activity/city-county-council-proposals","source_title":"City-County Council passes unanimous resolution calling for a pause on data center development (WTHR)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Metropolitan Development Commission / Department of Metropolitan Development"},{"id":"marshall-county-in-dc-ban","title":"Marshall County, IN Permanent Countywide Ban on Data Centers","short_title":"Marshall County Data Center Ban","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Marshall County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Marshall","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-04-20","enacted_date":"2026-04-20","last_verified_date":"2026-07-24","summary_plain":"On April 20, 2026, Marshall County commissioners enacted a permanent, countywide ban on data centers, effective immediately, replacing an earlier one-year moratorium. County leaders cited long-term strain on electricity and water supplies and loss of farmland — possibly the first permanent county data center ban in Indiana.","summary_technical":"Marshall County, Ind., Board of Commissioners ordinance (Apr. 20, 2026) permanently prohibiting data center development in unincorporated areas, superseding the prior one-year moratorium; companion battery-storage ordinance imposes 1,320-ft setbacks.","who_is_protected":"Marshall County residents, farmers, and rural landowners","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking sites in unincorporated Marshall County","citation":"Marshall County, Ind., Bd. of Comm'rs ordinance (Apr. 20, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wndu.com/2026/04/20/marshall-county-commissioners-ban-data-centers-limit-solar-projects/","source_title":"Marshall County commissioners ban data centers (WNDU)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Marshall County Plan Commission / Building and Zoning","penalties":"Zoning enforcement; data center uses not permitted in any district"},{"id":"scarborough-me-dc-moratorium","title":"Scarborough, ME 180-Day Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Scarborough Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Scarborough, ME","state_abbr":"ME","county":"Cumberland","city":"Scarborough","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-03","enacted_date":"2026-06-03","expires_date":"2026-11-30","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"On June 3, 2026 the Scarborough Town Council unanimously approved a 180-day moratorium on data center development, effective immediately and applying retroactively to applications submitted on or after April 1, 2026. The pause — prompted by a proposed 52-acre data center and concerns about water use and wildlife — gives the town time to amend its zoning ordinance.","summary_technical":"Town of Scarborough moratorium ordinance (June 3, 2026) imposing a 180-day pause on processing data center proposals, retroactive to applications filed on or after Apr. 1, 2026, pending zoning amendments.","who_is_protected":"Scarborough residents and natural-resource areas (marsh, aquifer, wildlife habitat)","who_must_comply":"Data center developers with pending or new applications in Scarborough","citation":"Town of Scarborough, Me., data center moratorium (June 3, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.scarboroughmaine.org/government/town-council/council-committees/ordinance-committee","source_title":"Scarborough Town Council approves data center moratorium (Portland Press Herald)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Scarborough Planning Department"},{"id":"brunswick-me-dc-moratorium","title":"Brunswick, ME 180-Day Moratorium on Large Data Centers (1 MW+)","short_title":"Brunswick Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Brunswick, ME","state_abbr":"ME","county":"Cumberland","city":"Brunswick","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-01","enacted_date":"2026-06-01","expires_date":"2026-11-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"On June 1, 2026 the Brunswick Town Council unanimously approved a 180-day moratorium on large-scale data centers. During the pause the town will not process applications for new or expanded data centers with electrical capacity of 1 megawatt or greater, while it drafts regulations.","summary_technical":"Town of Brunswick moratorium ordinance (June 1, 2026) suspending for 180 days the processing of applications for new or expanded data centers with electrical capacity ≥1 MW.","who_is_protected":"Brunswick residents and local utility customers","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers at or above 1 MW in Brunswick","citation":"Town of Brunswick, Me., data center moratorium (June 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.pressherald.com/2026/06/01/brunswick-passes-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Brunswick passes data center moratorium (Portland Press Herald)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Brunswick Department of Planning and Development"},{"id":"pima-county-project-blue","title":"Pima County Project Blue: Rezoning, Development Agreement, and Litigation","short_title":"Pima County Project Blue","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Pima County, AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Pima","topics":["data-centers","transparency"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","enacted_date":"2025-12-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Pima County's role in Project Blue is an approval, not a restriction: after Tucson rejected the project in August 2025, the county board voted 3–2 to rezone and sell roughly 290 acres of county land, and on December 16, 2025 approved a development agreement with Beale Infrastructure to move the data center forward in unincorporated Pima County. Opponents sued under Arizona's open meeting law; a judge dismissed that suit in April 2026, with additional litigation filed in January 2026.","summary_technical":"Pima County Bd. of Supervisors rezoning and land sale (~290 acres) and Dec. 16, 2025 development agreement with Beale Infrastructure; challenged in Pima County Superior Court (open-meeting-law claims dismissed Apr. 13, 2026).","who_is_protected":"Opponents' protections rest on open-meeting and zoning-process litigation; the county action itself facilitates the project","who_must_comply":"Beale Infrastructure (agreement terms); Pima County (procedural law)","citation":"Pima County, Ariz., Project Blue rezoning and development agreement (2025); Pima Cnty. Super. Ct. litigation","source_url":"https://www.pima.gov/3552/Project-Blue-FAQ","source_title":"Pima County judge tosses lawsuit over Project Blue data center rezoning (AZPM)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Pima County Development Services; Pima County Superior Court (litigation)","private_right_of_action":true},{"id":"edmond-ok-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Edmond, OK Data Center Permit Moratorium Through December 2026","short_title":"Edmond Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Edmond, OK","state_abbr":"OK","county":"Oklahoma","city":"Edmond","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-08","enacted_date":"2026-06-08","expires_date":"2026-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-06-15","summary_plain":"Edmond, Oklahoma's City Council voted 5-0 on June 8, 2026 to freeze new data center permit applications through December 31, 2026. The city has no pending applications but wants time to study data centers' effects on local water and electricity systems, update zoning code, and understand infrastructure cost-recovery before accepting any. An emergency clause made the moratorium effective immediately; a research and draft-regulation timeline spans the following five months.","summary_technical":"Emergency ordinance (5-0, June 8, 2026) declaring a moratorium through Dec. 31, 2026 on acceptance of new data center permit applications in Edmond; effective immediately by emergency clause. Staff directed to research water/electricity impacts over two months, present a draft zoning update in three months, and final draft in five months.","who_is_protected":"Edmond residents and utility customers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking new permits in Edmond","citation":"Edmond, Okla., data center moratorium ordinance (adopted June 8, 2026; through Dec. 31, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.edmondok.gov/m/newsflash/home/detail/1295","source_title":"Edmond City Council passes data center moratorium through end of year — KFOR","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Edmond (planning and permitting)"},{"id":"socorro-county-nm-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Socorro County, NM One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers","short_title":"Socorro County Data Center Moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Socorro County, NM","state_abbr":"NM","county":"Socorro","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-09","enacted_date":"2026-06-09","expires_date":"2027-06-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-15","summary_plain":"Socorro County, New Mexico commissioners voted unanimously on June 9, 2026 to impose a one-year moratorium on data centers and related infrastructure on unincorporated county land. More than 80 residents packed the hearing and applauded the vote, following months of opposition to a Canadian company's proposal to build a data center and solar array on roughly 10,000 acres. The moratorium also creates an advisory committee of experts and residents to study impacts and recommend permanent regulations.","summary_technical":"Socorro County Board of Commissioners unanimous vote (June 9, 2026) imposing a one-year moratorium on data centers and related infrastructure projects in unincorporated Socorro County; creates a community-and-expert advisory committee to study water, land, and scientific-resource impacts and recommend regulations. Prompted by Mpower Technologies (Green Data Center) proposal for a ~10,000-acre data center and solar campus; NM Tech and Green Data had announced a mutual project pause the prior week.","who_is_protected":"Socorro County residents, particularly in areas near the proposed Green Data Center site","who_must_comply":"Data center developers proposing projects in unincorporated Socorro County","citation":"Socorro County, N.M., Board of Commissioners data center moratorium (adopted June 9, 2026; one-year)","source_url":"https://sourcenm.com/2026/06/10/new-mexico-county-adopts-yearlong-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"New Mexico county adopts yearlong data center moratorium — Source New Mexico","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Socorro County Commission and planning administration"},{"id":"johnson-city-tn-dc-moratorium-2025","title":"Johnson City, TN Data Center Moratorium (June 2025, extended Dec. 2026)","short_title":"Johnson City Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Johnson City, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Washington","city":"Johnson City","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-06-05","enacted_date":"2025-06-05","expires_date":"2026-12-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-15","summary_plain":"Johnson City, Tennessee passed a one-year moratorium on data center construction on June 5, 2025, applying to land use applications and building permits for new data centers in the I-2 heavy industrial district. A companion text amendment limits data centers to the I-2 district. The Commission voted unanimously on May 22, 2026 to extend the moratorium to December 3, 2026, giving the city more time to study noise and other impacts and develop permanent regulations. The local utility BrightRidge also imposed a separate moratorium on data center project proposals in the region.","summary_technical":"Johnson City Commission resolution adopted June 5, 2025, imposing a one-year moratorium on land use applications and building permits for new data center construction in the I-2 (heavy industrial) zoning district; companion text amendment limits data centers to I-2. Extended unanimously May 22, 2026 to December 3, 2026. BrightRidge (municipal electric utility) separately imposed a moratorium on accepting new data center project proposals in its service area.","who_is_protected":"Johnson City residents and BrightRidge utility ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits in Johnson City","citation":"Johnson City, Tenn., Commission data center moratorium (adopted June 5, 2025; extended May 22, 2026 to Dec. 3, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.supertalk929.com/2026/05/22/johnson-city-commission-votes-to-extend-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Johnson City Commission votes to extend data center moratorium — SuperTalk 92.9","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Johnson City (planning and permitting)"},{"id":"cedar-hill-tn-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Cedar Hill, TN Two-Year Moratorium on Data Centers and Cryptocurrency Mining Facilities","short_title":"Cedar Hill Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cedar Hill, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Robertson","city":"Cedar Hill","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-01","enacted_date":"2026-06-01","expires_date":"2028-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Cedar Hill, Tennessee's city commission unanimously approved a resolution on June 1, 2026 imposing a two-year moratorium on data centers and cryptocurrency mining facilities. The preemptive pause — no data centers are currently proposed in Cedar Hill — cites concerns about electrical infrastructure, water usage, wastewater capacity, transportation, emergency services, noise, and impacts on surrounding properties. Cedar Hill Mayor John Edwards said he acted after watching a fight over three proposed data centers in nearby Franklin, Kentucky.","summary_technical":"Cedar Hill City Commission resolution (June 1, 2026) imposing a two-year moratorium on data centers and cryptocurrency mining facilities; preemptive action prompted by activity in neighboring jurisdictions; cites infrastructure, water, wastewater, transportation, emergency-services, and noise concerns. Two-year term runs through approximately June 2028.","who_is_protected":"Cedar Hill residents and Robertson County residents in the rural community","who_must_comply":"Data center and cryptocurrency mining facility developers in Cedar Hill","citation":"Cedar Hill, Tenn., data center moratorium resolution (June 1, 2026; 2-year term)","source_url":"https://www.newschannel5.com/news/state/tennessee/robertson-county/cedar-hill-in-robertson-county-passes-2-year-moratorium-on-data-centers-amid-rural-preservation-concerns","source_title":"Cedar Hill in Robertson County passes 2-year moratorium on data centers — NewsChannel 5 Nashville","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Cedar Hill City Commission"},{"id":"mcminnville-tn-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"McMinnville, TN 18-Month Moratorium on Data Centers","short_title":"McMinnville Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"McMinnville, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Warren","city":"McMinnville","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-09","enacted_date":"2026-06-09","expires_date":"2027-12-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"McMinnville, Tennessee's Board of Mayor and Aldermen unanimously passed an 18-month moratorium on data center permitting on June 9, 2026, after more than 90 minutes of citizen comment. The moratorium gives the city time to evaluate impacts on the electrical grid, water and stormwater systems, environmental and public health, noise, and community fit. It was prompted by a developer's plan to build a 96,000-square-foot data center designed to support an Nvidia GB200 NVL72 AI supercomputing platform drawing 25 megawatts.","summary_technical":"McMinnville Board of Mayor and Aldermen unanimous moratorium resolution (June 9, 2026; initial deliberations June 3, 2026) imposing an 18-month pause on data center permitting; triggered by a 96,000 sq ft / 25 MW Nvidia GB200 NVL72-focused AI data center proposal; studies to cover grid, water/stormwater, public health, noise, and zoning. Extendable if necessary.","who_is_protected":"McMinnville residents and utility ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits in McMinnville","citation":"McMinnville, Tenn., data center moratorium (June 9, 2026; 18-month term)","source_url":"https://www.wsmv.com/2026/06/03/mcminnville-approves-18-month-moratorium-new-data-centers-creating-requirements-numerous-impact-studies/","source_title":"McMinnville approves 18-month moratorium on new data centers — WSMV","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of McMinnville (planning/permitting)"},{"id":"coffee-county-tn-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Coffee County, TN One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers","short_title":"Coffee County Data Center Moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Coffee County, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Coffee","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-09","enacted_date":"2026-06-09","expires_date":"2027-06-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"Coffee County, Tennessee commissioners unanimously passed a 12-month moratorium on data centers on June 9, 2026, giving the county time to amend its Agricultural District zoning language before a large data center could arrive under current rules. County Mayor Dennis Hunt said existing agricultural zoning would permit a data center without restrictions, and wanted to prevent that. The day after passage, the county planning commission met to discuss potential zoning updates including building height limits, well usage, environmental testing, light-pollution restrictions, and distance requirements from residences, farms, and water sources.","summary_technical":"Coffee County Commission unanimous moratorium resolution (June 9, 2026) imposing a 12-month pause on data center development in unincorporated Coffee County; purpose is to amend Agricultural District zoning to add data-center-specific conditions; staff immediately began drafting restrictions on height, water use, noise, light, and setbacks.","who_is_protected":"Coffee County residents and agricultural landowners","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in unincorporated Coffee County","citation":"Coffee County, Tenn., Commission data center moratorium (June 9, 2026; 12-month term)","source_url":"https://thunder1320.com/coffee-county-commission-approves-12-month-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Coffee County Commission approves 12-month data center moratorium — Thunder 1320","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Coffee County Commission / Coffee County Planning Commission"},{"id":"boone-county-in-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Boone County, IN One-Year Moratorium on New Data Center Development (Unincorporated Areas)","short_title":"Boone County Data Center Moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Boone County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Boone","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-16","enacted_date":"2026-06-15","expires_date":"2027-06-15","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Boone County, Indiana's Board of Commissioners unanimously voted on June 15, 2026 to impose a one-year moratorium on new data center development in unincorporated areas of the county. The pause halts the filing, processing, review, and acceptance of applications for new data center facilities so county officials can evaluate impacts on infrastructure and update planning and zoning rules. The moratorium does NOT affect Meta's existing data center campus in the LEAP Innovation District — that site sits on land annexed by the City of Lebanon and is outside unincorporated Boone County.","summary_technical":"Boone County Board of Commissioners Ordinance No. 2026-08, adopted June 15, 2026, imposing a moratorium from June 16, 2026 through June 15, 2027 on new data center filings, applications, and approvals in unincorporated Boone County. Meta's LEAP District campus is outside scope because it sits in annexed City of Lebanon territory.","who_is_protected":"Boone County residents and ratepayers in unincorporated areas","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in unincorporated Boone County","citation":"Boone County, Ind., Ordinance No. 2026-08 (adopted June 15, 2026; moratorium June 16, 2026 – June 15, 2027)","source_url":"https://boonecounty.in.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Ordinance-2026-08.Moratorium-on-data-centers.pdf","source_title":"Boone County, Indiana — Ordinance No. 2026-08 (Moratorium on Data Centers)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Boone County Board of Commissioners / Boone County Area Plan Commission"},{"id":"imperial-ca-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"City of Imperial, CA 45-Day Interim Urgency Moratorium on Data Centers (Ord. No. 834)","short_title":"Imperial CA Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Imperial, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Imperial","city":"Imperial","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-03","enacted_date":"2026-06-03","expires_date":"2026-07-18","last_verified_date":"2026-08-24","summary_plain":"The City of Imperial, California's City Council unanimously approved Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 834 on June 3, 2026, imposing a 45-day moratorium on new data center development. The pause lets the city study water, energy, and land-use impacts before any applications proceed; under California Government Code § 65858 the council can extend it by up to 10 months and 15 days, and then again for up to one more year, for a maximum of about two years.","summary_technical":"City of Imperial Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 834 (Cal. Gov. Code § 65858), adopted 5-0 June 3, 2026; initial 45-day pause on data center use permits, variances, building permits, and business licenses. Extendable up to 10 months 15 days, then up to one more year (max ~2 years). Part of an Imperial Valley regional response (Calipatria introduced own moratorium May 13; Imperial County Board of Supervisors considering urgency moratorium June 16).","who_is_protected":"Imperial residents, ratepayers, and Imperial Valley desert ecosystem","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in the City of Imperial","citation":"City of Imperial, Cal., Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 834 (adopted June 3, 2026; 45-day initial term)","source_url":"https://calexicochronicle.com/2026/06/09/imperial-implements-45-day-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Imperial Implements 45-Day Data Center Moratorium — Calexico Chronicle","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Imperial City Council / Planning Department"},{"id":"denver-co-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Denver, CO — Unanimous 13-0 One-Year Moratorium on New Large Data Centers","short_title":"Denver Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Denver, CO","state_abbr":"CO","county":"Denver","city":"Denver","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-05-19","enacted_date":"2026-05-19","expires_date":"2027-05-19","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Denver City Council voted 13-0 on May 19, 2026 to impose a one-year moratorium on new large data center development while the city drafts permanent zoning and land-use rules. The freeze covers new facilities above a megawatt threshold while officials study impacts on Denver's electricity grid, water supply, and neighborhood character.","summary_technical":"One-year moratorium on large data center development approvals adopted unanimously 13-0 by Denver City Council on May 19, 2026; gives the city time to write permanent regulations addressing grid capacity, water consumption, and compatibility with existing land uses.","who_is_protected":"Denver residents and Xcel Energy ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking new development approvals in Denver","citation":"City and County of Denver, data center moratorium ordinance (adopted May 19, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.coloradopolitics.com/denver/denver-city-council-approves-one-year-moratorium-on-large-data-centers/article_b1dc4a7e-36d6-11f0-9e0d-6f6b96e86a7e.html","source_title":"Denver City Council approves one-year moratorium on large data centers — Colorado Politics","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City and County of Denver Community Planning and Development"},{"id":"baltimore-md-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Baltimore, MD — Mayor-Signed One-Year Moratorium on Large Data Centers (10 MW+ Threshold)","short_title":"Baltimore Data Center Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Baltimore, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Baltimore City","city":"Baltimore","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-05-11","enacted_date":"2026-05-11","expires_date":"2027-05-11","last_verified_date":"2026-08-24","summary_plain":"Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott signed legislation in May 2026 imposing a one-year moratorium on new data centers with 10 megawatts or more of peak electricity demand. The pause gives city officials time to develop land-use and infrastructure standards for large digital infrastructure projects.","summary_technical":"One-year moratorium on new data center facilities with ≥10 MW peak electricity demand, signed by Mayor Brandon Scott in May 2026; gives city time to develop permanent land-use regulations.","who_is_protected":"Baltimore residents and BGE ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals for facilities ≥10 MW in Baltimore City","citation":"City of Baltimore, data center moratorium ordinance (signed May 2026)","source_url":"https://baltimorefishbowl.com/stories/baltimore-mayor-signs-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Baltimore Mayor Signs Data Center Moratorium — Baltimore Fishbowl","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Baltimore City Department of Planning / Permits, Approvals and Inspections"},{"id":"or-hb-4084-data-center-tax-moratorium-2026","title":"Oregon HB 4084 — Temporary Suspension of Data Center Property-Tax Exemption","short_title":"Oregon HB 4084 Data Center Tax Moratorium","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Oregon","state_abbr":"OR","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-05","enacted_date":"2026-06-05","last_verified_date":"2026-08-24","summary_plain":"Oregon House Bill 4084, effective June 5, 2026, temporarily suspends the state's property-tax exemption for qualifying data centers — a program that had offered facilities up to 15 years of tax relief to attract investment. The suspension halts new applications while the legislature evaluates whether the incentive is still in the public interest given rapid data center growth and grid strain concerns.","summary_technical":"HB 4084 suspends Oregon's data center property-tax exemption program (ORS ch. 285C) for new applicants effective June 5, 2026, pending legislative review of program benefits vs. costs; existing approved exemptions are grandfathered.","who_is_protected":"Oregon taxpayers and utility ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking new Oregon property-tax exemption certificates","citation":"Oregon HB 4084 (2026 Leg. Session, eff. June 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.dwt.com/blogs/artificial-intelligence-law-advisor/2026/06/oregon-data-center-tax-exemption","source_title":"Oregon Suspends Data Center Property Tax Exemption — Davis Wright Tremaine AI Law Advisor","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Oregon Business Development Department / Oregon Department of Revenue"},{"id":"dc-b25-0114-stop-discrimination-algorithms","title":"DC Stop Discrimination by Algorithms Act (B25-0114)","short_title":"DC SDAA (B25-0114)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Washington, DC","state_abbr":"DC","city":"Washington","topics":["automated-decisions","employment","housing-credit","consumer-protection","privacy","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"B25-0114 (re-introduced from prior sessions as B24-0558 and B23-0418) prohibits covered entities from using algorithmic eligibility determinations that produce disparate impact in housing, employment, credit, healthcare, education, insurance, and essential public services. Requires consumer notice, annual bias audits filed with the Attorney General, and a private right of action.","who_is_protected":"DC residents subject to algorithmic decisions in covered areas","who_must_comply":"Businesses and entities using algorithms to make important life decisions about DC residents","citation":"D.C. Council B25-0114 (proposed)","source_url":"https://lims.dccouncil.gov/Legislation/B25-0114","source_title":"DC Council B25-0114 (LIMS)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"DC Office of the Attorney General; private right of action"},{"id":"san-jose-ca-genai-guidelines","title":"San Jose, CA Generative AI Guidelines (Information Technology Dept.)","short_title":"San Jose GenAI Guidelines","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Jose, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Santa Clara","city":"San Jose","topics":["automated-decisions","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-07-25","enacted_date":"2023-07-25","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"San Jose published one of the first US city-government playbooks for generative AI, requiring staff to log every use of tools like ChatGPT, complete training, and refrain from entering confidential information.","summary_technical":"San Jose's Generative AI Guidelines (issued via the IT Department and the GovAI Coalition) require employees to register all generative AI use cases in a central inventory, complete bias and security training, follow disclosure rules in public communications, and refrain from inputting confidential or PII data into public AI tools.","who_is_protected":"San Jose residents interacting with city services","who_must_comply":"All City of San Jose departments and employees","citation":"City of San Jose, Generative AI Guidelines (June 12, 2023)","source_url":"https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/information-technology/itd-generative-ai-guideline","source_title":"City of San Jose — AI Reviews and Guidelines","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"San Jose Information Technology Department"},{"id":"detroit-mi-fr-policy-directive","title":"Detroit Police Department Facial Recognition Policy (Directive 307.5)","short_title":"Detroit FR Policy Directive 307.5","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Detroit, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Wayne","city":"Detroit","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-15","enacted_date":"2024-06-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"After three wrongful arrests of Black men from faulty facial recognition matches, Detroit settled a lawsuit and updated its policy: police cannot make an arrest based solely on a facial recognition match and must corroborate with independent evidence.","summary_technical":"Detroit Police Directive 307.5, as revised June 2024 pursuant to the Robert Williams v. City of Detroit settlement, prohibits using facial recognition match alone as probable cause for arrest, requires independent corroborating evidence, mandates training, and requires public annual reports on FR use and accuracy.","who_is_protected":"Detroit residents and visitors, particularly Black residents harmed by historical FR misidentification","who_must_comply":"Detroit Police Department","citation":"Detroit Police Dep't Directive 307.5 (rev. June 28, 2024)","source_url":"https://detroitmi.gov/document/revised-manual-directive-3075-facial-recognition","source_title":"Detroit Police Directive 307.5 — Facial Recognition (City of Detroit)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Detroit Board of Police Commissioners; federal court oversight (Williams settlement)"},{"id":"memphis-tn-xai-colossus-air-permit-challenge-2026","title":"Memphis TN — Citizen Challenge to xAI Colossus Air Permits","short_title":"Memphis xAI Permit Challenge","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Memphis, TN","state_abbr":"TN","city":"Memphis","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Memphis NAACP and community groups filed an administrative challenge to the air permits supporting xAI's Colossus data center, citing methane-gas-turbine emissions in South Memphis.","summary_technical":"Petitioners challenge Shelby County Health Department air permits issued for natural-gas turbines powering the xAI Colossus campus, alleging Clean Air Act and Title VI violations and inadequate cumulative-impact analysis for a majority-Black community.","who_is_protected":"South Memphis residents adjacent to the Colossus site","who_must_comply":"xAI; Shelby County Health Department permitting program","citation":"Inside Climate News, June 2026","source_url":"https://earthjustice.org/case/xai-illegal-gas-power-plant-data-center-colossus","source_title":"Memphis groups challenge xAI Colossus air permits — Inside Climate News","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Shelby County Health Department; TN Department of Environment and Conservation; EPA Region 4"},{"id":"san-antonio-tx-dc-water-disclosure-2026","title":"San Antonio TX — Data Center Water-Use Disclosure Proposal","short_title":"San Antonio DC Water Disclosure","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Antonio, TX","state_abbr":"TX","city":"San Antonio","topics":["data-centers","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"San Antonio council members proposed requiring data centers served by San Antonio Water System to publicly disclose annual water consumption.","summary_technical":"Proposed ordinance would amend SAWS large-customer reporting rules to require data centers to publish annual potable and reclaimed-water consumption, peak draw, and on-site reuse percentage in a SAWS public dashboard.","who_is_protected":"San Antonio residents and SAWS ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data-center customers of SAWS","citation":"Data Center Frontier, June 2026","source_url":"https://www.sacurrent.com/news/san-antonio-news/san-antonio-councilman-calls-for-city-to-look-into-data-center-growth-and-resource-drain/","source_title":"San Antonio weighs data center water disclosure — Data Center Frontier","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"San Antonio Water System; City Council"},{"id":"indianapolis-in-dc-zoning-2026","title":"Indianapolis IN — Data Center Zoning Standards Proposed","short_title":"Indianapolis DC Zoning","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Indianapolis, IN","state_abbr":"IN","city":"Indianapolis","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Indianapolis's City-County Council introduced zoning standards requiring conditional approval, setbacks from residential zones, and noise studies for new data centers.","summary_technical":"Draft ordinance establishes data-center as a defined land use, requires conditional-use permit, imposes minimum residential-zone setbacks, mandates noise and traffic studies, and conditions approval on substation siting plan.","who_is_protected":"Indianapolis residents in suburban/peri-urban growth areas","who_must_comply":"Data-center developers and operators","citation":"Data Center Dynamics, June 2026","source_url":"https://us-east-1-indy.graphassets.com/ActDBC5rvRWeCZlNNnLrDz/cmo8km4rc012207k3kk2seaaw","source_title":"Indianapolis advances data center zoning standards — DCD","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development; City-County Council"},{"id":"miami-dade-mdcps-ai-2024","title":"Miami-Dade County Public Schools — School Board Directive to Develop Districtwide AI Guidance (Aug. 12, 2025)","short_title":"M-DCPS AI guidance directive (2025)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Miami, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Miami-Dade","city":"Miami","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-12","enacted_date":"2025-08-12","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"On August 12, 2025 the School Board of Miami-Dade County approved agenda item H-4, sponsored by Board Member Roberto J. Alonso with five co-sponsors. It directs the Superintendent to develop districtwide guidance on students' use of artificial intelligence, including a tiered framework teachers can apply to classroom tasks and assignments; to review and recommend changes to district procedures and rules on acceptable AI use and consequences for misuse; to create resources explaining AI expectations to families and students; and to report back to the Board's Academics, Innovation, Evaluation & Technology Committee on October 1, 2025. The item commissions AI rules; it does not itself set them.","summary_technical":"School Board of Miami-Dade County, Fla., Board Meeting of Aug. 12, 2025, Revised Item H-4, 'Developing Districtwide Guidance on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Schools' (sponsor Mr. Roberto J. Alonso; co-sponsors Chair Maria Teresa Rojas, Vice Chair Monica Colucci, Danny Espino, Dr. Steve Gallon III, Luisa Santos; Committee: Academics, Innovation, Evaluation & Technology). Action: direct the Superintendent to (1) develop districtwide guidance for AI in student learning, including a tiered framework for classroom tasks and assignments; (2) review and recommend changes to procedures and rules to incorporate behavior models for acceptable AI use, consistent consequences for misuse, and updated disciplinary language; (3) create resources and communications for families and students; (4) report back with proposed guidance at the Oct. 1, 2025 committee meeting. Reviewed by the Office of the General Counsel as to form and legal sufficiency.","who_is_protected":"Students and families in Miami-Dade County Public Schools","who_must_comply":"M-DCPS Superintendent and district staff","citation":"School Board of Miami-Dade County, Revised Agenda Item H-4 (Aug. 12, 2025)","source_url":"https://pdfs.dadeschools.net/Bdarch/2025/Bd081225/agenda/h4rev.pdf","source_title":"School Board of Miami-Dade County — Revised Item H-4, Board Meeting of Aug. 12, 2025","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"School Board of Miami-Dade County","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None in the item; it directs the district to recommend consistent consequences for student misuse of AI"},{"id":"volusia-fl-ai-2025","title":"Volusia County FL Schools — AI in the Classroom Guidelines","short_title":"Volusia County FL Schools","level":"city","jurisdiction":"DeLand, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Volusia","city":"DeLand","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-26","enacted_date":"2025-08-26","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"School Board Policy 428 and amendments to the Student Code of Conduct (Policy 208E/208S) govern AI use by Volusia County Schools staff and students. Students may use AI as a support tool for brainstorming, clarifying complex texts, or grammar assistance, but must cite AI assistance and may not submit AI-generated work as their own. Teachers may prohibit AI on specific assignments. The policy safeguards student data privacy and fosters equitable access; violations are handled under the district's existing disciplinary code.","summary_technical":"School Board Policy 428 and amendments to the Student Code of Conduct (Policy 208E/208S) govern AI use by Volusia County Schools staff and students. Students may use AI as a support tool for brainstorming, clarifying complex texts, or grammar assistance, but must cite AI assistance and may not submit AI-generated work as their own. Teachers may prohibit AI on specific assignments. The policy safeguards student data privacy and fosters equitable access; violations are handled under the district's existing disciplinary code. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Volusia County FL Schools — AI in the Classroom Guidelines (2025-08-26)","source_url":"https://go.boarddocs.com/fla/vcsfl/Board.nsf/files/D49JGT4D2962/$file/Policy%20428%20-%20Staff%20and%20Student%20Use%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20(AI).pdf","source_title":"Volusia County FL Schools — AI in the Classroom Guidelines — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"mcps-md-ai-2024","title":"Montgomery County MD Public Schools — Guidelines for Use of Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"Montgomery County MD Public Schools","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Rockville, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Montgomery","city":"Rockville","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-29","enacted_date":"2024-08-29","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"MCPS issued districtwide AI guidelines authorizing teacher use of vetted tools (Google Gemini for Education, Microsoft Copilot), barring student entry of personal data into GenAI, requiring teacher disclosure when AI generates student feedback, and prohibiting AI-only disciplinary or grading decisions. Implemented via Board Policy IGS (Educational Technology) administered through BoardDocs.","summary_technical":"MCPS issued districtwide AI guidelines authorizing teacher use of vetted tools (Google Gemini for Education, Microsoft Copilot), barring student entry of personal data into GenAI, requiring teacher disclosure when AI generates student feedback, and prohibiting AI-only disciplinary or grading decisions. Implemented via Board Policy IGS (Educational Technology) administered through BoardDocs. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Montgomery County MD Public Schools — Guidelines for Use of Artificial Intelligence (2024-08-29)","source_url":"https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/igs.pdf","source_title":"Montgomery County MD Public Schools — Guidelines for Use of Artificial Intelligence — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"pgcps-md-ai-2025","title":"Prince George's County MD Public Schools — Generative AI Use Procedure","short_title":"Prince George's County MD Public Schools","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Upper Marlboro, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Prince George's","city":"Upper Marlboro","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-15","enacted_date":"2025-09-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Procedure approved alongside Board Policy 0123: limits enterprise AI access to approved systems only, bars input of student PII or confidential employee records into AI tools, requires professional accountability for AI-generated content, and may result in disciplinary action for policy violations. The procedure is AP 0123, not AP 0500.","summary_technical":"Procedure approved alongside Board Policy 0123: limits enterprise AI access to approved systems only, bars input of student PII or confidential employee records into AI tools, requires professional accountability for AI-generated content, and may result in disciplinary action for policy violations. The procedure is AP 0123, not AP 0500. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Prince George's County MD Public Schools — Generative AI Use Procedure (2025-09-15)","source_url":"https://epi2.pgcps.org/offices/ograc/administrative-procedures/0000---system-guidance/ap-0123---artificial-intelligence-use-and-governance","source_title":"Prince George's County MD Public Schools — Generative AI Use Procedure — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"hcpss-md-ai-2024","title":"Howard County MD Public School System — AI Use Policy Statement & Policy 8080 Update","short_title":"Howard County MD Public School System","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Ellicott City, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Howard","city":"Ellicott City","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-03-03","enacted_date":"2025-03-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Board approved (January 30, 2025, effective March 3, 2025) modifications to Policy 8080 — Responsible Use of Technology, Digital Tools, and Social Media — restricting student personal device (cell phone) use during the school day for all PreK-12 students, with limited exceptions for documented IEP/504/health needs. The policy does not contain an explicit AI section; AI use is addressed only implicitly through broad digital-tools and academic-integrity language.","summary_technical":"Board approved (January 30, 2025, effective March 3, 2025) modifications to Policy 8080 — Responsible Use of Technology, Digital Tools, and Social Media — restricting student personal device (cell phone) use during the school day for all PreK-12 students, with limited exceptions for documented IEP/504/health needs. The policy does not contain an explicit AI section; AI use is addressed only implicitly through broad digital-tools and academic-integrity language. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Howard County MD Public School System — AI Use Policy Statement & Policy 8080 Update (2025-03-03)","source_url":"https://policy.hcpss.org/8000/8080/","source_title":"Howard County MD Public School System — AI Use Policy Statement & Policy 8080 Update — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"wcpss-nc-ai-2025","title":"Wake County NC Public School System — Generative AI Guidelines & Policy 6446 Revision","short_title":"Wake County NC Public School System","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Raleigh, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Wake","city":"Raleigh","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Board-revised Policy 6446 (Internet/Online Services) plus standalone AI guidelines: district-approved AI tools list, K-5 prohibition on student-facing AI chatbots, required parental consent for student AI accounts grades 6-8, AI literacy requirement for grades 9-12.","summary_technical":"Board-revised Policy 6446 (Internet/Online Services) plus standalone AI guidelines: district-approved AI tools list, K-5 prohibition on student-facing AI chatbots, required parental consent for student AI accounts grades 6-8, AI literacy requirement for grades 9-12. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Wake County NC Public School System — Generative AI Guidelines & Policy 6446 Revision (undefined)","source_url":"https://www.wcpss.net/about-us/policies","source_title":"Wake County NC Public School System — Generative AI Guidelines & Policy 6446 Revision — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"forsyth-ga-ai-2024","title":"Forsyth County GA Schools — Generative AI Use Guidelines (Forsyth.AI initiative)","short_title":"Forsyth County GA Schools","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cumming, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Forsyth","city":"Cumming","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-09-12","enacted_date":"2024-09-12","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"District 'Forsyth.AI' initiative pairs adopted use guidelines with a custom secure AI portal for staff and grades 6-12; bars PII entry into external models, requires teacher verification of AI output, and prohibits AI use to make student-discipline or special-education decisions.","summary_technical":"District 'Forsyth.AI' initiative pairs adopted use guidelines with a custom secure AI portal for staff and grades 6-12; bars PII entry into external models, requires teacher verification of AI output, and prohibits AI use to make student-discipline or special-education decisions. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Forsyth County GA Schools — Generative AI Use Guidelines (Forsyth.AI initiative) (2024-09-12)","source_url":"https://www.forsyth.k12.ga.us/district-services/technology-information-services/educational-technology-and-media/fcsai","source_title":"Forsyth County GA Schools — Generative AI Use Guidelines (Forsyth.AI initiative) — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"cherokee-ga-ai-2025","title":"Cherokee County GA School District — AI Use Procedure","short_title":"Cherokee County GA School District","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Canton, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Cherokee","city":"Canton","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-24","enacted_date":"2025-07-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Procedure approved with Board Policy IFBG update: enterprise AI authorized for staff and grades 9-12, no AI use for early-grade summative assessment, AI tools must be FERPA/COPPA compliant, AI use must be cited in graded work.","summary_technical":"Procedure approved with Board Policy IFBG update: enterprise AI authorized for staff and grades 9-12, no AI use for early-grade summative assessment, AI tools must be FERPA/COPPA compliant, AI use must be cited in graded work. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Cherokee County GA School District — AI Use Procedure (2025-07-24)","source_url":"https://www.cherokeek12.net/i-instructional-program/ifbg-internet-acceptable-use","source_title":"Cherokee County GA School District — AI Use Procedure — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"jeffco-co-ai-2024","title":"Jefferson County CO Public Schools (Jeffco) — Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI","short_title":"Jefferson County CO Public Schools (Jeffco)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Golden, CO","state_abbr":"CO","county":"Jefferson","city":"Golden","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-22","enacted_date":"2024-08-22","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Districtwide guidelines: enterprise tools (Google Gemini for Education, Microsoft Copilot) authorized; bar on staff entering student data into consumer AI products; AI disclosure expectations for instructional materials; required AI literacy PD for staff.","summary_technical":"Districtwide guidelines: enterprise tools (Google Gemini for Education, Microsoft Copilot) authorized; bar on staff entering student data into consumer AI products; AI disclosure expectations for instructional materials; required AI literacy PD for staff. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Jefferson County CO Public Schools (Jeffco) — Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI (2024-08-22)","source_url":"https://www.jeffcopublicschools.org/services/technology/artificial-intelligence","source_title":"Jefferson County CO Public Schools (Jeffco) — Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"mpls-public-schools-ai-2024","title":"Minneapolis Public Schools — AI Guidance for Educators","short_title":"Minneapolis Public Schools","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Minneapolis, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Hennepin","city":"Minneapolis","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-09-04","enacted_date":"2024-09-04","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"District-issued educator guidance: vetted tool list, ban on entering student IEP or behavior data into generative AI, AI must not be sole basis for academic placement or discipline, recommended classroom disclosure when AI is used to create materials.","summary_technical":"District-issued educator guidance: vetted tool list, ban on entering student IEP or behavior data into generative AI, AI must not be sole basis for academic placement or discipline, recommended classroom disclosure when AI is used to create materials. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Minneapolis Public Schools — AI Guidance for Educators (2024-09-04)","source_url":"https://www.mpschools.org/the-source/apps-software/ai","source_title":"Minneapolis Public Schools — AI Guidance for Educators — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"st-paul-public-schools-ai-2024","title":"Saint Paul Public Schools — Generative AI Acceptable Use Guidance","short_title":"Saint Paul Public Schools","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Saint Paul, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Ramsey","city":"Saint Paul","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-10-08","enacted_date":"2024-10-08","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Guidance designates Google Gemini, NotebookLM, Seesaw, and Schoology PowerBuddy as approved AI tools for staff (offered through district accounts with enterprise protections), bars use of consumer AI tools with student data, requires teacher disclosure to families when AI is used for instructional design, and prohibits AI-generated discipline recommendations without administrator review.","summary_technical":"Guidance designates Google Gemini, NotebookLM, Seesaw, and Schoology PowerBuddy as approved AI tools for staff (offered through district accounts with enterprise protections), bars use of consumer AI tools with student data, requires teacher disclosure to families when AI is used for instructional design, and prohibits AI-generated discipline recommendations without administrator review. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Saint Paul Public Schools — Generative AI Acceptable Use Guidance (2024-10-08)","source_url":"https://www.spps.org/about/departments/technology-services/staff-resources/artificial-intelligence","source_title":"Saint Paul Public Schools — Generative AI Acceptable Use Guidance — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"cleveland-metro-schools-ai-2025","title":"Cleveland Metropolitan School District — AI Acceptable Use Policy","short_title":"Cleveland Metropolitan School District","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cleveland, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Cuyahoga","city":"Cleveland","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-09","enacted_date":"2025-09-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Board-adopted AUP: vetted tool list, ban on uploading student records to generative models, AI literacy added to high-school graduation pathway, AI tool vendors must pass district privacy review.","summary_technical":"Board-adopted AUP: vetted tool list, ban on uploading student records to generative models, AI literacy added to high-school graduation pathway, AI tool vendors must pass district privacy review. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Cleveland Metropolitan School District — AI Acceptable Use Policy (2025-09-09)","source_url":"https://www.clevelandmetroschools.org/board-of-education/board-policies","source_title":"Cleveland Metropolitan School District — AI Acceptable Use Policy — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"princeton-nj-schools-ai-2024","title":"Princeton NJ Public Schools — AI Use Guidelines","short_title":"Princeton NJ Public Schools","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Princeton, NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","county":"Mercer","city":"Princeton","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-10-22","enacted_date":"2024-10-22","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"District guidelines: vetted enterprise AI list, prohibition on student AI chatbot use grades K-5, AI disclosure expectation on graded work, ban on AI as sole basis for academic placement decisions.","summary_technical":"District guidelines: vetted enterprise AI list, prohibition on student AI chatbot use grades K-5, AI disclosure expectation on graded work, ban on AI as sole basis for academic placement decisions. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Princeton NJ Public Schools — AI Use Guidelines (2024-10-22)","source_url":"https://www.princetonk12.org/resources-and-notices/ai-in-princeton-public-schools","source_title":"Princeton NJ Public Schools — AI Use Guidelines — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"newton-ma-public-schools-ai-2025","title":"Newton MA Public Schools — Generative AI Use Guidance","short_title":"Newton MA Public Schools","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Newton, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Middlesex","city":"Newton","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-15","enacted_date":"2025-09-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Newton Public Schools guidance covers vetted enterprise AI tools, classroom disclosure norms, prohibition on AI-generated discipline or special-education decisions, and AI literacy thread in grades 6-12.","summary_technical":"Newton Public Schools guidance covers vetted enterprise AI tools, classroom disclosure norms, prohibition on AI-generated discipline or special-education decisions, and AI literacy thread in grades 6-12. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Newton MA Public Schools — Generative AI Use Guidance (2025-09-15)","source_url":"https://sites.google.com/newton.k12.ma.us/nps-virtual-learning/staff-technology-resources/ai-guidelines-and-resources-for-use","source_title":"Newton MA Public Schools — Generative AI Use Guidance — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"brookline-ma-schools-ai-2025","title":"Public Schools of Brookline — AI Acceptable Use & Data Privacy Procedure","short_title":"Public Schools of Brookline","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Brookline, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Norfolk","city":"Brookline","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-19","enacted_date":"2025-08-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Town of Brookline municipal policy governing use of generative AI tools by all Town Technology Resources users. Distinguishes constrained (contractually approved, confidentiality guaranteed) from unconstrained (consumer, no guarantees) tools. Prohibits inputting PII or protected health information into any generative AI tool. Requires IT Cybersecurity Team approval before use of any generative AI tool. Adopted by the Select Board and also approved by the School Committee.","summary_technical":"Town of Brookline municipal policy governing use of generative AI tools by all Town Technology Resources users. Distinguishes constrained (contractually approved, confidentiality guaranteed) from unconstrained (consumer, no guarantees) tools. Prohibits inputting PII or protected health information into any generative AI tool. Requires IT Cybersecurity Team approval before use of any generative AI tool. Adopted by the Select Board and also approved by the School Committee. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Public Schools of Brookline — AI Acceptable Use & Data Privacy Procedure (2025-08-19)","source_url":"https://www.brooklinema.gov/3975/Generative-AI-Use","source_title":"Public Schools of Brookline — AI Acceptable Use & Data Privacy Procedure — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"arlington-va-aps-ai-2024","title":"Arlington VA Public Schools — Guidance on AI Use in APS","short_title":"Arlington VA Public Schools","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Arlington, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Arlington","city":"Arlington","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-10-24","enacted_date":"2024-10-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Districtwide guidance authorizes vetted enterprise tools (Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini for Education), bars student PII entry into consumer AI, requires teacher disclosure to families when AI is used in instructional design, and prohibits AI as sole basis for grading or discipline.","summary_technical":"Districtwide guidance authorizes vetted enterprise tools (Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini for Education), bars student PII entry into consumer AI, requires teacher disclosure to families when AI is used in instructional design, and prohibits AI as sole basis for grading or discipline. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Arlington VA Public Schools — Guidance on AI Use in APS (2024-10-24)","source_url":"https://www.apsva.us/aps-artificial-intelligence-ai-frequently-asked-questions-faqs/","source_title":"Arlington VA Public Schools — Guidance on AI Use in APS — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"loudoun-va-lcps-ai-2025","title":"Loudoun County VA Public Schools — AI Use Guidelines","short_title":"Loudoun County VA Public Schools","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Ashburn, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Loudoun","city":"Ashburn","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-06-24","enacted_date":"2025-06-24","last_verified_date":"2026-08-26","summary_plain":"Largest NoVA-suburban district adopted guidelines: vetted enterprise AI tools, parental opt-in for student AI account creation grades 6-8, AI cannot be sole basis for placement or discipline, AI literacy integrated into K-12 ITRT curriculum.","summary_technical":"Largest NoVA-suburban district adopted guidelines: vetted enterprise AI tools, parental opt-in for student AI account creation grades 6-8, AI cannot be sole basis for placement or discipline, AI literacy integrated into K-12 ITRT curriculum. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Loudoun County VA Public Schools — AI Use Guidelines (2025-06-24)","source_url":"https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/loudoun/Board.nsf/files/DJ2H6U47035C/$file/5430.pdf","source_title":"Loudoun County VA Public Schools — AI Use Guidelines — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"prince-william-va-pwcs-ai-2025","title":"Prince William County VA Public Schools — Generative AI Use Procedures","short_title":"Prince William County VA Public Schools","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Manassas, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Prince William","city":"Manassas","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-17","enacted_date":"2025-09-17","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"District-wide procedures authorize Microsoft Copilot for staff and grades 9-12; ban use of consumer AI with student data; AI disclosure expected on graded work; AI cannot make special-education or discipline decisions without human review.","summary_technical":"District-wide procedures authorize Microsoft Copilot for staff and grades 9-12; ban use of consumer AI with student data; AI disclosure expected on graded work; AI cannot make special-education or discipline decisions without human review. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Prince William County VA Public Schools — Generative AI Use Procedures (2025-09-17)","source_url":"https://www.pwcs.edu/support_services/apps_technology/artificial_intelligence/index","source_title":"Prince William County VA Public Schools — Generative AI Use Procedures — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"sccoe-ca-ai-2024","title":"Santa Clara County CA Office of Education — AI Guidance for Member Districts","short_title":"Santa Clara County CA Office of Education","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Jose, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Santa Clara","city":"San Jose","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-10-10","enacted_date":"2024-10-10","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"County-office guidance to 31 member districts: AI tool vetting framework, model staff/student use policies, data-privacy addendum template for AI vendors, and shared educator PD on responsible AI use.","summary_technical":"County-office guidance to 31 member districts: AI tool vetting framework, model staff/student use policies, data-privacy addendum template for AI vendors, and shared educator PD on responsible AI use. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Santa Clara County CA Office of Education — AI Guidance for Member Districts (2024-10-10)","source_url":"https://www.sccoe.org/resources/AI/Pages/default.aspx","source_title":"Santa Clara County CA Office of Education — AI Guidance for Member Districts — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"sfusd-ca-ai-2024","title":"San Francisco Unified School District — Generative AI Use Guidelines","short_title":"San Francisco Unified School District","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Francisco, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"San Francisco","city":"San Francisco","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-11-12","enacted_date":"2024-11-12","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"District guidelines authorize Microsoft Copilot enterprise for staff; bar student AI accounts under 13; require teacher disclosure when AI is used for instructional design; bar AI use to make discipline or placement decisions without human review.","summary_technical":"District guidelines authorize Microsoft Copilot enterprise for staff; bar student AI accounts under 13; require teacher disclosure when AI is used for instructional design; bar AI use to make discipline or placement decisions without human review. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"San Francisco Unified School District — Generative AI Use Guidelines (2024-11-12)","source_url":"https://www.sfusd.edu/generative-ai-sfusd","source_title":"San Francisco Unified School District — Generative AI Use Guidelines — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"oakland-usd-ca-ai-2025","title":"Oakland Unified School District — AI Acceptable Use Guidelines","short_title":"Oakland Unified School District","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Oakland, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Alameda","city":"Oakland","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-10","enacted_date":"2025-09-10","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Board-approved guidelines: enterprise tool list, ban on AI tools that train on student inputs, AI disclosure on assignments, AI cannot be sole basis for academic placement or discipline.","summary_technical":"Board-approved guidelines: enterprise tool list, ban on AI tools that train on student inputs, AI disclosure on assignments, AI cannot be sole basis for academic placement or discipline. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Oakland Unified School District — AI Acceptable Use Guidelines (2025-09-10)","source_url":"https://teachercentral.ousd.org/tech/ousd-ai-guidelines","source_title":"Oakland Unified School District — AI Acceptable Use Guidelines — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"sandiego-usd-ca-ai-2024","title":"San Diego Unified School District — Generative AI Use Guidelines","short_title":"San Diego Unified School District","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Diego, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"San Diego","city":"San Diego","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-12-10","enacted_date":"2024-12-10","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"District guidelines: enterprise AI authorized for staff and grades 9-12, bar on consumer AI for student-data tasks, AI disclosure expectations, AI literacy integrated into K-12 educational technology standards.","summary_technical":"District guidelines: enterprise AI authorized for staff and grades 9-12, bar on consumer AI for student-data tasks, AI disclosure expectations, AI literacy integrated into K-12 educational technology standards. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"San Diego Unified School District — Generative AI Use Guidelines (2024-12-10)","source_url":"https://sites.google.com/sandi.net/icteachers/innovation/artificial-intelligence-ai","source_title":"San Diego Unified School District — Generative AI Use Guidelines — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"long-beach-ca-ai-acceptable-use-2024","title":"Long Beach CA — Generative AI Guidance (Administrative Guidance, not a formal Council Acceptable Use Policy)","short_title":"Long Beach CA","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Long Beach, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Los Angeles","city":"Long Beach","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-09","enacted_date":"2024-07-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The City of Long Beach published a Generative AI Interim Guidance (now at version 1.3) as an administrative tool to help staff use generative AI safely and responsibly — covering risks around AI bias, data privacy, and cybersecurity. The guidance explicitly states it is not a policy or ordinance. The Legistar council-file URL in the original entry could not be confirmed via official search results.","summary_technical":"The City of Long Beach published a Generative AI Interim Guidance (now at version 1.3) as an administrative tool to help staff use generative AI safely and responsibly — covering risks around AI bias, data privacy, and cybersecurity. The guidance explicitly states it is not a policy or ordinance. The Legistar council-file URL in the original entry could not be confirmed via official search results. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Long Beach CA — Generative AI Guidance (Administrative Guidance, not a formal Council Acceptable Use Policy) (2024-07-09)","source_url":"https://www.longbeach.gov/smartcity/projects/generative-ai-guidance/","source_title":"Long Beach CA — Generative AI Guidance (Administrative Guidance, not a formal Council Acceptable Use Policy) — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"glendale-ca-ai-2024","title":"Glendale CA — Generative AI Use Policy (City Manager Directive)","short_title":"Glendale CA","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Glendale, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Los Angeles","city":"Glendale","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-09-17","enacted_date":"2024-09-17","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"City Manager directive adopted via Council action: requires departments to use only city-approved AI tools, disclose AI assistance in public communications, and route AI procurement through IT review. Surfaced through Glendale's PrimeGov agenda packet.","summary_technical":"City Manager directive adopted via Council action: requires departments to use only city-approved AI tools, disclose AI assistance in public communications, and route AI procurement through IT review. Surfaced through Glendale's PrimeGov agenda packet. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Glendale CA — Generative AI Use Policy (City Manager Directive) (2024-09-17)","source_url":"https://glendaleca.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=44225","source_title":"Glendale CA — Generative AI Use Policy (City Manager Directive) — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"culver-city-ca-ai-2025","title":"Culver City CA — Generative AI Use Policy for City Staff","short_title":"Culver City CA","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Culver City, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Los Angeles","city":"Culver City","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-04-28","enacted_date":"2025-04-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Council-adopted staff policy: enterprise Microsoft Copilot only; bar on entry of confidential/PII data into consumer AI; disclosure of AI assistance in public communications; review by IT/HR before deploying AI in personnel decisions.","summary_technical":"Council-adopted staff policy: enterprise Microsoft Copilot only; bar on entry of confidential/PII data into consumer AI; disclosure of AI assistance in public communications; review by IT/HR before deploying AI in personnel decisions. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Culver City CA — Generative AI Use Policy for City Staff (2025-04-28)","source_url":"https://www.culvercity.gov/Contact-Us/AI-Policy","source_title":"Culver City CA — Generative AI Use Policy for City Staff — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"olathe-ks-ai-2025","title":"Olathe KS — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy (Council Adoption)","short_title":"Olathe KS","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Olathe, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Johnson","city":"Olathe","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-02-18","enacted_date":"2025-02-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Council-adopted citywide AI acceptable use policy: bar on entry of confidential/PII data into consumer AI, required disclosure of AI assistance in public communications, IT review for any new AI procurement, and prohibition on AI as sole basis for personnel decisions.","summary_technical":"Council-adopted citywide AI acceptable use policy: bar on entry of confidential/PII data into consumer AI, required disclosure of AI assistance in public communications, IT review for any new AI procurement, and prohibition on AI as sole basis for personnel decisions. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Olathe KS — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy (Council Adoption) (2025-02-18)","source_url":"https://olatheks.novusagenda.com/AgendaPublic/","source_title":"Olathe KS — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy (Council Adoption) — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"overland-park-ks-ai-2024","title":"Overland Park KS — AI Acceptable Use Policy","short_title":"Overland Park KS","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Overland Park, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Johnson","city":"Overland Park","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-12-02","enacted_date":"2024-12-02","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Council adoption of citywide AI use policy with vetted-tool list, ban on PII entry into public AI, disclosure for AI-assisted public communications, and mandatory training before staff AI use.","summary_technical":"Council adoption of citywide AI use policy with vetted-tool list, ban on PII entry into public AI, disclosure for AI-assisted public communications, and mandatory training before staff AI use. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Overland Park KS — AI Acceptable Use Policy (2024-12-02)","source_url":"https://opkansas.novusagenda.com/AgendaPublic/","source_title":"Overland Park KS — AI Acceptable Use Policy — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"lees-summit-mo-ai-2025","title":"Lee's Summit MO — Generative AI Use Resolution","short_title":"Lee's Summit MO","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lees Summit, MO","state_abbr":"MO","county":"Jackson","city":"Lees Summit","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-06-17","enacted_date":"2025-06-17","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Council resolution establishes citywide AI use principles: human review, bar on PII entry into consumer AI, IT/legal vetting before procurement, and disclosure of AI assistance in resident-facing communications.","summary_technical":"Council resolution establishes citywide AI use principles: human review, bar on PII entry into consumer AI, IT/legal vetting before procurement, and disclosure of AI assistance in resident-facing communications. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Lee's Summit MO — Generative AI Use Resolution (2025-06-17)","source_url":"https://lsmo.novusagenda.com/AgendaPublic/","source_title":"Lee's Summit MO — Generative AI Use Resolution — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"olympia-wa-ai-2024","title":"Olympia WA — Artificial Intelligence Use Policy","short_title":"Olympia WA","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Olympia, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"Thurston","city":"Olympia","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-09-24","enacted_date":"2024-09-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Council-approved AI use policy: enterprise Microsoft Copilot for staff; bar on consumer AI with city data; disclosure on public-facing AI-assisted materials; IT vetting for new AI tools.","summary_technical":"Council-approved AI use policy: enterprise Microsoft Copilot for staff; bar on consumer AI with city data; disclosure on public-facing AI-assisted materials; IT vetting for new AI tools. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Olympia WA — Artificial Intelligence Use Policy (2024-09-24)","source_url":"https://olympia.novusagenda.com/AgendaPublic/","source_title":"Olympia WA — Artificial Intelligence Use Policy — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"frederick-md-ai-2024","title":"Frederick MD — City Generative AI Use Policy","short_title":"Frederick MD","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Frederick, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Frederick","city":"Frederick","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-11-21","enacted_date":"2024-11-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Mayor & Board of Aldermen adoption: citywide AI policy with vetted-tool list, bar on PII entry into consumer AI, disclosure expectations for AI-assisted public communications, and IT review of AI procurement.","summary_technical":"Mayor & Board of Aldermen adoption: citywide AI policy with vetted-tool list, bar on PII entry into consumer AI, disclosure expectations for AI-assisted public communications, and IT review of AI procurement. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Frederick MD — City Generative AI Use Policy (2024-11-21)","source_url":"https://frederickmd.novusagenda.com/AgendaPublic/","source_title":"Frederick MD — City Generative AI Use Policy — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"naperville-203-il-ai-2025","title":"Naperville Community Unit School District 203 — AI Use Guidance","short_title":"Naperville Community Unit School District 203","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Naperville, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"DuPage","city":"Naperville","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-25","enacted_date":"2025-08-25","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Affluent Chicago suburban district adopted AI guidance: enterprise tools authorized, ban on student AI account creation under 13, AI disclosure expected on graded work, AI cannot be sole basis for placement or discipline.","summary_technical":"Affluent Chicago suburban district adopted AI guidance: enterprise tools authorized, ban on student AI account creation under 13, AI disclosure expected on graded work, AI cannot be sole basis for placement or discipline. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Naperville Community Unit School District 203 — AI Use Guidance (2025-08-25)","source_url":"https://www.naperville203.org/departments-services/learning-services/instructional-resources/generative-ai","source_title":"Naperville Community Unit School District 203 — AI Use Guidance — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"greenwich-ct-ai-2025","title":"Greenwich CT Public Schools — Generative AI Use Guidelines","short_title":"Greenwich CT Public Schools","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Greenwich, CT","state_abbr":"CT","county":"Fairfield","city":"Greenwich","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-25","enacted_date":"2025-09-25","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"District-adopted guidelines: enterprise Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini for Education for staff and grades 9-12; bar on consumer AI with student data; AI disclosure expectation; ban on AI as sole basis for grading or discipline.","summary_technical":"District-adopted guidelines: enterprise Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini for Education for staff and grades 9-12; bar on consumer AI with student data; AI disclosure expectation; ban on AI as sole basis for grading or discipline. Action surfaced via the jurisdiction's agenda-management platform (BoardDocs / PrimeGov / NovusAGENDA / eScribe).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, residents, and staff in the jurisdiction","who_must_comply":"Jurisdiction employees, students, contractors, and (for cities) departments and vendors","citation":"Greenwich CT Public Schools — Generative AI Use Guidelines (2025-09-25)","source_url":"https://go.boarddocs.com/ct/greenwich/Board.nsf/goto?open=&id=D6SL5E54DEC6","source_title":"Greenwich CT Public Schools — Generative AI Use Guidelines — agenda / policy source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Local board / city council / superintendent / city manager per the jurisdiction","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district/city codes; not statutory"},{"id":"lausd-ai-policy-2024","title":"LAUSD BUL-151113.0 — Guidelines for Authorized Use of AI","short_title":"LAUSD BUL-151113.0","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Los Angeles, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Los Angeles","city":"Los Angeles","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-08","enacted_date":"2024-04-08","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"LAUSD authorized-use guidelines for employees, students, and associated persons. Works with BUL-999.15; requires district-approved tools, bars confidential/PII entry into non-approved GenAI, and mandates educator review of AI outputs.","summary_technical":"LAUSD authorized-use guidelines for employees, students, and associated persons. Works with BUL-999.15; requires district-approved tools, bars confidential/PII entry into non-approved GenAI, and mandates educator review of AI outputs. District-level policy; binds school employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in the district","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of the district","citation":"LAUSD BUL-151113.0 — Guidelines for Authorized Use of AI (2024-04-08)","source_url":"https://www.lausd.org/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/21/BUL-151113_0_Guidelines_for_the_Authorized_Use_of_Artificial_Intelligence_for_District.pdf","source_title":"LAUSD BUL-151113.0 — Guidelines for Authorized Use of AI — district source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"LAUSD school administration / school board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"nycdoe-ai-guidance-2025","title":"NYC Public Schools Guidance on AI","short_title":"NYC Public Schools Guidance on AI","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"New York","city":"New York","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-01","enacted_date":"2025-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"NYC DOE districtwide guidance lists never-allowed uses, then conditional uses with safeguards. Staff barred from entering PII or sensitive info into GenAI tools not approved through ERMA review.","summary_technical":"NYC DOE districtwide guidance lists never-allowed uses, then conditional uses with safeguards. Staff barred from entering PII or sensitive info into GenAI tools not approved through ERMA review. District-level policy; binds school employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in the district","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of the district","citation":"NYC Public Schools Guidance on AI (2025-09-01)","source_url":"https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/vision-and-mission/guidance-on-artificial-intelligence","source_title":"NYC Public Schools Guidance on AI — district source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NYC school administration / school board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"cps-ai-guidebook-2024","title":"Chicago Public Schools AI Guidebook — Guidance for Generative AI Use","short_title":"Chicago Public Schools AI Guidebook","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chicago, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Cook","city":"Chicago","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-01","enacted_date":"2024-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Quarterly-updated CPS guidance permits district-approved tools with teacher permission; bars PII/PHI/confidential data entry. Warns against AI-detection software due to false-positive risk for English learners.","summary_technical":"Quarterly-updated CPS guidance permits district-approved tools with teacher permission; bars PII/PHI/confidential data entry. Warns against AI-detection software due to false-positive risk for English learners. District-level policy; binds school employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in the district","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of the district","citation":"Chicago Public Schools AI Guidebook — Guidance for Generative AI Use (2024-08-01)","source_url":"https://www.cps.edu/strategic-initiatives/ai-guidebook/guidance/","source_title":"Chicago Public Schools AI Guidebook — Guidance for Generative AI Use — district source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Chicago school administration / school board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"clark-county-nv-stellar-ai-2024","title":"Clark County NV STELLAR AI Framework — District Implementation","short_title":"Clark County NV STELLAR AI Framework","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Las Vegas, NV","state_abbr":"NV","county":"Clark","city":"Las Vegas","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-15","enacted_date":"2024-08-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Implements Nevada's STELLAR framework with a district safe list and closed-loop systems that prevent student data from training external models; ties to school-level academic integrity policies.","summary_technical":"Implements Nevada's STELLAR framework with a district safe list and closed-loop systems that prevent student data from training external models; ties to school-level academic integrity policies. District-level policy; binds school employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in the district","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of the district","citation":"Clark County NV STELLAR AI Framework — District Implementation (2024-08-15)","source_url":"https://doe.nv.gov/offices/office-of-teaching-and-learning/nevada-digital-learning/","source_title":"Clark County NV STELLAR AI Framework — District Implementation — district source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Clark school administration / school board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"houston-isd-ai-guidebook-2025","title":"Houston ISD Generative AI Guidebook & Permission/Consent Form (SY 25-26)","short_title":"Houston ISD Generative AI Guidebook & Permission/Consent Form (SY 25-26)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Houston, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Harris","city":"Houston","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-01","enacted_date":"2025-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Age-based GenAI access (Copilot for 14+), required parental consent forms, vetted product list, summer educator PD; allows teacher use for instructional and admin tasks.","summary_technical":"Age-based GenAI access (Copilot for 14+), required parental consent forms, vetted product list, summer educator PD; allows teacher use for instructional and admin tasks. District-level policy; binds school employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in the district","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of the district","citation":"Houston ISD Generative AI Guidebook & Permission/Consent Form (SY 25-26) (2025-08-01)","source_url":"https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1754332468/houstonisdorg/m7j0q629ml0yvrghgxes/AIPermissionandConsentFormSY2526.pdf","source_title":"Houston ISD Generative AI Guidebook & Permission/Consent Form (SY 25-26) — district source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Houston school administration / school board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"hillsborough-fl-ai-board-policy-2026","title":"Hillsborough County FL Public Schools Board Policy 2130 — Emerging Technologies + AI Implementation Guide","short_title":"Hillsborough County FL Public Schools Board Policy 2130","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Tampa, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Hillsborough","city":"Tampa","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-02","enacted_date":"2026-06-02","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Adopted Board Policy 2130 with an AI Implementation Guide; authorizes vetted AI primarily for teacher use, withholds student access to the enterprise platform initially, and is extending to AI smart-glasses restrictions in classrooms.","summary_technical":"Adopted Board Policy 2130 with an AI Implementation Guide; authorizes vetted AI primarily for teacher use, withholds student access to the enterprise platform initially, and is extending to AI smart-glasses restrictions in classrooms. District-level policy; binds school employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in the district","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of the district","citation":"Hillsborough County FL Public Schools Board Policy 2130 — Emerging Technologies + AI Implementation Guide (2026-06-02)","source_url":"https://www.hillsboroughschools.org/page/2130-emerging-technologies","source_title":"Hillsborough County FL Public Schools Board Policy 2130 — Emerging Technologies + AI Implementation Guide — district source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Hillsborough school administration / school board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"fairfax-fcps-ai-2025","title":"Fairfax County VA Public Schools — FCPS Forward: AI & The Future of Learning (Interim)","short_title":"Fairfax County VA Public Schools","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Fairfax, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Fairfax","city":"Fairfax","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-01","enacted_date":"2025-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Interim guidance while a board-adopted policy is drafted (Oct 2025). Approved tools include Adobe Express, Google Storybook/LM, ChatGPT for Teachers pilot configured not to train OpenAI models; students cannot be compelled to interact with AI.","summary_technical":"Interim guidance while a board-adopted policy is drafted (Oct 2025). Approved tools include Adobe Express, Google Storybook/LM, ChatGPT for Teachers pilot configured not to train OpenAI models; students cannot be compelled to interact with AI. District-level policy; binds school employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in the district","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of the district","citation":"Fairfax County VA Public Schools — FCPS Forward: AI & The Future of Learning (Interim) (2025-09-01)","source_url":"https://www.fcps.edu/services/technology/students/technology-programs/artificial-intelligence-and-future-learning","source_title":"Fairfax County VA Public Schools — FCPS Forward: AI & The Future of Learning (Interim) — district source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Fairfax school administration / school board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"gwinnett-ga-ai-guidance-2024","title":"Gwinnett County GA Public Schools — Guidance for Human-Centered AI Use","short_title":"Gwinnett County GA Public Schools","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lawrenceville, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Gwinnett","city":"Lawrenceville","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-15","enacted_date":"2024-07-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Requires critical review of AI-generated content and humans in the loop; prohibits privacy-compromising uses. Paired with the GCPS AI-Ready Framework developed with Google, Microsoft, and higher-ed partners.","summary_technical":"Requires critical review of AI-generated content and humans in the loop; prohibits privacy-compromising uses. Paired with the GCPS AI-Ready Framework developed with Google, Microsoft, and higher-ed partners. District-level policy; binds school employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in the district","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of the district","citation":"Gwinnett County GA Public Schools — Guidance for Human-Centered AI Use (2024-07-15)","source_url":"https://www.gcpsk12.org/programs-and-services/college-and-career-development/academies-and-career-technical-and-agricultural-education/artificial-intelligence-and-computer-science/guidance-for-human-centered-ai-use","source_title":"Gwinnett County GA Public Schools — Guidance for Human-Centered AI Use — district source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Gwinnett school administration / school board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"cms-nc-ai-board-policy-2025","title":"Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools — Board Policy on Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Charlotte, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Mecklenburg","city":"Charlotte","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-10-28","enacted_date":"2025-10-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Eight-part board policy requiring cross-functional AI committee approval before any system using staff/student data is deployed. Mandates training, age-appropriate tools, public-records and regulatory compliance; AI cannot replace human decision-making.","summary_technical":"Eight-part board policy requiring cross-functional AI committee approval before any system using staff/student data is deployed. Mandates training, age-appropriate tools, public-records and regulatory compliance; AI cannot replace human decision-making. District-level policy; binds school employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in the district","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of the district","citation":"Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools — Board Policy on Artificial Intelligence (2025-10-28)","source_url":"https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1761743644/cmsk12ncus/cuzpa7rr3eyabailheow/AIPolicyRelease.pdf","source_title":"Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools — Board Policy on Artificial Intelligence — district source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Charlotte-Mecklenburg school administration / school board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"orange-fl-ai-draft-2026","title":"Orange County FL Public Schools — Draft AI Policy","short_title":"Orange County FL Public Schools","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Orlando, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Orange","city":"Orlando","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Draft policy for SY 26-27 restricts use to ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Adobe Firefly, Khanmigo in closed configurations; bars deepfakes, requires original wording, verification, and human-in-the-loop.","summary_technical":"Draft policy for SY 26-27 restricts use to ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Adobe Firefly, Khanmigo in closed configurations; bars deepfakes, requires original wording, verification, and human-in-the-loop. District-level policy; binds school employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in the district","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of the district","citation":"Orange County FL Public Schools — Draft AI Policy (2026-05-13)","source_url":"https://www.ocps.net/policy-procedures","source_title":"Orange County FL Public Schools — Draft AI Policy — district source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Orange school administration / school board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"broward-fl-ai-framework-2024","title":"Broward County FL Powered by AI — Responsible Use Framework","short_title":"Broward County FL Powered by AI","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Fort Lauderdale, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Broward","city":"Fort Lauderdale","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-11-15","enacted_date":"2024-11-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Task force framework mandating human oversight, supporting the largest K-12 Microsoft Copilot deployment, requiring a school AI liaison at each campus, and pairing with student literacy and educator training.","summary_technical":"Task force framework mandating human oversight, supporting the largest K-12 Microsoft Copilot deployment, requiring a school AI liaison at each campus, and pairing with student literacy and educator training. District-level policy; binds school employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in the district","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of the district","citation":"Broward County FL Powered by AI — Responsible Use Framework (2024-11-15)","source_url":"https://www.microsoft.com/en/customers/story/26258-broward-county-public-schools-microsoft-365-copilot","source_title":"Broward County FL Powered by AI — Responsible Use Framework — district source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Broward school administration / school board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"dallas-isd-ai-handbook-2025","title":"Dallas ISD AI Handbook (Policies DEC/EIA/FD/FNCA amended)","short_title":"Dallas ISD AI Handbook (Policies DEC/EIA/FD/FNCA amended)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Dallas, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Dallas","city":"Dallas","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-06-24","enacted_date":"2025-06-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Board-adopted handbook for grades 9-12 requiring original student work, restricting access to 13+, requiring annual parental consent, addressing AI-enabled cyberbullying, and embedding AI equity as a 'new digital divide' priority.","summary_technical":"Board-adopted handbook for grades 9-12 requiring original student work, restricting access to 13+, requiring annual parental consent, addressing AI-enabled cyberbullying, and embedding AI equity as a 'new digital divide' priority. District-level policy; binds school employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in the district","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of the district","citation":"Dallas ISD AI Handbook (Policies DEC/EIA/FD/FNCA amended) (2025-06-24)","source_url":"https://www.dallasisd.org/board-of-trustees/board-policy-and-procedures/policy-alerts/policy-alert-viewer/~board/dallas-isd-policy-alerts/post/recently-amended-dec-eia-fd-fnca-regulations-adopted-ai-handbook-june-24-2025","source_title":"Dallas ISD AI Handbook (Policies DEC/EIA/FD/FNCA amended) — district source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Dallas school administration / school board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"philadelphia-sdp-ai-2025","title":"School District of Philadelphia — Generative AI Guidelines (PASS program)","short_title":"School District of Philadelphia","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Philadelphia, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Philadelphia","city":"Philadelphia","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-01","enacted_date":"2025-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Approves Google Gemini and Adobe Express with Firefly in a 'walled garden' configuration so user data is not used to train external LLMs. Paired with a three-tier UPenn-developed PD program (PASS).","summary_technical":"Approves Google Gemini and Adobe Express with Firefly in a 'walled garden' configuration so user data is not used to train external LLMs. Paired with a three-tier UPenn-developed PD program (PASS). District-level policy; binds school employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in the district","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of the district","citation":"School District of Philadelphia — Generative AI Guidelines (PASS program) (2025-09-01)","source_url":"https://www.philasd.org/pstv/ai-resources/","source_title":"School District of Philadelphia — Generative AI Guidelines (PASS program) — district source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"School school administration / school board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"bps-ai-guidance-2025","title":"Boston Public Schools — Guidance on AI + Draft Districtwide Policy 2026","short_title":"Boston Public Schools","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Boston, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Suffolk","city":"Boston","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-01","enacted_date":"2025-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Revised 2025 guidance plus a May 2026 draft policy that bans non-sanctioned AI use, non-consensual deepfakes, AI as sole basis for grading/discipline, and PII entry into unapproved tools. Moving toward AI literacy graduation requirement.","summary_technical":"Revised 2025 guidance plus a May 2026 draft policy that bans non-sanctioned AI use, non-consensual deepfakes, AI as sole basis for grading/discipline, and PII entry into unapproved tools. Moving toward AI literacy graduation requirement. District-level policy; binds school employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in the district","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of the district","citation":"Boston Public Schools — Guidance on AI + Draft Districtwide Policy 2026 (2025-09-01)","source_url":"https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1781118968/bostonpublicschoolsorg/n10whyxn8axn0urvgidh/FINALAIPolicy.pdf","source_title":"Boston Public Schools — Guidance on AI + Draft Districtwide Policy 2026 — district source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Boston school administration / school board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"sps-ai-handbook-2025","title":"Seattle Public Schools AI Handbook + Superintendent Procedure 2022SP","short_title":"Seattle Public Schools AI Handbook + Superintendent Procedure 2022SP","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Seattle, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"King","city":"Seattle","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-02-01","enacted_date":"2025-02-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Handbook operates alongside SP 2022SP (Electronic Resources). Requires approved tools to comply with privacy law, treats unauthorized AI use or uncited use as a disciplinary policy breach, and directs schools to teach AI citation.","summary_technical":"Handbook operates alongside SP 2022SP (Electronic Resources). Requires approved tools to comply with privacy law, treats unauthorized AI use or uncited use as a disciplinary policy breach, and directs schools to teach AI citation. District-level policy; binds school employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in the district","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of the district","citation":"Seattle Public Schools AI Handbook + Superintendent Procedure 2022SP (2025-02-01)","source_url":"https://www.seattleschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/AI-Handbook-ADA.pdf","source_title":"Seattle Public Schools AI Handbook + Superintendent Procedure 2022SP — district source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Seattle school administration / school board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"dps-co-ai-handbook-2025","title":"Denver Public Schools AI Handbook","short_title":"Denver Public Schools AI Handbook","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Denver, CO","state_abbr":"CO","county":"Denver","city":"Denver","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-04-01","enacted_date":"2025-04-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Effective April 2025, DPS authorized MagicSchool, Gemini, and NotebookLM on district devices with output monitoring and data safeguards; 1,200 teachers trained; launching a student AI advisory council.","summary_technical":"Effective April 2025, DPS authorized MagicSchool, Gemini, and NotebookLM on district devices with output monitoring and data safeguards; 1,200 teachers trained; launching a student AI advisory council. District-level policy; binds school employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in the district","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of the district","citation":"Denver Public Schools AI Handbook (2025-04-01)","source_url":"https://upark.dpsk12.org/o/academics/page/ai-in-dps","source_title":"Denver Public Schools AI Handbook — district source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Denver school administration / school board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"alameda-fr-ban","title":"Alameda Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance","short_title":"Alameda Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Alameda, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Alameda","city":"Alameda","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2019-12-17","enacted_date":"2019-12-17","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Council adopted a surveillance-oversight ordinance with an explicit prohibition on city use of face-recognition technology.","summary_technical":"Council adopted a surveillance-oversight ordinance with an explicit prohibition on city use of face-recognition technology. Ord. 3247, effective 2019-12-17.","who_is_protected":"Alameda residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Alameda government agencies (and others where ordinance reaches private use)","citation":"Ord. 3247 (2019-12-17)","source_url":"https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/alameda-california-takes-first-step-toward-banning-facial-recognition/","source_title":"Alameda Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance — source","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Alameda government"},{"id":"santa-cruz-fr-predictive-ban","title":"Santa Cruz Surveillance Technology and Community Safety Ordinance","short_title":"Santa Cruz Surveillance Technology and Community Safety Ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Santa Cruz, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Santa Cruz","city":"Santa Cruz","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2020-06-23","enacted_date":"2020-06-23","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"First U.S. city to ban predictive policing; also bans city use of facial recognition.","summary_technical":"First U.S. city to ban predictive policing; also bans city use of facial recognition. Ord. 2020-09, effective 2020-06-23.","who_is_protected":"Santa Cruz residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Santa Cruz government agencies (and others where ordinance reaches private use)","citation":"Ord. 2020-09 (2020-06-23)","source_url":"https://www.aclunorcal.org/press-releases/santa-cruz-city-council-committee-advances-surveillance-oversight-ordinance/","source_title":"Santa Cruz Surveillance Technology and Community Safety Ordinance — source","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Santa Cruz government"},{"id":"davis-surveillance-ord","title":"Davis Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Art. 26.07)","short_title":"Davis Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Art. 26.07)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Davis, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Yolo","city":"Davis","topics":["law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2018-03-20","enacted_date":"2018-03-20","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Requires council approval, impact reports, and use policies before any city acquisition or use of surveillance tech (early CCOPS).","summary_technical":"Requires council approval, impact reports, and use policies before any city acquisition or use of surveillance tech (early CCOPS). Ord. 2510, effective 2018-03-20.","who_is_protected":"Davis residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Davis government agencies (and others where ordinance reaches private use)","citation":"Ord. 2510 (2018-03-20)","source_url":"https://ecode360.com/44639712","source_title":"Davis Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Art. 26.07) — source","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Davis government"},{"id":"palo-alto-surveillance-ord","title":"Palo Alto Surveillance Technology Ordinance","short_title":"Palo Alto Surveillance Technology Ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Palo Alto, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Santa Clara","city":"Palo Alto","topics":["law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2021-04-26","enacted_date":"2021-04-26","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"CCOPS-model ordinance requiring council approval and annual reports for police/city surveillance technology.","summary_technical":"CCOPS-model ordinance requiring council approval and annual reports for police/city surveillance technology. Ord. 5485, effective 2021-04-26.","who_is_protected":"Palo Alto residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Palo Alto government agencies (and others where ordinance reaches private use)","citation":"Ord. 5485 (2021-04-26)","source_url":"https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Local-Surveillance-Ordinances-White-Paper.pdf","source_title":"Palo Alto Surveillance Technology Ordinance — source","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Palo Alto government"},{"id":"northampton-fr-ban","title":"Northampton Face Surveillance Ban","short_title":"Northampton Face Surveillance Ban","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Northampton, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Hampshire","city":"Northampton","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2019-12-19","enacted_date":"2019-12-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Prohibits Northampton from collecting or using biometric face-surveillance information.","summary_technical":"Prohibits Northampton from collecting or using biometric face-surveillance information. Ord. 19.176, effective 2019-12-19.","who_is_protected":"Northampton residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Northampton government agencies (and others where ordinance reaches private use)","citation":"Ord. 19.176 (2019-12-19)","source_url":"https://www.govtech.com/policy/third-massachusetts-community-bans-facial-recognition-tech.html","source_title":"Northampton Face Surveillance Ban — source","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Northampton government"},{"id":"springfield-ma-fr-ban","title":"Springfield Face Surveillance Ban / Moratorium","short_title":"Springfield Face Surveillance Ban / Moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Springfield, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Hampden","city":"Springfield","topics":["facial-recognition","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2020-05-04","enacted_date":"2020-05-04","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Bans Springfield police and city agencies from using face-recognition technology.","summary_technical":"Bans Springfield police and city agencies from using face-recognition technology. Springfield Ord. (2020), effective 2020-05-04.","who_is_protected":"Springfield residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Springfield government agencies (and others where ordinance reaches private use)","citation":"Springfield Ord. (2020) (2020-05-04)","source_url":"https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/easthampton-massachusetts-bans-facial-recognition/","source_title":"Springfield Face Surveillance Ban / Moratorium — source","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Springfield government"},{"id":"easthampton-fr-ban","title":"Easthampton Face Surveillance Ban","short_title":"Easthampton Face Surveillance Ban","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Easthampton, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Hampshire","city":"Easthampton","topics":["facial-recognition","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2020-07-01","enacted_date":"2020-07-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Unanimous council ordinance prohibiting city use of face-surveillance technology.","summary_technical":"Unanimous council ordinance prohibiting city use of face-surveillance technology. Easthampton Ord. (2020), effective 2020-07-01.","who_is_protected":"Easthampton residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Easthampton government agencies (and others where ordinance reaches private use)","citation":"Easthampton Ord. (2020) (2020-07-01)","source_url":"https://www.wwlp.com/news/local-news/hampshire-county/easthampton-passes-ban-on-face-surveillance-technology/","source_title":"Easthampton Face Surveillance Ban — source","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Easthampton government"},{"id":"lawrence-ma-ccops","title":"Lawrence Surveillance Oversight Ordinance (CCOPS)","short_title":"Lawrence Surveillance Oversight Ordinance (CCOPS)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lawrence, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Essex","city":"Lawrence","topics":["law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2018-09-04","enacted_date":"2018-09-04","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"First MA CCOPS ordinance; requires council approval and use policies for any city surveillance technology.","summary_technical":"First MA CCOPS ordinance; requires council approval and use policies for any city surveillance technology. Lawrence Ord. (Sept. 2018), effective 2018-09-04.","who_is_protected":"Lawrence residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Lawrence government agencies (and others where ordinance reaches private use)","citation":"Lawrence Ord. (Sept. 2018) (2018-09-04)","source_url":"https://www.aclum.org/campaigns-initiatives/community-control-over-police-surveillance-ccops/","source_title":"Lawrence Surveillance Oversight Ordinance (CCOPS) — source","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Lawrence government"},{"id":"worcester-fr-ban","title":"Worcester Ordinance Banning Face Surveillance Technology","short_title":"Worcester Ordinance Banning Face Surveillance Technology","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Worcester, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Worcester","city":"Worcester","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2021-12-14","enacted_date":"2021-12-14","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Eighth MA municipality to ban government use of face surveillance; bars city officials from obtaining, retaining, requesting, or using FR systems.","summary_technical":"Eighth MA municipality to ban government use of face surveillance; bars city officials from obtaining, retaining, requesting, or using FR systems. Worcester Ord. (Dec. 2021), effective 2021-12-14.","who_is_protected":"Worcester residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Worcester government agencies (and others where ordinance reaches private use)","citation":"Worcester Ord. (Dec. 2021) (2021-12-14)","source_url":"https://www.aclum.org/en/press-releases/worcester-passes-municipal-ban-face-surveillance-technology","source_title":"Worcester Ordinance Banning Face Surveillance Technology — source","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Worcester government"},{"id":"eugene-surveillance-ord","title":"Eugene Surveillance Technology Ordinance","short_title":"Eugene Surveillance Technology Ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Eugene, OR","state_abbr":"OR","county":"Lane","city":"Eugene","topics":["law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2020-09-14","enacted_date":"2020-09-14","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Requires council approval and impact reports for any city surveillance acquisition or use.","summary_technical":"Requires council approval and impact reports for any city surveillance acquisition or use. Ord. 20618, effective 2020-09-14.","who_is_protected":"Eugene residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Eugene government agencies (and others where ordinance reaches private use)","citation":"Ord. 20618 (2020-09-14)","source_url":"https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Local-Surveillance-Ordinances-White-Paper.pdf","source_title":"Eugene Surveillance Technology Ordinance — source","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Eugene government"},{"id":"seattle-surveillance-ord","title":"Seattle Surveillance Ordinance (SMC 14.18)","short_title":"Seattle Surveillance Ordinance (SMC 14.18)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Seattle, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"King","city":"Seattle","topics":["law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2017-08-02","enacted_date":"2017-08-02","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Requires council review and approval of all city surveillance technologies, with public process and use policies.","summary_technical":"Requires council review and approval of all city surveillance technologies, with public process and use policies. Ord. 125376, effective 2017-08-02.","who_is_protected":"Seattle residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Seattle government agencies (and others where ordinance reaches private use)","citation":"Ord. 125376 (2017-08-02)","source_url":"https://seattle.gov/tech/data-privacy/surveillance-technology","source_title":"Seattle Surveillance Ordinance (SMC 14.18) — source","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Seattle government"},{"id":"bellingham-fr-predictive-ban","title":"Bellingham Initiative 2 — Facial Recognition & Predictive Policing Ban (BMC 2.24.130)","short_title":"Bellingham Initiative 2","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Bellingham, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"Whatcom","city":"Bellingham","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2021-11-02","enacted_date":"2021-11-02","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Voter-approved (57%) ban on city acquisition or use of face-recognition and predictive-policing technologies.","summary_technical":"Voter-approved (57%) ban on city acquisition or use of face-recognition and predictive-policing technologies. Bellingham Initiative 2 (2021), effective 2021-11-02.","who_is_protected":"Bellingham residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Bellingham government agencies (and others where ordinance reaches private use)","citation":"Bellingham Initiative 2 (2021) (2021-11-02)","source_url":"https://bellingham.municipal.codes/BMC/2.24.130","source_title":"Bellingham Initiative 2 — Facial Recognition & Predictive Policing Ban (BMC 2.24.130) — source","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Bellingham government"},{"id":"pittsburgh-fr-predictive-ord","title":"Pittsburgh Regulation of Facial Recognition and Predictive Policing Technologies","short_title":"Pittsburgh Regulation of Facial Recognition and Predictive Policing Technologies","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Pittsburgh, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Allegheny","city":"Pittsburgh","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2020-09-22","enacted_date":"2020-09-22","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Requires council approval before city or police use of face-recognition or predictive-policing tools (state JNET excluded).","summary_technical":"Requires council approval before city or police use of face-recognition or predictive-policing tools (state JNET excluded). Pittsburgh File 2020-0647, effective 2020-09-22.","who_is_protected":"Pittsburgh residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Pittsburgh government agencies (and others where ordinance reaches private use)","citation":"Pittsburgh File 2020-0647 (2020-09-22)","source_url":"https://pittsburgh.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4622347&GUID=5CD9C6B4-206A-4EE9-8876-5C99EC002683&FullText=1","source_title":"Pittsburgh Regulation of Facial Recognition and Predictive Policing Technologies — source","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Pittsburgh government"},{"id":"nashville-surveillance-ord","title":"Nashville Surveillance Equipment Council-Approval Ordinance (Metro Code 13.08.080)","short_title":"Nashville Surveillance Equipment Council-Approval Ordinance (Metro Code 13.08.080)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Nashville, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Davidson","city":"Nashville","topics":["law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2017-05-16","enacted_date":"2017-05-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Requires Metro Council approval before any law-enforcement deployment or contracting of surveillance technology on public rights-of-way.","summary_technical":"Requires Metro Council approval before any law-enforcement deployment or contracting of surveillance technology on public rights-of-way. Ord. BL2017-646, effective 2017-05-16.","who_is_protected":"Nashville residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Nashville government agencies (and others where ordinance reaches private use)","citation":"Ord. BL2017-646 (2017-05-16)","source_url":"https://legisarchive.nashville.gov/mc/ordinances/term_2015_2019/bl2017_646.htm","source_title":"Nashville Surveillance Equipment Council-Approval Ordinance (Metro Code 13.08.080) — source","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Nashville government"},{"id":"st-louis-ccops","title":"St. Louis Surveillance Technology CCOPS Ordinance","short_title":"St. Louis Surveillance Technology CCOPS Ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"St. Louis, MO","state_abbr":"MO","county":"St. Louis (city)","city":"St. Louis","topics":["law-enforcement","public-sector","facial-recognition"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2022-04-29","enacted_date":"2022-04-29","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"24th U.S. CCOPS law; requires Board of Aldermen approval and impact reports for any city surveillance technology including face-recognition, ALPRs, predictive policing.","summary_technical":"24th U.S. CCOPS law; requires Board of Aldermen approval and impact reports for any city surveillance technology including face-recognition, ALPRs, predictive policing. Ord. 71842 (BB 185), effective 2022-04-29.","who_is_protected":"St. Louis residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"St. Louis government agencies (and others where ordinance reaches private use)","citation":"Ord. 71842 (BB 185) (2022-04-29)","source_url":"https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/city-laws/ordinances/ordinance.cfm?ord=71842","source_title":"St. Louis Surveillance Technology CCOPS Ordinance — source","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"St. Louis government"},{"id":"yellow-springs-ccops","title":"Yellow Springs Use of Surveillance Technology (Codified Ord. Ch. 607)","short_title":"Yellow Springs Use of Surveillance Technology (Codified Ord. Ch. 607)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Yellow Springs, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Greene","city":"Yellow Springs","topics":["law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2022-04-04","enacted_date":"2022-04-04","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"CCOPS ordinance requiring council approval, cost-benefit + civil-liberties findings before adoption of any surveillance technology.","summary_technical":"CCOPS ordinance requiring council approval, cost-benefit + civil-liberties findings before adoption of any surveillance technology. Ord. 2022-09, effective 2022-04-04.","who_is_protected":"Yellow Springs residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Yellow Springs government agencies (and others where ordinance reaches private use)","citation":"Ord. 2022-09 (2022-04-04)","source_url":"https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/yellowsprings/latest/yellowsprings_oh/0-0-0-23917","source_title":"Yellow Springs Use of Surveillance Technology (Codified Ord. Ch. 607) — source","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Yellow Springs government"},{"id":"jackson-ms-fr-ban","title":"Jackson MS Face Surveillance Prohibition","short_title":"Jackson MS Face Surveillance Prohibition","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Jackson, MS","state_abbr":"MS","county":"Hinds","city":"Jackson","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2020-08-18","enacted_date":"2020-08-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Bars Jackson PD and city agencies from acquiring or using biometric face-recognition technology.","summary_technical":"Bars Jackson PD and city agencies from acquiring or using biometric face-recognition technology. Jackson Ord. (Aug. 2020), effective 2020-08-18.","who_is_protected":"Jackson residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Jackson government agencies (and others where ordinance reaches private use)","citation":"Jackson Ord. (Aug. 2020) (2020-08-18)","source_url":"https://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2020/aug/20/jackson-bans-facial-recognition-tech-new-airport-a/","source_title":"Jackson MS Face Surveillance Prohibition — source","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Jackson government"},{"id":"vt-s-124-fr-moratorium","title":"Vermont S.124 — Statewide Police Facial-Recognition Moratorium (2020 Acts and Resolves No. 166, §14)","short_title":"VT S.124 (statewide FR moratorium)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"VT","state_abbr":"VT","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2020-10-07","enacted_date":"2020-10-07","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Vermont S.124 bars Vermont law enforcement from acquiring or using facial-recognition technology absent express legislative authorization — the nation's strongest statewide ban.","summary_technical":"Vermont 2020 Acts and Resolves No. 166, §14 (S.124): prohibits any Vermont law enforcement officer or agency from possessing, using, or obtaining information from facial recognition technology except as expressly authorized by statute, with limited NCMEC exceptions.","who_is_protected":"Vermonters from government facial recognition surveillance","who_must_comply":"All Vermont state and local law enforcement agencies","citation":"2020 Vt. Acts & Res. No. 166 §14","source_url":"https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2020/Docs/BILLS/S-0124/S-0124%20As%20Passed%20by%20Both%20House%20and%20Senate%20Unofficial.pdf","source_title":"S.124 — Vermont Legislature","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Vermont Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Statutory prohibition; oversight by AG"},{"id":"me-ld-1585-fr-statewide","title":"Maine LD 1585 — Statewide Limitation on Government Facial Surveillance (P.L. 2021 ch. 394)","short_title":"ME LD 1585 (FR limitation)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"ME","state_abbr":"ME","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2021-10-01","enacted_date":"2021-06-30","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Maine LD 1585 is the strictest U.S. state law on government face surveillance — limits use to serious crime investigation via state agency conduit, with logging and a private right of action.","summary_technical":"Maine P.L. 2021 ch. 394: limits state and local government use of facial recognition to a defined list of serious crimes; requires queries to be made through the Maine State Bureau of Identification (BMV) as the only conduit; mandates logging; creates a private right of action with statutory damages.","who_is_protected":"Maine residents from government facial recognition surveillance","who_must_comply":"Maine state and local government agencies","citation":"P.L. 2021 ch. 394 (Me. LD 1585)","source_url":"https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/25/title25sec6001.html","source_title":"Maine Passes Statewide Facial Recognition Ban — IAPP","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Maine Attorney General + private right of action","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Statutory damages, attorney's fees"},{"id":"portland-or-fr-ban-private","title":"Portland, OR Ban on Facial Recognition by Private Entities in Places of Public Accommodation","short_title":"Portland Private-Sector FR Ban","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Portland, OR","state_abbr":"OR","city":"Portland","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2021-01-01","enacted_date":"2020-09-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Portland is the first US city to ban private businesses from using facial recognition in places of public accommodation such as stores, restaurants, and entertainment venues. People can sue violators for damages. The ban remains in effect as of June 2026.","summary_technical":"Portland City Code ch. 34.10 prohibits private entities from using face recognition technologies in places of public accommodation, with exceptions for user verification on personal devices and legal compliance; enforced via a private right of action.","who_is_protected":"Members of the public in places of public accommodation in Portland","who_must_comply":"Private entities operating places of public accommodation in Portland","citation":"Portland, Or., City Code ch. 34.10 (Ordinance 190114, 2020)","source_url":"https://www.portland.gov/code/34/10","source_title":"Portland City Code Chapter 34.10","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Courts via civil actions; city oversight via Smart City PDX program","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Damages of $1,000 per day of violation or actual damages (whichever is greater), plus attorney's fees"},{"id":"portland-or-fr-ban-city","title":"Portland, OR Ban on Facial Recognition by City Bureaus","short_title":"Portland City-Government FR Ban","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Portland, OR","state_abbr":"OR","city":"Portland","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2020-09-09","enacted_date":"2020-09-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Portland bans all city bureaus, including the Portland Police Bureau, from acquiring or using facial recognition technology. Adopted the same day as the separate private-sector ban; remains in effect as of June 2026.","summary_technical":"Ordinance adopted Sept. 9, 2020 (companion to City Code ch. 34.10) prohibits acquisition and use of face recognition technologies by City of Portland bureaus, effective immediately.","who_is_protected":"Portland residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"All City of Portland bureaus and employees, including Portland Police Bureau","citation":"Portland, Or., city-bureau face recognition ban ordinance (Sept. 9, 2020)","source_url":"https://www.portland.gov/bps/com-tech/smart-city-pdx/news/2020/9/9/city-council-approves-ordinances-banning-use-face","source_title":"City Council approves ordinances banning use of face recognition technologies (Portland.gov)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Portland (internal compliance; Smart City PDX oversight)"},{"id":"king-county-wa-fr-ban","title":"King County, WA Ban on Facial Recognition by County Agencies (Ordinance 19296)","short_title":"King County FR Ban","level":"county","jurisdiction":"King County, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"King","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2021-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"King County (the Seattle area) was the first US county to ban its government, including the Sheriff's Office, from using facial recognition technology. The unanimous 2021 ordinance also bars county agencies from getting facial recognition information through third parties. Remains in effect as of June 2026.","summary_technical":"Ordinance 19296 (2021) adds a chapter to K.C.C. Title 2 prohibiting county administrative offices and executive departments from acquiring or using facial recognition technology or information derived from it, with a narrow National Child Search Assistance Act exception.","who_is_protected":"King County residents","who_must_comply":"King County administrative offices and executive departments, including the Sheriff's Office","citation":"King County, Wash., Ordinance 19296 (June 1, 2021)","source_url":"https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/council/governance-leadership/county-council/newsroom/archived-news/2021-news/june/6-01-facial-recognition","source_title":"Facial Recognition Technology Ban Passed by King County Council","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"King County government (internal compliance)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"oakland-ca-surveillance-fr-ban","title":"Oakland Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance (incl. Facial Recognition & Predictive Policing Bans)","short_title":"Oakland Surveillance Ordinance & FR Ban","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Oakland, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Alameda","city":"Oakland","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector","privacy","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","enacted_date":"2019-07-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Oakland requires City Council approval and public use policies before city agencies acquire any surveillance technology, and bans city use of facial recognition. In December 2020 the city added first-in-the-nation bans on predictive policing and other biometric surveillance (such as voice and gait recognition). Remains in effect, overseen by Oakland's Privacy Advisory Commission.","summary_technical":"Oakland Municipal Code ch. 9.64 imposes CCOPS-style approval, impact-report, and annual-reporting requirements and prohibits city acquisition or use of face recognition (added July 2019) and predictive policing/biometric surveillance (added Dec. 15, 2020).","who_is_protected":"Oakland residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"All City of Oakland departments and staff, including Oakland Police Department","citation":"Oakland, Cal., Mun. Code ch. 9.64","source_url":"https://library.municode.com/ca/oakland/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9PUPEMOWE_CH9.64REACUSSUTE","source_title":"Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 9.64 (Municode)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission and City Council; courts via civil action","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Injunctive/declaratory relief and attorney's fees"},{"id":"cambridge-ma-surveillance-fr-ban","title":"Cambridge Surveillance Technology Ordinance with Face Surveillance Ban","short_title":"Cambridge Surveillance Ordinance & FR Ban","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cambridge, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Middlesex","city":"Cambridge","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2020-01-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Cambridge requires City Council approval and impact reports before city departments use surveillance technology, and a unanimous January 2020 amendment banned city use of face surveillance. Surveillance impact reports were still being filed with the council in 2024–2025.","summary_technical":"Cambridge Municipal Code ch. 2.128 (Surveillance Technology Ordinance, 2018) requires Council approval, Surveillance Technology Impact Reports, and annual reporting; a Jan. 13, 2020 amendment prohibits city use of face surveillance systems.","who_is_protected":"Cambridge residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"All City of Cambridge departments, including Cambridge Police Department","citation":"Cambridge, Mass., Mun. Code ch. 2.128, FR ban amendment (Jan. 13, 2020)","source_url":"https://library.municode.com/ma/cambridge/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT2ADPE_CH2.128SUTEOR","source_title":"Cambridge Municipal Code Chapter 2.128 (Municode)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Cambridge City Council; City Manager compliance reporting"},{"id":"brookline-ma-fr-ban","title":"Brookline, MA Town By-Law Prohibiting Face Surveillance","short_title":"Brookline Face Surveillance Ban","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Brookline, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Norfolk","city":"Brookline","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2019-12-11","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Brookline's Town Meeting voted 179–8 in December 2019 to ban town government use of face surveillance, making it the fifth US municipality to do so. The by-law bars town departments, including police, from obtaining or using face surveillance systems.","summary_technical":"Brookline General By-Laws face surveillance prohibition (Warrant Article 25, Dec. 11, 2019) prohibits town officials from obtaining, retaining, accessing, or using face surveillance systems or derived information; approved by the state Attorney General.","who_is_protected":"Brookline residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Town of Brookline departments and officials, including Brookline Police Department","citation":"Town of Brookline, Mass., General By-Laws (Warrant Art. 25, 2019)","source_url":"https://www.brooklinema.gov/DocumentCenter/View/22461/Face-Surveillance-Ban_July-2020-Committee-Report?bidId=","source_title":"Brookline's Face Surveillance Technology Ban Summary (Town of Brookline)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Town of Brookline (internal compliance)"},{"id":"minneapolis-mn-fr-ban","title":"Minneapolis Facial Recognition Technology Ban Ordinance","short_title":"Minneapolis FR Ban","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Minneapolis, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Hennepin","city":"Minneapolis","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2021-02-12","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Minneapolis bans city departments, including the police department, from procuring facial recognition technology or using data derived from it, with a council-approved exceptions process and annual reporting. No repeal or weakening amendment was found — the ordinance appears to remain in effect as of June 2026.","summary_technical":"Ordinance adopted Feb. 12, 2021 (Council file RCA-2021-00187) prohibits city department procurement of facial recognition technology and use of FR-derived data, subject to a defined exceptions process and annual summary reporting.","who_is_protected":"Minneapolis residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"City of Minneapolis departments and staff, including Minneapolis Police Department","citation":"Minneapolis, Minn., FR Ban Ordinance (Feb. 12, 2021)","source_url":"https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/RCA/7483","source_title":"RCA-2021-00187 — Facial Recognition Technology Ban (Minneapolis LIMS)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Minneapolis City Council (exceptions approval and reporting oversight)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"madison-wi-fr-ban","title":"Madison, WI Ordinance Banning Face Surveillance by City Agencies","short_title":"Madison Face Surveillance Ban","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Madison, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Dane","city":"Madison","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2020-12-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Madison bans city agencies, including police, from acquiring or using facial recognition technology, with narrow exceptions for identifying victims of human trafficking, child sexual exploitation, and missing children. Works alongside the city's surveillance technology ordinance requiring annual compliance reports.","summary_technical":"Madison General Ordinances § 23.64 (adopted Dec. 1, 2020, 17–2) prohibits city agency acquisition and use of face surveillance with enumerated child-protection/trafficking-victim exceptions; companion § 23.63 governs surveillance technology use and reporting.","who_is_protected":"Madison residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"City of Madison agencies, including Madison Police Department","citation":"Madison, Wis., Gen. Ordinances §§ 23.63–23.64","source_url":"https://www.cityofmadison.com/information-technology/privacy-security/cameras","source_title":"City of Madison — Surveillance Technology Ordinance compliance","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Madison Common Council (annual compliance reports)"},{"id":"new-orleans-la-surveillance-fr","title":"New Orleans Surveillance Technology and Data Protection Ordinance (Ch. 147), as Amended 2022","short_title":"New Orleans Surveillance/FR Rules","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New Orleans, LA","state_abbr":"LA","county":"Orleans","city":"New Orleans","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector","privacy","transparency","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2020-12-17","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"New Orleans banned facial recognition, predictive policing, and cell-site simulators in December 2020, but the council partially repealed the ban in July 2022, letting police use facial recognition (with human review and reporting) for serious violent crimes. In 2025 it emerged NOPD had received real-time facial recognition alerts from a private camera network in violation of these rules; alerts were paused in April 2025 and a proposal to authorize real-time FR was withdrawn, leaving the 2022 rules in place.","summary_technical":"New Orleans Code of Ordinances ch. 147 (Ordinance 33021, Dec. 2020), as amended July 2022, permits NOPD facial recognition requests only for enumerated violent offenses, routed through the Louisiana fusion center with trained-examiner review and quarterly council reporting.","who_is_protected":"New Orleans residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"City of New Orleans agencies, principally NOPD","citation":"New Orleans, La., Code ch. 147, as amended July 21, 2022","source_url":"https://library.municode.com/la/new_orleans/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICO_CH147SUTEDAPR","source_title":"New Orleans Code of Ordinances Chapter 147 (Municode)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New Orleans City Council (quarterly reporting and oversight)"},{"id":"baltimore-md-fr-ordinance","title":"Baltimore Private-Sector Facial Recognition Ban (Ordinance 21-038) — EXPIRED","short_title":"Baltimore FR Ban (Expired)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Baltimore, MD","state_abbr":"MD","city":"Baltimore","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","consumer-protection","law-enforcement"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","effective_date":"2021-09-08","enacted_date":"2021-08-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Baltimore's 2021 ordinance banned private entities and individuals (and most city agencies) from using face surveillance systems, with criminal penalties. It contained a sunset clause and EXPIRED on December 31, 2022 when the City Council did not extend it. As of June 2026 the ban is no longer in effect; 2023 successor bills were not confirmed as enacted.","summary_technical":"Baltimore City Council Bill 21-0001 (effective Sept. 8, 2021) prohibited obtaining, retaining, accessing, or using face surveillance systems within city limits, exempting biometric access-control systems; sunset Dec. 31, 2022 absent extension.","who_is_protected":"Persons within Baltimore city limits (while in effect)","who_must_comply":"Private entities, individuals, and city agencies in Baltimore (while in effect)","citation":"Baltimore, Md., Council Bill 21-0001 (2021) (expired Dec. 31, 2022)","source_url":"https://baltimore.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4749282&GUID=3605654F-5629-41A1-BD96-89946A2C32FB","source_title":"Baltimore's Ban on Private Sector Use of Facial Recognition Technology Expires (Hunton)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Baltimore (criminal enforcement, while in effect)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Misdemeanor; fines and possible imprisonment (while in effect)"},{"id":"santa-clara-county-ca-surveillance","title":"Santa Clara County Surveillance-Technology and Community-Safety Ordinance","short_title":"Santa Clara County Surveillance Ordinance","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Santa Clara County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Santa Clara","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","public-sector","transparency","biometrics","facial-recognition","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2016-06-07","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Santa Clara County passed the nation's first county-level surveillance oversight law in 2016. County departments must get Board of Supervisors approval, publish a surveillance use policy, and file an impact report before acquiring surveillance technology, plus annual reports afterward. Still actively administered by the County Privacy Office.","summary_technical":"Santa Clara County Ordinance Code Division A40 (NS-300.897, 2016) requires Board approval of Surveillance Use Policies, Anticipated Surveillance Impact Reports before acquisition, and Annual Surveillance Reports due by November 1.","who_is_protected":"Santa Clara County residents","who_must_comply":"All County of Santa Clara departments, including the Sheriff's Office","citation":"Santa Clara County, Cal., Ordinance Code div. A40 (NS-300.897, 2016)","source_url":"https://countyexec.sccgov.org/surveillance-technology-and-community-safety-ordinance","source_title":"Surveillance Technology and Community Safety Ordinance — County of Santa Clara","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors; County Privacy Office"},{"id":"portland-me-fr-ban","title":"Portland, ME Facial Surveillance Ban (Council Ordinance + Voter Question B)","short_title":"Portland (Maine) Facial Surveillance Ban","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Portland, ME","state_abbr":"ME","county":"Cumberland","city":"Portland","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","enacted_date":"2020-08-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Portland, Maine's City Council banned city employees, including police, from using facial surveillance in August 2020, and voters strengthened the ban that November by passing Question B, which lets people sue the city for violations. Because it was enacted by referendum, the council could not amend it for five years. Remains in effect as of June 2026.","summary_technical":"Council ordinance (Aug. 3, 2020) prohibits city officials' use of facial surveillance and FR-derived data; voter-approved Question B (Nov. 3, 2020) added a private right of action with statutory damages and attorney's fees.","who_is_protected":"Members of the public in Portland, Maine","who_must_comply":"City of Portland (Maine) officials and employees, including Portland Police Department","citation":"Portland, Me., facial surveillance ban (Aug. 2020), as amended by Question B (Nov. 2020)","source_url":"https://www.portlandmaine.gov/DocumentCenter/View/28735/Order--72-1920","source_title":"Portland, Maine passes referendum banning facial surveillance (TechCrunch)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Courts via private civil actions; city internal compliance","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil damages (minimum $1,000 or actual damages) plus attorney's fees"},{"id":"nyc-eo-3-2024-citywide-ai","title":"NYC Executive Order 3 of 2022 — Office of Technology and Innovation","short_title":"NYC EO 3 / Citywide AI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York City, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"New York","city":"New York","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2022-01-19","enacted_date":"2022-01-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Mayoral executive order consolidating NYC's technology agencies by redesignating the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications as the Office of Technology and Innovation (OTI), which oversees the Mayor's Office of Data Analytics, the Chief Technology Officer, the Office of Information Privacy, NYC Cyber Command, NYC 311, and the Algorithms Management and Policy office.","summary_technical":"EO 3 (2024) directs the Office of Technology and Innovation to publish and maintain a Citywide AI Use Policy and AI Action Plan; requires every mayoral agency to inventory AI tools, conduct risk assessments before deployment, and follow OTI guidance on procurement, vendor disclosures, and human oversight of high-impact AI systems.","who_is_protected":"NYC residents interacting with city agencies","who_must_comply":"All NYC mayoral agencies and their vendors deploying AI tools","citation":"N.Y.C. Exec. Order No. 3 (Jan. 19, 2022)","source_url":"https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2022/01/executive-order-3","source_title":"NYC Executive Order No. 3 (2024)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NYC Office of Technology and Innovation (OTI); AI Steering Committee"},{"id":"seattle-spd-fr-policy-2023","title":"Seattle Police Department — Facial Recognition Policy (2023)","short_title":"SPD FR Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Seattle, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"King","city":"Seattle","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement","biometrics","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-07-01","enacted_date":"2023-06-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Seattle Police Department Manual policy generally prohibiting SPD officers from using facial recognition technology, with no department-issued FR tools and a ban on requesting third-party FR queries.","summary_technical":"SPD Manual Section 12.045 (2023) prohibits SPD personnel from using facial recognition technology, requesting third parties to run FR queries, or accepting investigative leads derived from FR queries unless specifically authorized through the Seattle Surveillance Ordinance acquisition process; SPD has no department-approved FR system as of 2026.","who_is_protected":"Seattle residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Seattle Police Department personnel","citation":"Seattle Police Manual §12.045 (2023)","source_url":"https://public.powerdms.com/Sea4550/tree/documents/2374801","source_title":"SPD Manual Section 12.045 — Facial Recognition Technology","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Seattle Office of Police Accountability; Office of Inspector General"},{"id":"boston-eo-genai-interim-2023","title":"Boston Mayor's Interim Guidelines on Generative AI (2023)","short_title":"Boston Interim GenAI Guidelines","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Boston, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Suffolk","city":"Boston","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-05-18","enacted_date":"2023-05-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Boston Mayor's Office interim guidelines authorizing limited use of generative AI tools by city employees with required disclosure and prohibitions on entering sensitive data.","summary_technical":"The Interim Guidelines, issued by the Department of Innovation and Technology on behalf of Mayor Michelle Wu, allow city employees to use approved GenAI tools for drafting and analysis with fact-checking, require disclosure when GenAI is used in public documents, prohibit input of personal data or protected information, and require pilot proposals to be filed with DoIT.","who_is_protected":"Boston residents whose information is handled by the city","who_must_comply":"All City of Boston employees and contractors","citation":"City of Boston, Interim Guidelines for Using Generative AI (May 18, 2023)","source_url":"https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/file/2023/05/Guidelines-for-Using-Generative-AI-2023.pdf","source_title":"Boston Interim Guidelines for Using Generative AI","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Boston Department of Innovation and Technology"},{"id":"portland-or-ai-use-policy-2024","title":"Portland Bureau of Technology Services — Generative AI Use Policy (2024)","short_title":"Portland OR GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Portland, OR","state_abbr":"OR","county":"Multnomah","city":"Portland","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-03-06","enacted_date":"2026-03-06","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"City of Portland Bureau of Technology Services policy on generative AI use by city employees, with required disclosure and prohibitions on entering sensitive data.","summary_technical":"The BTS GenAI Use Policy prohibits city employees from entering confidential, PII, or law-enforcement-sensitive data into non-approved LLMs; requires human review and disclosure of GenAI-assisted public-facing content; and requires bureau-level inventory of approved GenAI tools to BTS.","who_is_protected":"Portland residents whose data is handled by the city","who_must_comply":"All City of Portland bureaus, employees, and contractors using generative AI","citation":"City of Portland, BTS GenAI Use Policy (2024)","source_url":"https://www.portland.gov/policies/technology-services/bts-404-artificial-intelligence-use-and-governance","source_title":"Portland Bureau of Technology Services — Generative AI Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Portland Bureau of Technology Services; Office of the City Auditor"},{"id":"oakland-genai-policy-2024","title":"Oakland — Interim Security Guidelines for AI Usage (2024)","short_title":"Oakland GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Oakland, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Alameda","city":"Oakland","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-12-01","enacted_date":"2024-12-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"City of Oakland Information Technology Department policy on city employee use of generative AI tools, with disclosure rules and prohibitions on entering sensitive data.","summary_technical":"The Oakland ITD GenAI Use Policy prohibits city employees from entering confidential, PII, or law-enforcement-sensitive data into non-approved LLMs; requires departmental tool approval, human review of GenAI-assisted decisions, and disclosure to residents when GenAI is used in public-facing content; complements the Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission review of surveillance tech.","who_is_protected":"Oakland residents","who_must_comply":"All City of Oakland departments using generative AI","citation":"City of Oakland ITD, Interim Security Guidelines for AI Usage (2024)","source_url":"https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/information-technology/documents/itd-interim-ai-security-guidelines-2024-final.pdf","source_title":"City of Oakland — Generative AI Use Policy (ITD)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Oakland Information Technology Department; Privacy Advisory Commission"},{"id":"san-jose-ai-reviews-board-2023","title":"San Jose AI Reviews Board / GovAI Coalition (2023)","short_title":"San Jose AI Reviews Board","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Jose, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Santa Clara","city":"San Jose","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-08-01","enacted_date":"2023-07-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"City of San Jose established an internal AI Reviews Board to review AI tools used by city departments and helped launch the multi-city GovAI Coalition for shared AI procurement standards.","summary_technical":"The San Jose AI Reviews Board, chaired by the City Manager's Office of Innovation, reviews all proposed AI tools before acquisition by city departments, applying risk classification, vendor-disclosure requirements, and impact assessments; San Jose also published the GovAI Coalition templates (AI Manual, vendor agreement riders, fact sheets) adopted by hundreds of US local governments.","who_is_protected":"San Jose residents and (via GovAI Coalition) residents of participating jurisdictions","who_must_comply":"All City of San Jose departments procuring AI tools","citation":"City of San Jose, AI Reviews Board (2023)","source_url":"https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/information-technology/ai-reviews-algorithm-register/govai-coalition","source_title":"City of San Jose — AI Reviews and GovAI Coalition","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"San Jose City Manager's Office of Innovation"},{"id":"detroit-fr-policy-directive-2023-update","title":"Detroit Police Department — Facial Recognition Policy Directive (2023 update)","short_title":"DPD FR Policy (2023 update)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Detroit, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Wayne","city":"Detroit","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement","biometrics","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-05-30","enacted_date":"2024-05-30","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Updated Detroit Police Department policy directive on facial recognition technology issued after the Robert Williams settlement, restricting FR matches as the sole basis for arrest and requiring corroborating evidence and supervisory review.","summary_technical":"DPD Directive 307.5 (2023 update) requires (1) FR matches treated as investigative leads only and never used as sole probable cause, (2) corroborating evidence before arrest, (3) supervisory review and audit logging, (4) ban on real-time/live FR and certain commercial vendors, and (5) Board of Police Commissioners reporting; adopted as part of the Williams v. City of Detroit settlement.","who_is_protected":"Detroit residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Detroit Police Department personnel","citation":"DPD Directive 307.5 (2023, as updated)","source_url":"https://detroitmi.gov/sites/detroitmi.localhost/files/2024-05/DPD%20REVISION%20307.5%20FACIAL%20RECOGNITION.pdf","source_title":"Detroit Police Department Directive 307.5 — Facial Recognition Technology (2023)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Detroit Board of Police Commissioners; Office of the Chief Investigator"},{"id":"phoenix-genai-acceptable-use-policy-2024","title":"City of Phoenix — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)","short_title":"Phoenix GenAI AUP","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Phoenix, AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Maricopa","city":"Phoenix","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-03-01","enacted_date":"2024-02-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"City of Phoenix Information Technology Services Department policy on city employee use of generative AI tools, with disclosure rules and prohibitions on entering sensitive data.","summary_technical":"The Phoenix ITSD GenAI Acceptable Use Policy prohibits input of confidential, PII, or law-enforcement-sensitive data into non-approved LLMs; requires departmental approval and ITSD sign-off for GenAI tools deployed in resident-facing services; requires disclosure of GenAI use in public-facing content; and requires vendor terms preventing model training on city data.","who_is_protected":"Phoenix residents whose data is handled by the city","who_must_comply":"All City of Phoenix departments and contractors using generative AI","citation":"City of Phoenix, GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)","source_url":"https://www.phoenix.gov/administration/departments/its/gen-ai.html","source_title":"City of Phoenix — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Phoenix Information Technology Services Department; City Auditor"},{"id":"phoenix-data-center-zoning-text-amendment-2024","title":"Phoenix Zoning Text Amendment — Data Center Standards (Z-TA-2-25-Y, 2025)","short_title":"Phoenix DC Zoning Standards","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Phoenix, AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Maricopa","city":"Phoenix","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-07-02","enacted_date":"2025-07-02","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"City of Phoenix zoning text amendment establishing development standards for data centers, including noise, screening, water, and minimum distance from residential zones.","summary_technical":"The 2024 Phoenix Zoning Ordinance text amendment establishes development standards for data centers including: minimum setbacks from residential zoning districts, exterior noise limits at the property line, mechanical-equipment screening, water-use disclosure to the Phoenix Water Services Department, and a public-hearing requirement for sites above defined acreage.","who_is_protected":"Phoenix residents near data-center sites","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators in Phoenix","citation":"City of Phoenix, Zoning Ord. Text Amendment Z-TA-2-25-Y, Ordinance G-7396 (2025)","source_url":"https://www.phoenix.gov/newsroom/pdd-news/city-of-phoenix-updates-zoning-to-safeguard-health-and-safety-as.html","source_title":"Phoenix Zoning Text Amendment — Data Center Standards (2024)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Phoenix Planning and Development Department"},{"id":"austin-city-ai-policy","title":"City of Austin — Ethical AI Governance Resolution 20250424-055 (April 2025)","short_title":"Austin AI Governance Resolution (2025)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Austin, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Travis","city":"Austin","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","employment","transparency","data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-04-24","enacted_date":"2025-04-24","last_verified_date":"2026-07-29","summary_plain":"The Austin City Council voted unanimously on April 24, 2025 to adopt Resolution 20250424-055, establishing an ethical AI governance framework for municipal operations. The resolution prohibits real-time employee surveillance by AI, bans AI-based productivity scoring or behavioral monitoring without human supervisor review and verification, bars AI from automated policing decisions, and creates a 'no displacement without consultation' labor policy guaranteeing that no AI system will significantly alter or eliminate job classifications without prior notice and consultation with affected employees and their unions. It also requires an annual public audit of all city AI use, mandates human review and oversight for all AI-influenced decisions, and directs the City Manager to study the environmental and equity impacts of data centers in the region. Sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Vanessa Fuentes.","summary_technical":"Resolution 20250424-055 (City File ID: 25-0698, Council Agenda Item 55, adopted by unanimous 10-0 vote April 24, 2025) directed the City Manager to: prohibit use of AI for real-time employee surveillance or automated policing; ban AI productivity scoring/behavioral monitoring without human supervisor verification; establish a 'no displacement without consultation' labor policy; require annual public audit of city AI deployments; ensure human oversight for all consequential AI decisions; notify employee unions prior to AI system implementation affecting their work; and conduct a regional environmental study of data-center growth impacts on Austin Energy and Austin Water. Also calls for a public education campaign and regular AI use reporting to the AI Advisory Committee and Technology Commission. Effective immediately upon adoption.","who_is_protected":"City of Austin employees and residents, through restrictions on AI surveillance of workers, a 'no job displacement without consultation' policy, mandatory human review of AI-influenced decisions, and annual public audits of city AI use.","who_must_comply":"City of Austin departments, the City Manager, Austin Energy, Austin Water, and entities operating on city networks or devices.","citation":"City of Austin, Tex., Resolution 20250424-055 (adopted Apr. 24, 2025)","source_url":"https://austin-ai.org/2025/06/06/austin55/","source_title":"With Resolution 55, Austin Takes Steps to Lead with Community-centered AI Policies — Austin AI Alliance","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"nyc-ll144","title":"New York City Local Law 144 of 2021 (Automated Employment Decision Tools)","short_title":"NYC AEDT Bias Audit Law (LL 144)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York City, NY","state_abbr":"NY","city":"New York","topics":["employment","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2023-01-01","enacted_date":"2021-12-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-01","summary_plain":"Employers and employment agencies in New York City may not use AI hiring or promotion tools unless the tool has passed an independent bias audit within the past year. Job candidates must be told an automated tool is being used and can request information about the data it relies on.","summary_technical":"Prohibits use of an automated employment decision tool (AEDT) to screen NYC candidates/employees unless an independent bias audit (impact-ratio analysis by race/ethnicity and sex) was completed within one year, results are publicly posted, and candidates receive 10 business days' advance notice.","who_is_protected":"Job candidates and employees screened for positions in New York City","who_must_comply":"Employers and employment agencies using AEDTs for NYC roles","citation":"NYC Local Law 144 of 2021; NYC Admin. Code §§ 20-870 to 20-874","source_url":"https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/about/automated-employment-decision-tools.page","source_title":"Automated Employment Decision Tools (AEDT) — NYC DCWP","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"$500 first violation; $500–$1,500 per subsequent violation; each day of noncompliant use is a separate violation"},{"id":"nyc-post-act","title":"NYPD Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology (POST) Act, as expanded in 2025","short_title":"NYPD POST Act","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York City, NY","state_abbr":"NY","city":"New York","topics":["law-enforcement","transparency","facial-recognition","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-07-15","enacted_date":"2020-07-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"The POST Act requires the NYPD to publicly disclose what surveillance technologies it uses and publish impact and use policies for each one. 2025 amendments added facial recognition audits, itemized technology inventories, and disclosure of outside entities that receive NYPD surveillance data.","summary_technical":"Requires NYPD to publish Impact and Use Policies for each surveillance technology with DOI oversight; 2025 amendments (Intros 168, 233, 480, passed Apr. 10, 2025) add biannual facial recognition audits, itemized inventories, and data-sharing disclosures.","who_is_protected":"New York City residents and anyone subject to NYPD surveillance","who_must_comply":"New York City Police Department","citation":"NYC Local Law 65 of 2020, as amended 2025","source_url":"https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/about/about-nypd/policy/post-act.page","source_title":"Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology (POST) Act — NYPD","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NYC Department of Investigation (Inspector General for the NYPD)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"boston-face-surveillance-ban","title":"Boston Ordinance Banning Face Surveillance Technology (Code 16-62)","short_title":"Boston Face Surveillance Ban","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Boston, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Suffolk","city":"Boston","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2020-06-24","enacted_date":"2020-06-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"Boston bans all city departments, including police, from obtaining or using face surveillance systems. City officials also may not ask third parties or other agencies to run facial recognition searches on their behalf.","summary_technical":"Boston Code of Ordinances 16-62 prohibits city officials from obtaining, retaining, accessing, or using any face surveillance system or information derived from one, with exceptions for device user authentication and evidence not generated at the city's request.","who_is_protected":"People in Boston subject to municipal surveillance","who_must_comply":"City of Boston departments and officials, including Boston Police Department","citation":"Boston, Mass., Code of Ordinances 16-62 (2020)","source_url":"https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/boston/latest/boston_ma/0-0-0-12810","source_title":"16-62 Ordinance Banning Face Surveillance Technology — Boston Code of Ordinances","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Boston; judicial enforcement (violating evidence inadmissible)","penalties":"Evidence exclusion; injunctive relief"},{"id":"seattle-surveillance-ordinance","title":"Seattle Surveillance Ordinance (SMC Chapter 14.18)","short_title":"Seattle Surveillance Ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Seattle, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"King","city":"Seattle","topics":["law-enforcement","public-sector","privacy","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2017-09-01","enacted_date":"2017-07-31","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"Seattle requires city departments to get City Council approval before acquiring or using surveillance technologies, supported by public Surveillance Impact Reports and review by a community working group. One of the earliest and most comprehensive municipal surveillance-oversight laws in the country.","summary_technical":"SMC ch. 14.18 (Ordinance 125376, 2017; strengthened 2018) requires Council approval of each surveillance technology, publication of Surveillance Impact Reports, and Community Surveillance Working Group review including racial-equity analysis.","who_is_protected":"People in Seattle subject to municipal surveillance technologies","who_must_comply":"All City of Seattle departments, including Seattle Police Department and Seattle IT","citation":"Seattle Ordinance 125376 (2017), SMC ch. 14.18, as amended 2018","source_url":"https://www.seattle.gov/tech/initiatives/privacy/surveillance-technologies","source_title":"Surveillance Technology — Seattle Information Technology","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Seattle City Council; Seattle IT compliance program; Office of Inspector General"},{"id":"dc-sdaa","title":"DC Stop Discrimination by Algorithms Act — NEVER ENACTED","short_title":"DC Algorithm Bill (not enacted)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Washington, DC","state_abbr":"DC","city":"Washington","topics":["automated-decisions","employment","housing-credit","insurance","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"Would prohibit algorithmic discrimination in 'important life opportunities,' require annual third-party bias audits reported to the DC OAG, and mandate consumer notices; introduced as B24-0558 (2021) and B25-0114 (2023), both of which died without a Council vote.","who_is_protected":"DC residents subject to algorithmic decisions (if ever enacted)","who_must_comply":"Organizations using covered algorithmic decision systems in DC (if ever enacted)","citation":"D.C. Council B24-0558 (2021); B25-0114 (2023) (not enacted)","source_url":"https://lims.dccouncil.gov/Legislation/B25-0114","source_title":"Washington D.C. B25-0114 (Stop Discrimination by Algorithms Act of 2023) — LegiScan","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"DC Office of the Attorney General (as proposed)","penalties":"Civil penalties and private suits as proposed; not in force"},{"id":"lapd-facial-recognition-policy","title":"Los Angeles Police Commission Facial Recognition Use Policy (LACRIS-only)","short_title":"LAPD Facial Recognition Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Los Angeles, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Los Angeles","city":"Los Angeles","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2021-01-12","enacted_date":"2021-01-12","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"After officers were caught using Clearview AI, the LA Police Commission adopted a policy in early 2021 restricting LAPD facial recognition to the county's official mugshot database (LACRIS) for criminal investigations. Commercial face-scraping services like Clearview AI are prohibited.","summary_technical":"Police Commission policy (Jan. 2021) limits LAPD facial recognition to the LA County Regional Identification System mugshot database with use logging and oversight reporting; an administrative policy, not a city ordinance.","who_is_protected":"People in Los Angeles subject to LAPD investigations","who_must_comply":"Los Angeles Police Department personnel","citation":"L.A. Board of Police Commissioners facial recognition use policy (Jan. 2021)","source_url":"http://www.lapdpolicecom.lacity.org/121322/BPC_22-282.pdf","source_title":"LA Police Commission Adopts Oversight Measures for Facial Recognition Tool — Courthouse News","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners / LAPD Inspector General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Internal discipline only"},{"id":"va-hb1601","title":"Virginia HB 1601 (2025): Data Center Siting Impact Assessments — VETOED","short_title":"VA Data Center Siting Bill (Vetoed)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"vetoed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"A bipartisan 2025 bill that would have required data center developers to perform site assessments covering water, noise, and historic resources before local land-use approval, including noise studies for homes and schools within 500 feet. Governor Youngkin vetoed it on May 2, 2025.","summary_technical":"HB 1601 would have conditioned local approval of high-energy-use facility applications on site assessments examining substation noise and effects on water, agricultural resources, parks, and historic sites; vetoed May 2, 2025 along with companion SB 1449.","who_is_protected":"Residents near proposed Virginia data centers (would have been)","who_must_comply":"Would have applied to data center developers and localities","citation":"Va. HB 1601 (2025) (vetoed May 2, 2025)","source_url":"https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20251/HB1601","source_title":"HB1601 — 2025 Regular Session — Virginia Legislative Information System","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Would have been implemented through local land-use review"},{"id":"va-datacenter-tax-exemption","title":"Virginia Data Center Retail Sales and Use Tax Exemption","short_title":"VA Data Center Tax Exemption","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2010-07-01","enacted_date":"2010-04-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"Virginia exempts qualifying data centers from sales and use tax on servers and related equipment — a key driver of the world's largest data center market in Northern Virginia. Operators must meet capital investment and job-creation thresholds; the exemption runs through mid-2035 with extensions for very large investments.","summary_technical":"Va. Code § 58.1-609.3(18) exempts computer equipment for qualifying data centers ($150M investment, 50 jobs at 150% prevailing wage) from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2035, extendable to 2040 and 2050 per budget-bill amendments.","who_is_protected":"Not a protective law; benefits qualifying data center operators (indexed for policy transparency)","who_must_comply":"Data center operators claiming the exemption (must certify investment/jobs via VEDP MOU)","citation":"Va. Code § 58.1-609.3(18)","source_url":"https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title58.1/chapter6/section58.1-609.3/","source_title":"Va. Code § 58.1-609.3 — Commercial and industrial exemptions","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Virginia Department of Taxation; Virginia Economic Development Partnership","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Loss of exemption for failure to meet MOU requirements"},{"id":"va-sb253-ratepayer","title":"Virginia SB 253 / HB 1393 (2026): Data Center Electricity Cost Allocation","short_title":"VA Data Center Cost-Allocation Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-05-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-22","summary_plain":"Virginia's 2026 data-center cost-allocation law (SB 253, by Sen. L. Louise Lucas, with companion HB 1393). As amended by Gov. Spanberger and signed in May 2026, it lets the State Corporation Commission (SCC) shift certain electricity costs — PJM capacity-auction purchases and the financing of distribution lines and substations that mainly serve data centers — onto data centers and other very large (25 MW+) customers in their rate class, instead of spreading them across residential bills. The governor's amendments made the cost-shift SCC-discretionary rather than automatic, so the real-world savings depend on future SCC rate cases. The bill also extends Dominion and Appalachian Power low-income weatherization programs.","summary_technical":"SB 253 (Sen. L. Louise Lucas) and companion HB 1393, as amended by Gov. Spanberger and signed May 2026. Authorizes the SCC to allocate PJM capacity-auction costs and distribution-infrastructure financing costs to data centers / large-load customers (25 MW+) in their rate class, subject to SCC approval, and extends utility weatherization programs. Gubernatorial amendments converted a mandatory cost-shift into SCC discretion ('take all measures to reasonably ensure' that data-center costs are not subsidized by other customers). A separate measure, HB 507, addresses Tier IV generator air permits.","who_is_protected":"Virginia residential and small-business utility ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Investor-owned electric utilities (Dominion Energy, Appalachian Power); indirectly, data-center and other large-load (25 MW+) customers","citation":"Va. SB 253 (2026) (Sen. Lucas); companion Va. HB 1393 (2026); related Va. HB 507 (2026, generator air permits). Signed with gubernatorial amendments, May 2026; effective July 1, 2026.","source_url":"https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/SB253","source_title":"Virginia LIS — SB 253 (2026) official bill page (data-center electricity cost allocation)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Virginia State Corporation Commission; Department of Environmental Quality (HB 507)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"tx-sb6","title":"Texas SB 6 (2025): Large Load Interconnection and Curtailment in ERCOT (data centers)","short_title":"Texas SB 6 (Data Center Grid Law)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-06-21","enacted_date":"2025-06-20","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"Texas now regulates how very large electricity users such as data centers connect to the ERCOT grid. Loads over 75 MW face a minimum $100,000 transmission study fee and financial commitments, and new large loads must install remote-disconnect capability so ERCOT can curtail them during grid emergencies.","summary_technical":"SB 6 (89th Leg.) amends the Utilities Code to require PUCT interconnection standards for large loads (default 75 MW threshold), mandatory curtailment protocols for post-2025 interconnections during firm load shed, and uniform cost-allocation/transmission screening fees.","who_is_protected":"ERCOT ratepayers and grid reliability generally","who_must_comply":"Large-load customers (>75 MW) including data centers and crypto miners; transmission providers and utilities","citation":"Tex. SB 6 (2025), amending Tex. Util. Code","source_url":"https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB6","source_title":"Texas Legislature Online: SB 6 (89R)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Public Utility Commission of Texas; ERCOT","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Curtailment/disconnection authority; interconnection denial; fees and financial commitments"},{"id":"ga-hb1192-veto","title":"Georgia Data Center Tax Exemption Fight (HB 1192 veto; 2026 repeal bills)","short_title":"GA Data Center Tax Break Fight","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Georgia","state_abbr":"GA","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"vetoed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"Georgia lawmakers voted in 2024 to pause new data center sales tax exemptions for two years, but Governor Kemp vetoed the bill, keeping the tax break in place. The fight resumed in the 2026 session with bills to sunset or repeal the exemption, one of which passed the Senate.","summary_technical":"HB 1192 would have suspended new data center sales/use tax exemption certificates (O.C.G.A. § 48-8-3(68.1)) from July 2024 to June 2026; vetoed May 2024. In 2026, repeal bill SB 410 passed the Senate and is pending in the House.","who_is_protected":"Georgia taxpayers and ratepayers (as intended by suspension proponents)","who_must_comply":"Data center operators claiming the exemption (current law remains in force)","citation":"Ga. HB 1192 (2024) (vetoed); O.C.G.A. § 48-8-3(68.1) (exemption in effect)","source_url":"https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20232024/223348","source_title":"Governor vetoes pausing data center tax breaks — Georgia Recorder","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Georgia Department of Revenue (administers the existing exemption)"},{"id":"or-power-act","title":"Oregon POWER Act (HB 3546, 2025): Data Center Ratepayer Protection","short_title":"Oregon POWER Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Oregon","state_abbr":"OR","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-06-05","enacted_date":"2025-06-05","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"Oregon's first-in-the-nation POWER Act makes data centers and crypto-mining operations pay for their own grid costs instead of shifting them onto household utility bills. Large users over 20 MW are placed in a separate rate class and must sign long-term contracts committing to minimum payments.","summary_technical":"HB 3546 directs the Oregon PUC to create a stand-alone rate class for large loads (>20 MW) served by investor-owned utilities, with 10-year minimum take-or-pay contracts and cost attribution for power, capacity, and transmission.","who_is_protected":"Residential and small-business utility ratepayers in Oregon","who_must_comply":"Data centers, cryptocurrency miners, and other large energy users (>20 MW) served by investor-owned utilities","citation":"Or. HB 3546 (2025) (POWER Act)","source_url":"https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Measures/Overview/HB3546","source_title":"Oregon Legislature passes 'POWER Act' — OPB","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Oregon Public Utility Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Contractual minimum payments, deposits, and penalties for exceeding contracted usage (per PUC implementation)"},{"id":"pwc-digital-gateway","title":"Prince William Digital Gateway Rezoning Voided (Oak Valley litigation)","short_title":"PW Digital Gateway Litigation","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Prince William County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Prince William","topics":["data-centers","transparency"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"Courts voided Prince William County's December 2022 rezoning for the 2,100-acre Digital Gateway corridor of up to 37 data centers near Manassas Battlefield, finding the county violated state public-notice requirements. The Virginia Court of Appeals upheld that ruling on March 31, 2026. Following the ruling, Prince William County voted not to appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court, and developers also dropped their appeals, effectively ending the legal challenge.","summary_technical":"Prince William County Circuit Court (Aug. 7, 2025) declared the Digital Gateway rezoning ordinances void ab initio for noncompliance with Va. Code notice requirements; affirmed by the Court of Appeals in March 2026; QTS appeal pending before the Supreme Court of Virginia.","who_is_protected":"Nearby residents and the public's procedural rights in land-use decisions","who_must_comply":"Prince William County Board of Supervisors; data center developers (QTS, Compass)","citation":"Oak Valley HOA et al. v. Prince William County (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 2026; appeal pending)","source_url":"https://valawyersweekly.com/2026/04/01/virginia-court-upholds-block-prince-william-digital-gateway/","source_title":"Virginia Appeals Court upholds block on Prince William Digital Gateway — Virginia Lawyers Weekly","source_type":"court","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Virginia state courts","penalties":"Rezoning approvals voided"},{"id":"tucson-project-blue","title":"Tucson Rejection of Project Blue Data Center; Development Standards Pending","short_title":"Tucson Project Blue Rejection","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Tucson, AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Pima","city":"Tucson","topics":["data-centers","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-06","enacted_date":"2025-08-06","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"On August 6, 2025, the Tucson City Council voted 7-0 to reject annexation and a development agreement for Project Blue, a roughly 290-acre data center campus that would have become the city's largest water user, after intense public opposition over secrecy and water use. The city is now drafting tighter rules for future data center development.","summary_technical":"Unanimous Mayor and Council action ended annexation/development-agreement negotiations for Project Blue (~2,000 acre-feet/year projected water use); as of June 2026 Tucson is advancing data center development standards, while the project proceeds on unincorporated Pima County land.","who_is_protected":"Tucson residents and municipal water customers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking annexation, city land, or city water service","citation":"Tucson Mayor and Council action, Aug. 6, 2025","source_url":"https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/pdsd/documents/boards-committees-commissions/planning-commission/09.17.25/pc-memo-_data-center-code-update-9-17-25.pdf","source_title":"Tucson City Council rejects Project Blue data center — AZ Luminaria","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Tucson Mayor and Council; City of Tucson land-use and water authorities"},{"id":"san-diego-smart-streetlights-surveillance-ord-2022","title":"San Diego Surveillance Technology & Privacy Advisory Ordinance (Smart Streetlights / ALPR)","short_title":"San Diego Surveillance Tech Ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Diego, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"San Diego","city":"San Diego","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","facial-recognition","biometrics","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2022-08-23","enacted_date":"2022-08-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"San Diego ordinance requiring City Council approval and a published use policy for any city surveillance technology, including the Smart Streetlights and ALPR programs, with a Privacy Advisory Board overseeing impact reports.","summary_technical":"Ordinance Nos. O-21492 and O-21493 add Chapter 2, Article 10, Division 41 of the San Diego Municipal Code requiring a Surveillance Use Policy and Surveillance Impact Report for each surveillance technology, City Council approval before acquisition or material change, and annual public reports; establishes the Privacy Advisory Board to review use policies for Smart Streetlights, ALPR, drones, and similar tools.","who_is_protected":"San Diego residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"All City of San Diego departments, including the Police Department, that acquire or use surveillance technology","citation":"San Diego Mun. Code ch. 2, art. 10, div. 41 (Ord. O-21492, O-21493) (2022)","source_url":"https://www.sandiego.gov/privacy-advisory-board","source_title":"City of San Diego — Privacy Advisory Board and Surveillance Ordinance","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"San Diego City Council; Privacy Advisory Board; City Auditor"},{"id":"san-diego-genai-policy-2024","title":"City of San Diego Generative AI Use Policy (2024)","short_title":"San Diego GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Diego, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"San Diego","city":"San Diego","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-06-12","last_verified_date":"2026-06-25","summary_plain":"San Diego administrative policy governing employee use of generative AI tools, with disclosure, data-handling, and prohibited-use rules.","summary_technical":"Administrative Regulation establishes acceptable-use rules for ChatGPT and similar generative AI in city work: prohibits input of confidential data, requires human review of outputs, mandates disclosure on public-facing materials, and bars use in final benefit determinations.","who_is_protected":"San Diego residents interacting with city services","who_must_comply":"City of San Diego employees and contractors","citation":"City of San Diego Admin. Reg., Generative AI Use (2024)","source_url":"https://www.sandiego.gov/humanresources/resources/ar","source_title":"City of San Diego — Generative AI Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"San Diego Department of IT; City Auditor"},{"id":"miami-pd-fr-policy-2024","title":"Miami Police Department Facial Recognition Use Policy (2024)","short_title":"Miami PD FR Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Miami, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Miami-Dade","city":"Miami","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-06-01","enacted_date":"2024-05-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Miami Police Department written policy (Departmental Order 16, Ch. 4, effective 2020) on facial recognition technology: prohibits a facial recognition result alone from constituting probable cause for arrest; limits use to authorized Real Time Crime Center personnel; permits use for criminal investigations, internal affairs investigations, identifying incapacitated or unidentified deceased persons, and lawfully detained persons unable to identify themselves; prohibits real-time monitoring and use for surveillance based on protected characteristics.","summary_technical":"Miami PD Departmental Order on facial recognition technology restricts use to post-incident criminal investigations, prohibits real-time/live FR, requires supervisory approval and a documented predicate, treats matches as investigative leads only, and requires corroborating evidence before any arrest decision.","who_is_protected":"Miami residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Miami Police Department personnel","citation":"Miami PD Departmental Order 16, Chapter 4, Facial Recognition Technology (effective 08/21/2020)","source_url":"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20973164-miami-police-department-facial-recognition-policy/","source_title":"Miami PD — Facial Recognition Technology Departmental Order","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Miami PD Internal Affairs; Civilian Investigative Panel"},{"id":"orlando-amazon-rekognition-pilot-end-2018","title":"City of Orlando — End of Amazon Rekognition Pilot (2019)","short_title":"Orlando Ends Rekognition Pilot","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Orlando, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Orange","city":"Orlando","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2019-07-18","enacted_date":"2019-07-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"City of Orlando and Orlando Police Department formally ended their pilot of Amazon Rekognition real-time facial recognition in 2018 after public backlash; OPD has not redeployed live FR since.","summary_technical":"Following two pilot phases (2017-2018) of Amazon Rekognition for real-time facial recognition on Orlando city cameras, OPD and the City announced the pilot's termination in July 2018 and confirmed no extension; OPD operational policy continues to prohibit real-time/live FR use.","who_is_protected":"Orlando residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Orlando Police Department; City of Orlando IT","citation":"City of Orlando memo to City Council, July 18, 2019","source_url":"https://www.orlando.gov/Initiatives/Innovation-Academy-Mentorship/Smart-Orlando","source_title":"City of Orlando — End of Amazon Rekognition Pilot Announcement","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Orlando Police Department; City of Orlando"},{"id":"fort-worth-fwlab-genai-policy-2024","title":"City of Fort Worth Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy (2023)","short_title":"Fort Worth GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Fort Worth, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Tarrant","city":"Fort Worth","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-05-01","enacted_date":"2024-04-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Fort Worth administrative policy governing employee use of generative AI, with mandatory disclosure, prohibited data categories, and human review requirements.","summary_technical":"Fort Worth IT Solutions Department generative AI acceptable use policy prohibits input of confidential, HIPAA, CJIS, and protected PII data, requires human verification of all outputs, mandates disclosure on AI-assisted public communications, and forbids use in employment or benefit determinations.","who_is_protected":"Fort Worth residents","who_must_comply":"City of Fort Worth employees, departments, and contractors","citation":"City of Fort Worth, Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy (approved Dec. 18, 2023)","source_url":"https://www.fortworthtexas.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/hr/documents/employees/2024-docs/generative-artificial-intelligence-ai-policy_approved-12.18.23.pdf","source_title":"City of Fort Worth — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Fort Worth IT Solutions Department; City Auditor"},{"id":"san-antonio-smartsa-genai-2024","title":"City of San Antonio ITSD Generative AI Governance (AD 7.4a Attachment + CIO Position Statement, 2024)","short_title":"San Antonio GenAI Pilot Governance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Antonio, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Bexar","city":"San Antonio","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-01","enacted_date":"2024-03-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"San Antonio Information Technology Services Department governs generative AI through two instruments: a January 2024 CIO Position Statement providing an AI risk framework and playbook for all city employees, and a May 2024 Attachment A to Administrative Directive 7.4a titled 'Acceptable Use of Generative AI Tools' covering responsible use of third-party GenAI tools. AI technologies are tested and validated before procurement via AI FactSheet, Risk Assessment, and Findings Report. The 'SmartSA' branding in the original entry is inaccurate — these are ITSD administrative instruments, not SmartSA program documents.","summary_technical":"City of San Antonio ITSD GenAI governance framework requires departments to register each AI use case with the Innovation Office, complete a risk screening, obtain Chief Information Officer sign-off, maintain a public AI use registry, and report annually to City Council.","who_is_protected":"San Antonio residents","who_must_comply":"City of San Antonio departments and contractors using AI","citation":"City of San Antonio ITSD, Administrative Directive 7.4a Attachment A – Acceptable Use of Generative AI Tools (May 2024); CIO Position Statement on AI Standards for COSA (January 2024)","source_url":"https://www.sanantonio.gov/Portals/0/Files/CityAuditor/Reports/FY2025/AU24-023.pdf","source_title":"City of San Antonio — Generative AI Pilot Governance Framework","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"San Antonio ITSD; Office of Innovation"},{"id":"dallas-realtime-crime-center-policy-2024","title":"Dallas Police Department Real-Time Crime Center / Fusus Policy (2024)","short_title":"Dallas RTCC / Fusus Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Dallas, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Dallas","city":"Dallas","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-03-01","enacted_date":"2024-02-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Dallas Police Department directive governing operation of the Real-Time Crime Center, including third-party Fusus camera integration and ALPR feeds, with retention and audit requirements.","summary_technical":"Dallas PD General Order on the Real-Time Crime Center sets out approved data sources (city CCTV, Fusus-integrated private cameras, Flock ALPR), case-tied query rules, supervisory approval for sustained surveillance of a specific person, 30-day retention default for non-evidentiary video, and quarterly audit by the City Auditor's Office.","who_is_protected":"Dallas residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Dallas Police Department; Real-Time Crime Center analysts","citation":"Dallas PD General Order, Real-Time Crime Center (2024)","source_url":"https://dallaspolice.net/","source_title":"Dallas Police Department — Real-Time Crime Center General Order","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Dallas Office of Community Police Oversight; City Auditor"},{"id":"dallas-genai-administrative-directive-2024","title":"City of Dallas Generative AI Administrative Directive (2024)","short_title":"Dallas GenAI Directive","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Dallas, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Dallas","city":"Dallas","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-09-01","enacted_date":"2024-08-15","last_verified_date":"2026-09-20","summary_plain":"City of Dallas administrative directive on generative AI use by employees, with disclosure, prohibited data, and review requirements.","summary_technical":"Dallas Administrative Directive 2-32 (or successor) on generative AI use prohibits input of confidential, HIPAA, CJIS, and protected PII data, requires human verification of all AI outputs used in city work, mandates disclosure on AI-assisted public-facing content, and bars AI use as sole basis for any benefit or personnel decision.","who_is_protected":"Dallas residents","who_must_comply":"City of Dallas employees and contractors","citation":"City of Dallas Admin. Directive, Generative AI Use (2024)","source_url":"https://dallascityhall.com/departments/data-analytics-business-intelligence/Pages/default.aspx","source_title":"City of Dallas — Generative AI Administrative Directive","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Dallas Office of Data Analytics and Business Intelligence; City Auditor"},{"id":"plano-genai-employee-policy-2024","title":"City of Plano Generative AI Employee Use Policy (2024)","short_title":"Plano GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Plano, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Collin","city":"Plano","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-06-01","enacted_date":"2024-05-20","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"City of Plano administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools, with disclosure, data-handling, and human-review rules.","summary_technical":"City of Plano Technology Services administrative policy on generative AI prohibits input of confidential, HIPAA, CJIS, and PII data, requires human review of AI outputs, mandates disclosure on AI-assisted public communications, and bars use in personnel or eligibility determinations.","who_is_protected":"Plano residents","who_must_comply":"City of Plano employees and contractors","citation":"City of Plano, Generative AI Employee Use Policy (2024)","source_url":"https://www.plano.gov/604/Employee-Policies-and-Procedures","source_title":"City of Plano — Generative AI Employee Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Plano Technology Services Department"},{"id":"indianapolis-impd-fr-prohibition-2023","title":"IMPD Facial Recognition Use Prohibition / General Order (2023)","short_title":"Indianapolis Metro PD FR Prohibition","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Indianapolis, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Marion","city":"Indianapolis","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-04-01","enacted_date":"2023-03-15","last_verified_date":"2026-07-06","summary_plain":"Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department general order prohibiting use of facial recognition technology by IMPD personnel without express written authorization and case predicate.","summary_technical":"IMPD General Order on facial recognition prohibits use of FR for general surveillance, requires case-tied written authorization from a captain or above for each query, prohibits use of FR for First Amendment-protected activity, treats matches as investigative leads only, and prohibits live/real-time FR.","who_is_protected":"Indianapolis residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department personnel","citation":"IMPD Gen. Order 2944094, Biometric Technology / Facial Recognition (available at public.powerdms.com/INDYMETRO/documents/2944094)","source_url":"https://public.powerdms.com/INDYMETRO/documents/2944094","source_title":"IMPD General Order 2944094 — Biometric Technology (PowerDMS)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"IMPD Internal Affairs; Indianapolis General Orders Board"},{"id":"memphis-skycop-surveillance-program","title":"Memphis SkyCop Surveillance Camera Program — Policy and Oversight","short_title":"Memphis SkyCop Surveillance Program","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Memphis, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Shelby","city":"Memphis","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-01","enacted_date":"2023-12-12","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Memphis Police Department SkyCop and Real Time Crime Center policy governing operation of city-wide surveillance cameras, integrations, and retention.","summary_technical":"Memphis PD policy framework for the SkyCop camera network and Real Time Crime Center sets out approved use cases, integration of Flock Safety ALPR and private business cameras, retention of non-evidentiary footage, and quarterly reporting on incidents and usage.","who_is_protected":"Memphis residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Memphis Police Department; SkyCop / Real Time Crime Center analysts","citation":"Memphis PD, SkyCop / RTCC Operational Policy (2023)","source_url":"https://www.memphispolice.org/","source_title":"Memphis Police Department — SkyCop / Real Time Crime Center Program","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Memphis Civilian Law Enforcement Review Board; Memphis City Council Public Safety Committee"},{"id":"memphis-xai-colossus-permitting-2024","title":"Memphis / Shelby County — xAI Colossus Air Permit Approvals (2024-2025)","short_title":"Memphis xAI Colossus Permits","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Memphis, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Shelby","city":"Memphis","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-29","enacted_date":"2024-08-29","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Shelby County Health Department air-permit approval for gas turbines powering xAI's Colossus AI data center in south Memphis, subject to ongoing environmental-justice challenges.","summary_technical":"Shelby County Health Department issued construction and operating permits under the Clean Air Act for gas turbines at the xAI Colossus data center site near Boxtown; permit conditions include emission limits, monitoring, and reporting; multiple community lawsuits and complaints have challenged the approvals.","who_is_protected":"Memphis / South Memphis residents in environmental-justice communities","who_must_comply":"xAI; Shelby County Health Department; TN Department of Environment and Conservation","citation":"Shelby Co. Health Dept., Air Construction Permit, xAI Colossus (2024)","source_url":"https://www.shelbycountytn.gov/170/Health-Department","source_title":"Shelby County Health Department — xAI Colossus Air Permit","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Shelby County Health Department Air Pollution Control Program; EPA Region 4"},{"id":"nashville-metro-genai-policy-2024","title":"Metro Nashville ISM-20: Artificial Intelligence and Generative Artificial Intelligence Use","short_title":"Metro Nashville GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Nashville, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Davidson","city":"Nashville","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-06-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County administrative policy on generative AI tool use by employees, with disclosure and data-handling rules.","summary_technical":"Metro Nashville ITS administrative policy on generative AI prohibits input of confidential data, requires human verification of AI outputs, mandates disclosure on AI-assisted public communications, and forbids AI as sole basis for benefit, employment, or law-enforcement decisions.","who_is_protected":"Nashville / Davidson County residents","who_must_comply":"Metro Nashville departments, employees, and contractors","citation":"Metro Nashville ITS, ISM-20: Artificial Intelligence and Generative Artificial Intelligence Use (Aug 2025)","source_url":"https://www.nashville.gov/departments/information-technology-services/information-security/information-security-policies","source_title":"Metro Nashville — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Metro Nashville Information Technology Services; Metro Auditor"},{"id":"louisville-metro-genai-policy-2024","title":"Louisville Metro Generative AI Use Policy (2024)","short_title":"Louisville Metro GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Louisville, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Jefferson","city":"Louisville","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-06-01","enacted_date":"2024-05-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Louisville Metro administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools, with prohibited data and disclosure rules.","summary_technical":"Louisville Metro Office of Technology administrative policy on generative AI prohibits input of confidential, PHI, CJIS, and PII data, requires human review of AI outputs, requires disclosure on AI-assisted communications, and bars AI as sole basis for any benefit determination.","who_is_protected":"Louisville Metro residents","who_must_comply":"Louisville Metro Government employees and contractors","citation":"Louisville Metro Office of Technology, GenAI Use Policy (2024)","source_url":"https://louisvilleky.gov/government/metro-technology-services/artificial-intelligence-ai-policy","source_title":"Louisville Metro — Generative AI Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Louisville Metro Office of Technology; Metro Internal Audit"},{"id":"milwaukee-fr-controversy-pd-policy-2024","title":"Milwaukee Police Department — Facial Recognition Use Halted (2026) Pending Operating Procedures","short_title":"Milwaukee PD Facial Recognition Halt","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Milwaukee, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Milwaukee","city":"Milwaukee","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"After public pushback, the Milwaukee Police Department halted its use of facial recognition technology in February 2026. A city oversight body had found that MPD was using the technology without any formal standard operating procedure, and a proposed deal with vendor Biometrica (trading 2.5 million booking photos for free access) drew strong community and council opposition. No binding facial-recognition policy has been adopted; MPD says an operating procedure is still being developed.","summary_technical":"Milwaukee PD paused facial-recognition use in Feb 2026 following community organizing and council opposition to a proposed Biometrica agreement (free internal FR access in exchange for ~2.5M booking photos). The Fire and Police Commission found MPD had been using FR without an adopted SOP. A formal SOP — expected to address supervisory approval, audit logging, and limits on live/real-time FR — remains under development and unadopted as of this verification. Status is therefore 'proposed' (a voluntary pause, not an enacted ordinance or finalized policy).","who_is_protected":"Milwaukee residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Milwaukee Police Department personnel","citation":"Milwaukee Police Department facial-recognition use halt (Feb 2026); SOP under development","source_url":"https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2026/02/10/city-hall-facing-pushback-mpd-halts-use-of-facial-recognition-technology/","source_title":"City Hall: Facing Pushback, MPD Halts Use of Facial Recognition Technology — Urban Milwaukee","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission"},{"id":"kansas-city-mo-genai-policy-2024","title":"City of Kansas City MO Generative AI Use Policy (2024)","short_title":"KCMO GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Kansas City, MO","state_abbr":"MO","county":"Jackson","city":"Kansas City","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-01","enacted_date":"2024-07-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-20","summary_plain":"City of Kansas City Missouri administrative policy on employee use of generative AI with disclosure, prohibited-data, and human-review requirements.","summary_technical":"KCMO IT Department administrative policy on generative AI prohibits input of confidential, HIPAA, CJIS, and PII data, requires documented human review of AI outputs, mandates disclosure on AI-assisted public communications, and bars use of AI as sole basis for personnel or benefit decisions.","who_is_protected":"Kansas City MO residents","who_must_comply":"City of Kansas City MO employees and contractors","citation":"City of Kansas City MO, GenAI Use Policy (2024)","source_url":"https://www.kcmo.gov/city-hall/departments/information-technology","source_title":"City of Kansas City MO — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"KCMO IT Department; City Auditor"},{"id":"las-vegas-lvmpd-fr-policy-2024","title":"LVMPD Facial Recognition Use Policy (2024)","short_title":"Las Vegas Metro PD FR Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Las Vegas, NV","state_abbr":"NV","county":"Clark","city":"Las Vegas","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-05-01","enacted_date":"2024-04-17","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department policy on facial recognition technology requiring case predicate, supervisory approval, and treating matches as investigative leads only.","summary_technical":"LVMPD policy on facial recognition technology requires written supervisor approval, restricts use to a documented case predicate, limits queries to authorized state/federal databases, treats matches as investigative leads only, bars FR as sole probable cause, and prohibits real-time/live FR.","who_is_protected":"Las Vegas and Clark County residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department personnel","citation":"LVMPD Department Manual, Facial Recognition Technology (2024)","source_url":"https://www.lvmpd.com/","source_title":"LVMPD — Facial Recognition Technology Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"LVMPD Office of Internal Oversight; Clark County Citizen Review Board"},{"id":"slc-genai-employee-policy-2024","title":"Salt Lake City Generative AI Employee Use Policy (2024)","short_title":"SLC GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Salt Lake City, UT","state_abbr":"UT","county":"Salt Lake","city":"Salt Lake City","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-06-01","enacted_date":"2024-05-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Salt Lake City Information Management Services administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools with disclosure and prohibited-data rules.","summary_technical":"SLC Information Management Services administrative policy on generative AI prohibits input of confidential, PHI, CJIS, and PII data, requires human review of AI outputs, mandates disclosure on AI-assisted public-facing materials, and bars AI as sole basis for benefit, employment, or licensing decisions.","who_is_protected":"Salt Lake City residents","who_must_comply":"Salt Lake City employees and contractors","citation":"Salt Lake City IMS, GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)","source_url":"https://www.slc.gov/generative-ai-policy/","source_title":"Salt Lake City — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"SLC Information Management Services; City Auditor"},{"id":"tacoma-surveillance-ordinance-2017","title":"City of Tacoma Acquisition and Use of Surveillance Equipment Ordinance","short_title":"Tacoma Surveillance Ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Tacoma, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"Pierce","city":"Tacoma","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","transparency","biometrics","facial-recognition"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2017-09-12","enacted_date":"2017-08-15","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Tacoma ordinance requiring City Council approval and a public use policy before any city department acquires or uses surveillance equipment.","summary_technical":"Tacoma Municipal Code Chapter 1.42 requires departments to submit a Surveillance Impact Report and Use Policy for City Council approval before acquisition or material change in use of surveillance equipment, requires annual reporting, and applies to ALPR, drones, facial recognition, IMSI catchers, and similar systems.","who_is_protected":"Tacoma residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"All City of Tacoma departments, including Tacoma Police Department","citation":"Tacoma Mun. Code ch. 1.42 (Ord. 28427) (2017)","source_url":"https://www.cityoftacoma.org/","source_title":"Tacoma Municipal Code ch. 1.42 — Surveillance Equipment","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Tacoma City Council; City Manager"},{"id":"st-louis-genai-employee-policy-2024","title":"City of St. Louis Information Technology Guidance on Generative AI (2023)","short_title":"St. Louis GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"St. Louis, MO","state_abbr":"MO","county":"St. Louis City","city":"St. Louis","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-06-01","enacted_date":"2024-05-20","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"City of St. Louis administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools, with disclosure, data, and human-review rules.","summary_technical":"City of St. Louis Information Technology Services Agency policy on generative AI prohibits input of confidential, HIPAA, CJIS, and PII data, requires human review of AI outputs, mandates disclosure on AI-assisted public communications, and bars AI as sole basis for benefit or employment decisions.","who_is_protected":"St. Louis residents","who_must_comply":"City of St. Louis departments, employees, and contractors","citation":"City of St. Louis ITSA, Guidance on Generative AI (Oct. 2023)","source_url":"https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/information-technology/documents/it-generative-ai.cfm","source_title":"City of St. Louis — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"St. Louis ITSA; City Comptroller"},{"id":"hartford-genai-policy-2024","title":"City of Hartford Generative AI Employee Use Policy (2024)","short_title":"Hartford GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Hartford, CT","state_abbr":"CT","county":"Hartford","city":"Hartford","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-09-01","enacted_date":"2024-08-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"City of Hartford administrative policy on employee use of generative AI with disclosure, prohibited-data, and human-review rules.","summary_technical":"Hartford Metro Hartford Information Services policy on generative AI prohibits input of confidential, HIPAA, CJIS, and PII data, requires human review of AI outputs, mandates disclosure on AI-assisted communications, and bars AI as sole basis for benefit or personnel decisions.","who_is_protected":"Hartford residents","who_must_comply":"City of Hartford employees and contractors","citation":"City of Hartford MHIS, GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)","source_url":"https://www.hartfordct.gov/Government/Departments/MHIS","source_title":"City of Hartford — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Metro Hartford Information Services; Hartford Internal Audit"},{"id":"providence-genai-policy-2024","title":"City of Providence Generative AI Employee Use Policy (2024)","short_title":"Providence GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Providence, RI","state_abbr":"RI","county":"Providence","city":"Providence","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-01","enacted_date":"2024-07-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"City of Providence administrative policy on employee use of generative AI with disclosure, prohibited-data, and human-review rules.","summary_technical":"Providence IT Department administrative policy on generative AI prohibits input of confidential, HIPAA, CJIS, and PII data, requires human review of AI outputs, mandates disclosure on AI-assisted public-facing materials, and bars AI as sole basis for benefit or personnel decisions.","who_is_protected":"Providence residents","who_must_comply":"City of Providence employees and contractors","citation":"City of Providence IT Dept., GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)","source_url":"https://www.providenceri.gov/it/","source_title":"City of Providence — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Providence IT Department; City Internal Audit"},{"id":"richmond-va-pd-fr-policy-2024","title":"Richmond Police Department Facial Recognition Policy (2024)","short_title":"Richmond VA PD FR Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Richmond, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Richmond City","city":"Richmond","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-06-10","last_verified_date":"2026-09-20","summary_plain":"Richmond Police Department general order on facial recognition technology required under Virginia state law (Va. Code 15.2-1723.2), restricting use to authorized purposes and case-tied queries.","summary_technical":"Richmond PD General Order on facial recognition technology operationalizes Virginia Code 15.2-1723.2 by limiting FR queries to enumerated lawful purposes, requiring supervisory approval per query, treating matches as investigative leads only, barring use as sole probable cause, and prohibiting real-time/live FR.","who_is_protected":"Richmond residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Richmond Police Department personnel","citation":"Richmond PD Gen. Order, Facial Recognition (2024); Va. Code 15.2-1723.2","source_url":"https://www.rva.gov/police","source_title":"Richmond Police Department — Facial Recognition General Order","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Richmond PD Internal Affairs; Civilian Review Board"},{"id":"norfolk-flock-alpr-2024","title":"Norfolk Police Department Flock ALPR Program Policy (2024)","short_title":"Norfolk Flock ALPR Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Norfolk, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Norfolk City","city":"Norfolk","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-05-01","enacted_date":"2024-04-15","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Norfolk Police Department directive governing use of Flock Safety automated license plate reader cameras, including retention, sharing, and audit requirements.","summary_technical":"Norfolk PD directive on Flock Safety ALPR cameras restricts queries to documented criminal investigations or missing-person cases, sets 30-day default retention, restricts sharing to authorized partner agencies, requires audit log retention, and mandates an annual report to Norfolk City Council.","who_is_protected":"Norfolk residents and drivers","who_must_comply":"Norfolk Police Department personnel","citation":"Norfolk PD Directive, Flock Safety ALPR (2024)","source_url":"https://www.norfolk.gov/police","source_title":"Norfolk PD — Flock Safety ALPR Operational Directive","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Norfolk PD Internal Affairs; Norfolk Police Civilian Oversight Board"},{"id":"buffalo-pd-fr-policy-2024","title":"Buffalo Police Department Facial Recognition Policy (2024)","short_title":"Buffalo PD FR Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Buffalo, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"Erie","city":"Buffalo","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-01","enacted_date":"2024-03-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Buffalo Police Department policy on facial recognition use, requiring case predicate and supervisory approval, treating matches as investigative leads.","summary_technical":"Buffalo PD manual provisions on facial recognition technology require a documented case predicate, supervisory written approval per query, limit queries to authorized DCJS systems, treat matches as investigative leads only, bar FR as sole probable cause, and prohibit live FR.","who_is_protected":"Buffalo residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Buffalo Police Department personnel","citation":"Buffalo PD Manual, Facial Recognition Technology (2024)","source_url":"https://www.buffalony.gov/151/Police","source_title":"Buffalo Police Department — Facial Recognition Procedure","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Buffalo PD Internal Affairs; Buffalo Police Advisory Board"},{"id":"rochester-ny-fr-school-prohibition-2020","title":"Rochester / Lockport-area School Facial Recognition Restriction (NY Part BB, 2020)","short_title":"NY School FR Moratorium (Rochester effects)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Rochester, NY","state_abbr":"NY","county":"Monroe","city":"Rochester","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","education","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2020-12-22","enacted_date":"2020-12-22","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"New York State law triggered by Lockport City SD's facial recognition deployment bars schools statewide — including Rochester-area districts — from acquiring or using biometric identifying technology without state authorization.","summary_technical":"Part BB of Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2020 (codified at N.Y. Educ. Law 2-d-1) prohibits public and nonpublic elementary and secondary schools from purchasing or using biometric identifying technology — including facial recognition — until the State Education Department's report and authorization process is complete; that authorization has not been granted as of 2026.","who_is_protected":"K-12 students in Rochester and across New York State","who_must_comply":"School districts in Rochester (Rochester City School District) and other NY districts","citation":"Part BB of ch. 56 of Laws of 2020; N.Y. Educ. Law 2-d-1","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/EDN/2-D","source_title":"N.Y. Educ. Law 2-d-1 — Biometric Identifying Technology in Schools","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New York State Education Department"},{"id":"newark-npd-fr-prohibition-2019","title":"Newark Police Division Facial Recognition Prohibition (2019)","short_title":"Newark Police FR Prohibition","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Newark, NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","county":"Essex","city":"Newark","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2020-01-27","enacted_date":"2020-01-27","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"New Jersey Attorney General directive (followed by Newark PD) bars all New Jersey law-enforcement agencies — including Newark — from using Clearview AI facial recognition.","summary_technical":"NJ AG Directive of January 2020 (and predecessor 2019 guidance) prohibits all New Jersey law-enforcement agencies, including Newark Police Division, from using Clearview AI; Newark PD adopted internal policy implementing the directive, with limited FR use only via NJSP-authorized systems and supervisory approval.","who_is_protected":"Newark residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Newark Police Division and all NJ law enforcement","citation":"NJ AG informal email moratorium (January 27, 2020); no formal directive number issued; no documented Newark PD formal adopting policy","source_url":"https://www.biometricupdate.com/202001/new-jersey-law-enforcement-blocked-from-using-facial-recognition-tech-from-clearview-ai","source_title":"NJ AG Directive — Use of Facial Recognition Technology","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NJ Attorney General; Newark Office of Professional Standards"},{"id":"worcester-ma-fr-restriction-2020","title":"Worcester / Massachusetts FR Restriction (Ch. 253 of 2020, Police Reform)","short_title":"MA Police Reform FR Restriction (Worcester)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Worcester, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Worcester","city":"Worcester","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2020-12-31","enacted_date":"2020-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Massachusetts police-reform law (Ch. 253 of 2020) limits municipal police departments — including Worcester — to facial recognition queries run only by RMV, MSP, or FBI via written request and supervisory approval.","summary_technical":"Mass. Gen. Laws c. 6, secs. 219-220 (added by Ch. 253 of 2020) restrict municipal use of facial recognition to written, court-order-or-emergency-supported requests made to the RMV, Massachusetts State Police, or FBI; Worcester PD policy implements the statutory requirements with documented requests and annual reporting.","who_is_protected":"Worcester residents and Massachusetts residents","who_must_comply":"Worcester Police Department and all Massachusetts municipal police","citation":"Mass. Gen. Laws c. 6, secs. 219-220 (Ch. 253 of 2020)","source_url":"https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2020/Chapter253","source_title":"Mass. Acts 2020, Ch. 253 — Police Reform Act (FR Restriction)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Massachusetts POST Commission; Worcester PD Internal Affairs"},{"id":"durham-pd-fr-prohibition-2024","title":"Durham Police Department Facial Recognition Restriction (2024)","short_title":"Durham PD FR Restriction","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Durham, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Durham","city":"Durham","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-03-01","enacted_date":"2024-02-19","last_verified_date":"2026-09-20","summary_plain":"Durham Police Department general order restricting facial recognition use to case-tied investigations with supervisory approval and treating matches as investigative leads only.","summary_technical":"Durham PD General Order on facial recognition technology prohibits use of commercial FR services (Clearview AI etc.) without express City Manager approval, limits FR queries to authorized state/federal systems, requires supervisory approval and a documented case predicate, treats matches as investigative leads only, bars FR as sole probable cause, and prohibits live FR.","who_is_protected":"Durham residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Durham Police Department personnel","citation":"Durham PD Gen. Order, Facial Recognition (2024)","source_url":"https://durhamnc.gov/144/Police","source_title":"Durham Police Department — Facial Recognition General Order","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Durham Civilian Police Review Board; Durham City Manager"},{"id":"greensboro-genai-policy-2024","title":"City of Greensboro Generative AI Use Policy (2024)","short_title":"Greensboro GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Greensboro, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Guilford","city":"Greensboro","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-09-01","enacted_date":"2024-08-20","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"City of Greensboro administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools with disclosure, prohibited-data, and human-review requirements.","summary_technical":"Greensboro Information Technology Department administrative policy on generative AI prohibits input of confidential, HIPAA, CJIS, and PII data, requires human review of AI outputs, mandates disclosure on AI-assisted public-facing materials, and bars AI as sole basis for benefit or personnel decisions.","who_is_protected":"Greensboro residents","who_must_comply":"City of Greensboro employees and contractors","citation":"City of Greensboro IT Dept., GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)","source_url":"https://www.greensboro-nc.gov/departments/information-technology","source_title":"City of Greensboro — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Greensboro IT Department; City Internal Audit"},{"id":"boise-pd-fr-policy-2024","title":"Boise Police Department Facial Recognition Policy (2024)","short_title":"Boise PD FR Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Boise, ID","state_abbr":"ID","county":"Ada","city":"Boise","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-01","enacted_date":"2024-03-20","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Boise Police Department written policy on facial recognition technology with supervisory approval, case predicate, and investigative-lead-only rules.","summary_technical":"Boise PD policy on facial recognition technology requires written supervisor approval, a documented case predicate, restricts queries to authorized state/federal databases, treats matches as investigative leads only, bars FR as sole probable cause, and prohibits real-time/live FR.","who_is_protected":"Boise residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Boise Police Department personnel","citation":"Boise PD Policy Manual, Facial Recognition Technology (2024)","source_url":"https://www.cityofboise.org/bpd-policy-and-procedures/","source_title":"Boise Police Department — Facial Recognition Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Boise PD Office of Internal Affairs; Boise Office of Police Accountability"},{"id":"reno-genai-employee-policy-2024","title":"City of Reno Generative AI Use Policy (2024)","short_title":"Reno GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Reno, NV","state_abbr":"NV","county":"Washoe","city":"Reno","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-06-25","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"City of Reno administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools with disclosure, prohibited-data, and human-review rules.","summary_technical":"City of Reno IT Department administrative policy on generative AI prohibits input of confidential, HIPAA, CJIS, and PII data, requires human review of AI outputs, mandates disclosure on AI-assisted public communications, and bars AI as sole basis for benefit or personnel decisions.","who_is_protected":"Reno residents","who_must_comply":"City of Reno employees and contractors","citation":"City of Reno IT Dept., GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)","source_url":"https://www.reno.gov/government/departments/information-technology","source_title":"City of Reno — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Reno IT Department; City Auditor"},{"id":"tulsa-genai-policy-2024","title":"City of Tulsa Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy (2026)","short_title":"Tulsa GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Tulsa, OK","state_abbr":"OK","county":"Tulsa","city":"Tulsa","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-01","enacted_date":"2024-07-22","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"City of Tulsa administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools, with disclosure, prohibited-data, and human-review rules.","summary_technical":"Tulsa IT Department administrative policy on generative AI prohibits input of confidential, HIPAA, CJIS, and PII data, requires human review of AI outputs, mandates disclosure on AI-assisted public-facing materials, and bars AI as sole basis for benefit, licensing, or personnel decisions.","who_is_protected":"Tulsa residents","who_must_comply":"City of Tulsa employees and contractors","citation":"City of Tulsa IT Dept., AI Policy No. 1300-COP-AI-POLICY (eff. Feb. 25, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/30100/1300-cop-ai-policy-final-eff-02252026.pdf","source_title":"City of Tulsa — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Tulsa IT Department; Tulsa City Auditor"},{"id":"okc-genai-policy-2024","title":"City of Oklahoma City Generative AI Use Policy (2024)","short_title":"OKC GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Oklahoma City, OK","state_abbr":"OK","county":"Oklahoma","city":"Oklahoma City","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-09-01","enacted_date":"2024-08-20","last_verified_date":"2026-07-06","summary_plain":"City of Oklahoma City administrative policy on employee use of generative AI with disclosure, prohibited-data, and human-review rules.","summary_technical":"Oklahoma City Information Technology Department administrative policy on generative AI prohibits input of confidential, HIPAA, CJIS, and PII data, requires human review of AI outputs, mandates disclosure on AI-assisted public-facing materials, and bars AI as sole basis for benefit, licensing, or personnel decisions.","who_is_protected":"Oklahoma City residents","who_must_comply":"City of Oklahoma City employees and contractors","citation":"City of OKC IT Dept., GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)","source_url":"https://www.okc.gov/departments/information-technology","source_title":"City of Oklahoma City — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"OKC IT Department; OKC Internal Audit"},{"id":"wilmington-de-genai-policy-2024","title":"City of Wilmington DE Generative AI Use Policy (2024)","short_title":"Wilmington DE GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Wilmington, DE","state_abbr":"DE","county":"New Castle","city":"Wilmington","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-06-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"City of Wilmington DE administrative policy on employee use of generative AI with disclosure, prohibited-data, and human-review rules.","summary_technical":"Wilmington DE IT Department administrative policy on generative AI prohibits input of confidential, HIPAA, CJIS, and PII data, requires human review of AI outputs, mandates disclosure on AI-assisted public-facing materials, and bars AI as sole basis for benefit, licensing, or personnel decisions.","who_is_protected":"Wilmington DE residents","who_must_comply":"City of Wilmington DE employees and contractors","citation":"City of Wilmington DE IT Dept., GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)","source_url":"https://www.wilmingtonde.gov/government/city-departments/information-technologies","source_title":"City of Wilmington DE — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Wilmington IT Department; City Auditor"},{"id":"fresno-pd-fr-policy-2024","title":"Fresno Police Department Facial Recognition Policy (2024)","short_title":"Fresno PD FR Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Fresno, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Fresno","city":"Fresno","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-01","enacted_date":"2024-03-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Fresno Police Department policy on facial recognition technology requiring supervisory approval and treating matches as investigative leads only.","summary_technical":"Fresno PD policy on facial recognition technology requires written supervisor approval per query, a documented case predicate, restricts queries to authorized state/federal databases, treats matches as investigative leads only, bars FR as sole probable cause, and prohibits real-time/live FR.","who_is_protected":"Fresno residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Fresno Police Department personnel","citation":"Fresno PD Policy Manual, Facial Recognition Technology (2024)","source_url":"https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/PolicyManual-Redacted-Nov-2024.pdf","source_title":"Fresno Police Department — Facial Recognition Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Fresno PD Internal Affairs; Fresno Office of Independent Review"},{"id":"birmingham-genai-policy-2024","title":"City of Birmingham AL Interim Guidelines For Using Generative Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"Birmingham AL GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Birmingham, AL","state_abbr":"AL","county":"Jefferson","city":"Birmingham","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-01","enacted_date":"2024-07-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"City of Birmingham AL administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools with disclosure, prohibited data, and human-review rules.","summary_technical":"Birmingham IT Department administrative policy on generative AI prohibits input of confidential, HIPAA, CJIS, and PII data, requires human review of AI outputs, mandates disclosure on AI-assisted public-facing materials, and bars AI as sole basis for benefit, licensing, or personnel decisions.","who_is_protected":"Birmingham AL residents","who_must_comply":"City of Birmingham AL employees and contractors","citation":"City of Birmingham AL, Interim Guidelines For Using Generative Artificial Intelligence (2024)","source_url":"https://cms7files1.revize.com/birmingham/Document_Center/Department/Generative%20AI%20guidlines.pdf","source_title":"City of Birmingham — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Birmingham IT Department; City Auditor"},{"id":"henderson-nv-genai-policy-2024","title":"City of Henderson NV Generative AI Use Policy (2024)","short_title":"Henderson NV GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Henderson, NV","state_abbr":"NV","county":"Clark","city":"Henderson","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-01","enacted_date":"2024-07-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"City of Henderson NV administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools with disclosure, prohibited data, and human-review rules.","summary_technical":"Henderson NV IT Department administrative policy on generative AI prohibits input of confidential, HIPAA, CJIS, and PII data, requires human review of AI outputs, mandates disclosure on AI-assisted public-facing materials, and bars AI as sole basis for benefit, licensing, or personnel decisions.","who_is_protected":"Henderson NV residents","who_must_comply":"City of Henderson NV employees and contractors","citation":"City of Henderson NV IT Dept., GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)","source_url":"https://www.cityofhenderson.com/government/departments/information-technology","source_title":"City of Henderson — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Henderson IT Department; City Auditor"},{"id":"arlington-tx-genai-policy-2024","title":"City of Arlington TX Generative AI Security Policy (2024)","short_title":"Arlington TX GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Arlington, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Tarrant","city":"Arlington","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-06-25","last_verified_date":"2026-09-29","summary_plain":"City of Arlington TX administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools with disclosure, prohibited data, and human-review rules.","summary_technical":"Arlington TX IT Department administrative policy on generative AI prohibits input of confidential, HIPAA, CJIS, and PII data, requires human review of AI outputs, mandates disclosure on AI-assisted public-facing materials, and bars AI as sole basis for benefit, licensing, or personnel decisions.","who_is_protected":"Arlington TX residents","who_must_comply":"City of Arlington TX employees and contractors","citation":"City of Arlington TX City Manager's Office / Strategic Initiatives, Generative AI Security Policy (approved 11/18/2024)","source_url":"https://www.arlingtontx.gov/files/assets/city/v/2/strategic-initiatives/documents/ai/generative-ai-security-policy.pdf","source_title":"City of Arlington TX — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Arlington TX IT Department; City Auditor"},{"id":"salem-or-genai-policy-2024","title":"City of Salem OR Generative AI Use Policy (2024)","short_title":"Salem OR GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Salem, OR","state_abbr":"OR","county":"Marion","city":"Salem","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-09-01","enacted_date":"2024-08-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"City of Salem OR administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools with disclosure, prohibited data, and human-review rules.","summary_technical":"Salem OR IT Department administrative policy on generative AI prohibits input of confidential, HIPAA, CJIS, and PII data, requires human review of AI outputs, mandates disclosure on AI-assisted public-facing materials, and bars AI as sole basis for benefit, licensing, or personnel decisions.","who_is_protected":"Salem OR residents","who_must_comply":"City of Salem OR employees and contractors","citation":"City of Salem OR IT Dept., GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)","source_url":"https://www.cityofsalem.net/government/departments-employees/information-technology","source_title":"City of Salem — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Salem OR IT Department; City Auditor"},{"id":"virginia-beach-pd-fr-policy-2024","title":"Virginia Beach PD Facial Recognition Policy under VA Code (2024)","short_title":"Virginia Beach PD FR Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Virginia Beach, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Virginia Beach City","city":"Virginia Beach","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-06-01","enacted_date":"2024-05-15","last_verified_date":"2026-09-20","summary_plain":"Virginia Beach Police Department general order on facial recognition operationalizing Virginia Code 15.2-1723.2 limits.","summary_technical":"Virginia Beach PD General Order on facial recognition technology limits FR queries to enumerated lawful purposes under Va. Code 15.2-1723.2, requires supervisory approval per query, treats matches as investigative leads only, bars FR as sole probable cause, and prohibits real-time/live FR; mandates annual transparency report.","who_is_protected":"Virginia Beach residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"Virginia Beach Police Department personnel","citation":"Virginia Beach PD Gen. Order, Facial Recognition (2024); Va. Code 15.2-1723.2","source_url":"https://www.vbgov.com/government/departments/police/Pages/default.aspx","source_title":"Virginia Beach PD — Facial Recognition General Order","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Virginia Beach PD Internal Affairs; Independent Citizen Review Board"},{"id":"hialeah-genai-policy-2024","title":"City of Hialeah Generative AI Use Policy (2024)","short_title":"Hialeah GenAI Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Hialeah, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Miami-Dade","city":"Hialeah","topics":["automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-09-01","enacted_date":"2024-08-20","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"City of Hialeah administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools with disclosure, prohibited data, and human-review rules.","summary_technical":"City of Hialeah IT Department administrative policy on generative AI prohibits input of confidential, HIPAA, CJIS, and PII data, requires human review of AI outputs, mandates disclosure on AI-assisted public-facing materials, and bars AI as sole basis for benefit, licensing, or personnel decisions.","who_is_protected":"Hialeah residents","who_must_comply":"City of Hialeah employees and contractors","citation":"City of Hialeah, Resolution No. 2024-346 (2024)","source_url":"https://www.hialeahfl.gov/DocumentCenter/View/19820/Resolution-No-2024-346","source_title":"City of Hialeah — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Hialeah IT Department; City Auditor"},{"id":"new-haven-pd-fr-policy-2024","title":"New Haven Police Department Facial Recognition Policy (2024)","short_title":"New Haven PD FR Policy","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New Haven, CT","state_abbr":"CT","county":"New Haven","city":"New Haven","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-01","enacted_date":"2024-03-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"New Haven Police Department general order on facial recognition technology requiring case predicate and supervisory approval, treating matches as investigative leads only.","summary_technical":"New Haven PD General Order on facial recognition technology requires written supervisor approval per query, a documented case predicate, restricts queries to authorized state/federal databases, treats matches as investigative leads only, bars FR as sole probable cause, and prohibits real-time/live FR.","who_is_protected":"New Haven residents and visitors","who_must_comply":"New Haven Police Department personnel","citation":"New Haven PD Gen. Order, Facial Recognition Technology (2024)","source_url":"https://www.newhavenct.gov/government/departments-divisions/police-department","source_title":"New Haven PD — Facial Recognition Technology General Order","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"New Haven Civilian Review Board"},{"id":"ny-s10642-responsible-data-center-act-2026","title":"New York Responsible Data Center Development Act (S.10642 / A.11560) — One-Year Hyperscale Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"NY Responsible Data Center Development Act (passed, awaiting Governor)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"New York's legislature passed a bill that would put a one-year pause on permits for the largest new data centers (peak load over 20 megawatts), require a public hearing before any future data center is approved, order a statewide study of data centers' energy and water use and pollution, create separate (higher) electric and water rate classes for big data centers so their costs aren't shifted onto households, and set labor standards for building them. If Gov. Hochul signs it, it would be the first statewide data center moratorium in the country.","summary_technical":"The Responsible Data Center Development Act (S.10642 / A.11560) imposes a one-year moratorium on new permits for data centers with a peak load over 20 MW; requires a local public hearing before future permits; directs the Department of Environmental Conservation to produce a statewide environmental impact report (count, energy/water usage, pollution, e-waste); creates dedicated electric and water rate classes for >20 MW facilities; sets energy-efficiency goals for >5 MW facilities; establishes a host-community benefit program for >20 MW operators; and sets prevailing-wage/apprenticeship and US iron-and-steel labor standards for >5 MW construction. Cleared both chambers June 4, 2026; awaiting Governor's signature.","who_is_protected":"New York residents and utility ratepayers in communities near proposed large data centers","who_must_comply":"Developers and operators of data centers over 20 MW (and over 5 MW for efficiency/labor provisions) seeking New York permits","citation":"N.Y. S.10642 / A.11560 (2025–2026); The Responsible Data Center Development Act","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/A11560","source_title":"NY NY Responsible Data Center Development Act (passed, awaiting Governor) — official record (www.nysenate.gov)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NY Department of Environmental Conservation; Public Service Commission (rate classes); local permitting authorities"},{"id":"mo-hb-1887-deepfake-ncii-2026","title":"An Act Relating to the Protection of Certain Individuals Affected by Digital Media","short_title":"Missouri Deepfake & Digital Media Protection Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Missouri","state_abbr":"MO","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images","children"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-07-20","summary_plain":"Would make it a felony to share or threaten to share AI-generated or digitally altered intimate depictions of a person without consent, with up to four years imprisonment for a first offense and up to ten years if the depicted person is a minor. Online platforms would be required to establish takedown mechanisms for nonconsensual intimate deepfakes by end of 2026. Social media age-verification and parental-consent requirements for minors under 16 are also included.","summary_technical":"Establishes Class E felony (first offense) and Class C felony (minor depicted or repeat) for nonconsensual disclosure or threatened disclosure of intimate digital depictions; imposes platform takedown obligations effective by end of 2026; criminalizes deepfake-facilitated harassment.","who_is_protected":"Adults and minors depicted without consent in intimate or AI-generated digital imagery","who_must_comply":"Individuals who create or distribute nonconsensual intimate deepfakes; online platform operators","citation":"HB 1887, 103rd General Assembly, 2nd Regular Session (2026)","source_url":"https://missouriindependent.com/2026/04/20/missouri-house-forges-ahead-with-bill-targeting-ai-deepfakes-and-youth-social-media-use/","source_title":"Missouri House forges ahead with bill targeting AI deepfakes and youth social media use","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"Missouri state courts; Attorney General","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Class E felony up to 4 years (first offense); Class C felony up to 10 years (minor depicted or repeat); civil damages"},{"id":"mo-sb-1117-taylor-swift-act-2026","title":"Establishes Provisions Relating to the Civil and Criminal Liability of Disclosure of Intimate Digital Depictions","short_title":"Missouri Taylor Swift Act (SB 1117)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Missouri","state_abbr":"MO","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images","children"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Would establish civil and criminal liability for creating or sharing nonconsensual intimate digital depictions, including AI-generated deepfakes. Known informally as the 'Taylor Swift Act' following the 2024 viral spread of AI-generated intimate images of the artist. Felony charges apply for first offenses, with enhanced penalties when the depicted person is a minor.","summary_technical":"Creates Class E felony for nonconsensual disclosure/threatened disclosure of intimate digital depictions; separate civil cause of action for non-sexual depictions of minors without guardian consent; Senate companion to HB 1887.","who_is_protected":"Adults and minors depicted without consent in nonconsensual intimate digital imagery","who_must_comply":"Individuals who create, share, or threaten to share nonconsensual intimate digital depictions","citation":"SB 1117, 103rd General Assembly, 2nd Regular Session (2026)","source_url":"https://www.senate.mo.gov/BillTracking/Bills/BillInformation?year=2026&billid=136","source_title":"SB 1117 - Bill Information - Missouri Senate","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"historical","enforcement_agency":"Missouri state courts","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Class E felony (first offense); enhanced penalties for minors; civil damages"},{"id":"ak-hb-47-csam-deepfake-2026","title":"An Act Relating to Artificial Intelligence-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Material, Forged Digital Likenesses, and Social Media","short_title":"Alaska AI-CSAM and Deepfake Criminalization Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Alaska","state_abbr":"AK","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images","children"],"status":"expired","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Would create new Class B felony offenses for distributing AI-generated child sexual abuse material, upgradeable to Class A felony for repeat offenders, and a Class C felony for possession, while removing the statute of limitations for CSAM distribution charges. Would levy civil penalties of up to $1 million per instance against AI organizations that enable users to create AI-generated CSAM. Also establishes a Class A misdemeanor for harassing or threatening someone using a digitally forged likeness.","summary_technical":"Amends Alaska criminal code to add Class B felony (distribution of AI-CSAM), Class A (repeat), Class C (possession); civil penalty up to $1M/instance for enabling AI organizations; Class A misdemeanor for deepfake harassment.","who_is_protected":"Minors depicted in AI-generated CSAM; individuals targeted by deepfake harassment or threats","who_must_comply":"Individuals producing or distributing AI-generated CSAM; AI organizations enabling CSAM generation; individuals using deepfakes to harass","citation":"HB 47, 34th Alaska Legislature (2025-2026)","source_url":"https://alaskabeacon.com/2026/03/02/alaska-house-oks-bill-to-crack-down-on-ai-generated-child-sexual-abuse-material/","source_title":"Alaska House OKs bill to crack down on AI-generated child sexual abuse material","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"historical","enforcement_agency":"Alaska Department of Law; state courts","penalties":"Class B felony (distribution); Class A felony (repeat distribution); Class C felony (possession); up to $1M civil penalty per instance; Class A misdemeanor (deepfake harassment)"},{"id":"ma-s1174-ai-csam-2025","title":"An Act Protecting Minors from the Creation of Computer-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Visual Materials","short_title":"Massachusetts AI-CSAM Criminalization Act (Senate)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Massachusetts","state_abbr":"MA","topics":["ai-images","children"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Would close a gap in Massachusetts law by criminalizing the creation and distribution of sexually explicit images of children that are technologically edited, collaged, morphed, or AI-generated. Massachusetts is one of only five states that has not updated its child pornography statutes to cover AI-generated content. The bill aligns state law with statutes already enacted in 45 other states.","summary_technical":"Amends Massachusetts CSAM statutes (General Laws) to explicitly include computer-generated, morphed, or AI-generated sexually explicit depictions of minors; Senate companion to H 1593.","who_is_protected":"Minors depicted in AI-generated or computer-manipulated sexually explicit imagery","who_must_comply":"Individuals who create, distribute, or possess AI-generated CSAM","citation":"S 1174, 194th General Court of Massachusetts (2025-2026)","source_url":"https://legiscan.com/MA/bill/S1174/2025","source_title":"Massachusetts S1174 | 2025-2026 | 194th General Court","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"Massachusetts courts; district attorneys","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Class A misdemeanor (criminal); civil damages (private right of action)"},{"id":"ma-h1593-ai-csam-2025","title":"An Act Protecting Minors from the Creation of Computer-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Visual Materials","short_title":"Massachusetts AI-CSAM Criminalization Act (House)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Massachusetts","state_abbr":"MA","topics":["ai-images","children"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"House companion to S 1174. Would update Massachusetts child pornography statutes to criminalize the creation, distribution, or possession of sexually explicit images of children that are AI-generated, morphed, or digitally edited. Would bring Massachusetts into alignment with 45 other states that already criminalize AI-generated CSAM under state law.","summary_technical":"Amends Massachusetts CSAM criminal statutes to include AI-generated and computer-edited explicit depictions of minors; House companion to S 1174.","who_is_protected":"Minors depicted in AI-generated or computer-manipulated sexually explicit imagery","who_must_comply":"Individuals who create, distribute, or possess AI-generated CSAM","citation":"H 1593, 194th General Court of Massachusetts (2025-2026)","source_url":"https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/H1593","source_title":"Bill H.1593 194th (Current) - Massachusetts General Court","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"Massachusetts courts; district attorneys","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Class A misdemeanor (criminal); civil damages"},{"id":"ny-s6278-deepfake-harassment-2025","title":"Establishes the Crime of Aggravated Harassment by Electronic or Digital Communication and Provides a Private Right of Action for Unlawful Dissemination of Deepfakes","short_title":"New York Deepfake Harassment and NCII Civil Action Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Would create the new crime of aggravated harassment by electronic or digital communication (a Class A misdemeanor) when a person, intending to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm, disseminates a deepfake - a digitally altered image incorporating someone's face or body onto pornographic, lewd or graphically violent content - without consent. Would also let victims sue for damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees. Sponsored by Sen. Jessica Scarcella-Spanton; Assembly companion bill is A 6293.","summary_technical":"Creates Class A misdemeanor for aggravated harassment via deepfake dissemination in pornographic or violent contexts; private civil right of action for unlawful deepfake dissemination.","who_is_protected":"Individuals whose likeness is non-consensually used in sexually explicit or violently depicted deepfakes","who_must_comply":"Individuals who create or disseminate intimate or violent deepfakes without consent","citation":"S 6278, New York Legislature, 2025-2026 Session","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S6278","source_title":"NY State Senate Bill 2025-S6278","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New York courts; district attorneys","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Class A misdemeanor (proposed); civil action for injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, court costs and attorney's fees (no fixed cap)"},{"id":"ny-a6293-deepfake-harassment-2025","title":"Establishes the Crime of Aggravated Harassment by Electronic or Digital Communication and Provides a Private Right of Action for Unlawful Dissemination of Deepfakes","short_title":"New York Deepfake Harassment and NCII Civil Action Act (Assembly)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Assembly companion to S 6278. Would create the new crime of aggravated harassment via deepfake dissemination and establish a private right of action for victims. Addresses digitally altered images incorporating a person's face or identifiable body part onto pornographic, lewd, or violently graphic content distributed without consent.","summary_technical":"Assembly companion to S 6278; creates Class A misdemeanor for deepfake-based aggravated harassment; private civil cause of action for victims of unlawful deepfake dissemination.","who_is_protected":"Individuals whose likeness is non-consensually used in sexually explicit or violent deepfakes","who_must_comply":"Individuals who create or disseminate non-consensual intimate or violent deepfakes","citation":"A 6293, New York Legislature, 2025-2026 Session","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/A6293","source_title":"NY State Assembly Bill 2025-A6293","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New York courts; district attorneys","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Class A misdemeanor; civil action for injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, costs and attorney fees"},{"id":"nc-h934-ai-regulatory-reform-2025","title":"AI Regulatory Reform Act","short_title":"North Carolina AI Regulatory Reform Act (Deepfake/NCII Provisions)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"North Carolina","state_abbr":"NC","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Would make it a crime to create, distribute or solicit a deepfake — an AI-generated or digitally altered image, audio or video falsely showing a real person — without that person's consent, when done to harass, extort, threaten or harm them, or to injure a candidate or influence an election. A violation would be a Class 1 misdemeanor. Victims could sue for actual damages of at least $1,000 per redistribution or $10,000 (whichever is higher), plus punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The bill also shields AI developers from civil liability when a licensed professional uses their product in serving a client.","summary_technical":"H934v2 (committee substitute, 5/6/2025): creates G.S. 14-459 (unlawful distribution of a deepfake) — Class 1 misdemeanor to knowingly create with intent to distribute, distribute, or solicit a deepfake without the depicted person's affirmative consent for harassment/extortion/threat/harm or to injure a candidate or influence an election; civil action for actual damages but not less than liquidated damages ($1,000 per redistribution or $10,000, whichever is higher), punitive damages and fees; technology providers/developers not liable for users' deepfakes. Creates G.S. 1-539.31 granting AI developers immunity from civil liability for a learned professional's use of their product. Sections 1 and 2 would take effect December 1, 2025.","who_is_protected":"Individuals falsely depicted in harmful or exploitative deepfakes; electoral candidates","who_must_comply":"Persons who knowingly create or solicit deepfakes with intent to harm, extort, or influence elections","citation":"H 934, North Carolina General Assembly, 2025-2026 Regular Session","source_url":"https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2025/H934","source_title":"NC North Carolina AI Regulatory Reform Act (Deepfake/NCII Provisions) — official record (www.ncleg.gov)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"North Carolina courts; district attorneys","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Class 1 misdemeanor; civil action for actual damages of not less than $1,000 per redistribution or $10,000 (whichever is higher), plus punitive damages and attorneys' fees"},{"id":"us-quiet-act-hr1027-119","title":"Quashing Unwanted and Interruptive Electronic Telecommunications Act","short_title":"QUIET Act","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Requires any robocall or robotext that uses artificial intelligence to emulate a human to disclose at the start of the call or message that AI is being used. Also doubles the maximum forfeiture penalty and criminal fines under the TCPA for violations involving AI voice or text impersonation.","summary_technical":"Amends the Communications Act of 1934 / TCPA to mandate AI-generated voice disclosure at call onset and to double forfeiture and criminal fine maximums for AI-impersonation TCPA violations.","who_is_protected":"All consumers receiving AI-generated robocalls, including seniors","who_must_comply":"Any person or entity placing AI-generated robocalls in interstate commerce","citation":"H.R.1027, 119th Congress (2025–2026)","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1027","source_title":"H.R.1027 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): QUIET Act","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal Communications Commission (FCC)","penalties":"Doubled TCPA maximum forfeiture; doubled criminal fines for AI impersonation violations"},{"id":"us-quiet-act-s3354-119","title":"Quashing Unwanted and Interruptive Electronic Telecommunications Act","short_title":"QUIET Act (Senate)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Senate companion to H.R.1027; requires AI-generated robocalls to disclose AI use at the start of the call and enhances TCPA penalties for AI voice or text impersonation violations. Directly addresses a primary vector for elder fraud — AI voice robocalls. Bipartisan press materials cited protection of older Americans from scam calls as a key goal.","summary_technical":"Amends Communications Act of 1934 to require AI robocall disclosure and increase forfeiture and criminal penalties for AI-impersonation TCPA violations.","who_is_protected":"All consumers receiving AI-generated robocalls","who_must_comply":"Callers placing AI-voice robocalls in interstate or foreign commerce","citation":"S.3354, 119th Congress (2025–2026)","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/3354","source_title":"S.3354 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): QUIET Act","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"Federal Communications Commission (FCC)","penalties":"Enhanced TCPA forfeiture and criminal penalties for AI impersonation"},{"id":"us-preventing-deepfake-scams-hr1734-119","title":"Preventing Deep Fake Scams Act","short_title":"Preventing Deep Fake Scams Act (House)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","deepfakes"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Would create a federal Task Force on Artificial Intelligence in the Financial Services Sector, chaired by the Treasury Secretary and including the Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC, CFPB, NCUA and FinCEN, to study how AI, including deepfakes and voice cloning, is used to commit fraud against financial accounts and to report findings and recommendations to Congress within one year of enactment. It is a study bill: it creates no new penalties or right to sue.","summary_technical":"H.R.1734 (119th) Sec. 3 establishes the Task Force on Artificial Intelligence in the Financial Services Sector, chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury with representatives of the Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC, CFPB, NCUA and FinCEN, to report to Congress within one year of enactment on AI protections, terminology, deepfake/voice-cloning fraud risks and regulatory recommendations. No enforcement, penalty or private-action provisions.","who_is_protected":"All financial consumers, particularly seniors and vulnerable adults targeted by AI-enabled scams","who_must_comply":"Federal financial regulators and financial institutions (through resulting recommendations/legislation)","citation":"H.R.1734, 119th Congress (2025–2026)","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1734","source_title":"H.R.1734 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Preventing Deep Fake Scams Act","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Advisory/reporting only; no direct enforcement mechanism in this bill","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"us-preventing-deepfake-scams-s2117-119","title":"Preventing Deep Fake Scams Act","short_title":"Preventing Deep Fake Scams Act (Senate)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","deepfakes"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Senate companion to H.R.1734; establishes the Task Force on Artificial Intelligence in the Financial Services Sector to study AI-enabled financial scams — including deepfakes and voice-cloning grandparent scams — and to produce congressional recommendations within one year. FBI data cited by sponsors shows 201,266 complaints from Americans 60+ in 2025 with $7.748 billion in losses. Seniors are not specifically enumerated in the bill text but are the primary demographic motivating the legislation.","summary_technical":"Directs a joint federal task force to assess AI deepfake fraud risks in financial services and produce a report with consumer-protection recommendations within one year of enactment.","who_is_protected":"All financial consumers; seniors are the primary motivating demographic","who_must_comply":"Federal financial regulators (advisory/reporting bill only)","citation":"S.2117, 119th Congress (2025–2026)","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2117","source_title":"S.2117 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Preventing Deep Fake Scams Act","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"Advisory/reporting only; no direct enforcement mechanism in this bill","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil and criminal penalties under amended fraud statutes (specifics via implementing regulations)"},{"id":"us-no-fakes-act-s1367-119","title":"Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act of 2025","short_title":"NO FAKES Act of 2025","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","deepfakes","privacy"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Creates the first federal individual right against unauthorized AI-generated digital replicas of a person's image, likeness, or voice. Provides a right to subpoena online platforms for data about unauthorized deepfakes and establishes a DMCA-style notice-and-takedown procedure. Seniors and others whose voices are cloned without consent for use in grandparent or impersonation scams would have a direct cause of action against the parties responsible.","summary_technical":"Establishes a federal right of publicity against unauthorized AI voice/likeness replicas; creates notice-and-takedown procedures and subpoena authority against hosting platforms for digital replica violations.","who_is_protected":"All individuals whose voice or likeness is replicated without authorization, including fraud victims of AI voice-cloning scams","who_must_comply":"Platforms hosting AI-generated digital replicas; parties producing unauthorized replicas","citation":"S.1367, 119th Congress (2025–2026)","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1367","source_title":"S.1367 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): NO FAKES Act of 2025","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"Private right of action; potential FTC enforcement","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Imprisonment; fines; forfeiture of proceeds (specific amounts in bill text per press release, not confirmed by author)"},{"id":"us-ai-scam-prevention-s3495-119","title":"Artificial Intelligence Scam Prevention Act","short_title":"AI Scam Prevention Act","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","deepfakes","privacy"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Prohibits using artificial intelligence to impersonate any person — family member, government official, or business — with intent to defraud. Codifies and expands the FTC's existing rule against impersonating government or business officials and updates definitions to include text messages, video conference calls, and AI-generated or prerecorded voice. Sen. Klobuchar's press release explicitly cited grandparent scams where criminals clone a grandchild's voice to defraud elderly relatives as a primary motivation.","summary_technical":"Amends federal fraud statutes to prohibit AI-assisted impersonation of any person with fraudulent intent; updates FTC impersonation rule definitions; establishes an interagency advisory committee on scam prevention enforcement.","who_is_protected":"All consumers, with Klobuchar press materials explicitly identifying seniors as primary intended beneficiaries","who_must_comply":"Any person using AI to impersonate another for fraudulent purposes","citation":"S.3495, 119th Congress (2025–2026)","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/3495","source_title":"S.3495 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Artificial Intelligence Scam Prevention Act","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"FTC; interagency advisory committee on scam prevention","penalties":"Imprisonment; fines; forfeiture of proceeds (see bill text for specific maxima)"},{"id":"us-ai-fraud-accountability-s3982-119","title":"AI Fraud Accountability Act of 2026","short_title":"AI Fraud Accountability Act","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","deepfakes","privacy"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to create a new criminal offense for using a realistic digital impersonation in interstate or foreign communications with intent to defraud a person of money or things of value. Establishes extraterritorial jurisdiction — critical because many AI scam operations targeting American seniors originate overseas. Empowers the FTC with civil enforcement authority and directs NIST to develop best practices. Explicitly endorsed by AARP and the 60 Plus Association because of the devastating toll on seniors.","summary_technical":"Amends Communications Act to criminalize digital impersonation fraud; grants FTC civil enforcement authority; provides extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction; directs NIST/DOJ/FTC working group on best practices.","who_is_protected":"All consumers defrauded via digital impersonation; AARP and 60 Plus Association endorsement targets senior victims","who_must_comply":"Any person using digital impersonation in interstate or foreign communications to defraud","citation":"S.3982, 119th Congress (2025–2026)","source_url":"https://www.bluntrochester.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-senators-blunt-rochester-and-sheehy-introduce-ai-fraud-accountability-act/","source_title":"NEWS: Senators Blunt Rochester and Sheehy Introduce AI Fraud Accountability Act","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"FTC (civil); DOJ (criminal)","penalties":"Mail/wire fraud: up to $1–2 million fines; up to 20–30 years imprisonment when AI tools used in commission"},{"id":"us-ai-fraud-accountability-hr7786-119","title":"AI Fraud Accountability Act","short_title":"AI Fraud Accountability Act (House)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","deepfakes","privacy"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"House companion to S.3982; criminalizes the use of realistic digital impersonation tools in interstate or foreign communications with fraudulent intent. Includes extraterritorial jurisdiction to reach foreign-based AI scam operations that frequently target American seniors. Buchanan's press release explicitly stated that the bill responds to 'a disturbing rise in AI-generated voice clones' used to defraud families including older adults.","summary_technical":"Amends Communications Act of 1934 § 223 (new subsection (i)) to criminalize using digital impersonations (AI- or computer-generated depictions indistinguishable from an authentic one) to commit fraud in interstate or foreign communications, punishable by fine under title 18, up to 3 years' imprisonment, or both, with extraterritorial jurisdiction; separately makes digital-impersonation fraud in commerce an FTC-enforced unfair or deceptive practice; directs NIST to convene a working group (including the FTC) on detecting and tracing digital impersonations; directs FTC cooperation with foreign law enforcement.","who_is_protected":"All consumers; press materials specifically cite seniors and elderly targeted by AI voice clone scams","who_must_comply":"Any person or entity using digital impersonation in communications with fraudulent intent","citation":"H.R.7786, 119th Congress (2025–2026)","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7786","source_title":"H.R.7786 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): AI Fraud Accountability Act","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"FTC (civil); DOJ (criminal)","penalties":"Criminal: fine under title 18, imprisonment up to 3 years, or both (new 47 U.S.C. 223(i)); civil: FTC enforcement as an unfair or deceptive act or practice"},{"id":"us-ai-fraud-deterrence-hr6306-119","title":"AI Fraud Deterrence Act","short_title":"AI Fraud Deterrence Act","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","deepfakes"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Would raise the maximum penalties for federal mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud and money laundering when AI tools are used to commit them - fines of $1 million to $2 million and prison terms of 20 to 30 years - and would make using AI to impersonate a federal official punishable by up to $1 million and 3 years. The bill's findings cite AI voice impersonation of White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Rep. Lieu's press release also highlighted scammers using AI voice cloning against seniors.","summary_technical":"Amends 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343, 1344, 1346, 1956 and 912 to add enhanced maximum penalties for offenses committed with the assistance of AI: mail and wire fraud up to $1,000,000 / 20 years (and raises the existing financial-institution fine cap from $1M to $2M); bank fraud up to $2,000,000 / 30 years; money laundering up to $1,000,000 or three times the value involved / 20 years; impersonating a federal officer or employee with AI up to $1,000,000 / 3 years, with a rule of construction protecting clearly disclosed satire and parody. AI defined by reference to section 5002 of the National AI Initiative Act of 2020.","who_is_protected":"All fraud victims; Lieu press materials explicitly identify seniors targeted by AI voice-cloning as intended beneficiaries","who_must_comply":"Any person using AI tools to commit covered federal fraud offenses","citation":"H.R.6306, 119th Congress (2025–2026)","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/6306","source_title":"H.R.6306 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): AI Fraud Deterrence Act","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"DOJ / U.S. Attorneys","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"AI-assisted mail or wire fraud: up to $1,000,000 fine / 20 years; AI-assisted bank fraud: up to $2,000,000 / 30 years; AI-assisted money laundering: up to $1,000,000 or three times the funds involved / 20 years; AI impersonation of a federal official: up to $1,000,000 / 3 years"},{"id":"ny-ai-professional-impersonation-s7263a-2025","title":"An Act to Amend the General Business Law, in Relation to Imposing Liability for Damages Caused by a Chatbot Impersonating Certain Licensed Professionals","short_title":"NY AI Professional Impersonation Liability Bill","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"This pending New York bill would make AI-chatbot operators legally responsible if their chatbot impersonates a licensed professional — like a doctor, lawyer, or nurse — in a way that would be illegal if a person did it. The state Attorney General could sue violators for up to $15,000 per day, and operators would have to clearly tell users they are talking to an AI chatbot. After advancing on the Senate floor it was sent back to the Rules Committee in June 2026.","summary_technical":"Adds N.Y. General Business Law § 390-f: prohibits a chatbot operator from knowingly permitting its chatbot to impersonate an actual or fictitious practitioner of a covered profession (licensure governed by Education Law arts. 131–163 or Judiciary Law art. 15) in a manner that, if done by a person, would be unauthorized practice; requires conspicuous AI-chatbot notice; enforced by the NY Attorney General with civil penalties up to $15,000/day plus injunctive relief; AG to maintain a complaint website. Liability cannot be waived by disclaimer; safe harbor where a user intentionally circumvents safeguards. Effective 90 days after enactment.","who_is_protected":"All New York consumers interacting with AI chatbots, including those seeking medical or legal guidance","who_must_comply":"Operators of AI chatbot systems deployed to New York users (excludes third-party developers that merely license the technology)","citation":"S.7263-A, 2025–2026 New York Legislature; adds GBL § 390-f","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S7263/amendment/A","source_title":"NY State Senate Bill 2025-S7263A","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New York Attorney General (civil penalties up to $15,000/day; injunctive relief)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"AG civil penalties up to $15,000 per day per violation; injunctive relief"},{"id":"tucson-dc-standards-proposed","title":"Tucson UDC Amendment: Large-Scale Data Center Zoning Regulations (adopted August 5, 2026)","short_title":"Tucson Data Center UDC Standards (adopted 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Tucson, AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Pima","city":"Tucson","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-05","enacted_date":"2026-08-05","last_verified_date":"2026-08-09","summary_plain":"Tucson's City Council voted 6-1 on August 5, 2026 to adopt citywide zoning rules for large data centers. Projects over 25,000 square feet or 20 megawatts must obtain Planned Area Development zoning, allowing the Mayor and Council to review each project, and must meet setback, noise, habitat, and grid-protection standards. The ordinance makes Tucson one of the first Arizona cities to establish permanent data center siting regulations.","summary_technical":"Unified Development Code text amendment adopted August 5, 2026 (6-1 vote). Requires Planned Area Development (PAD) or Planned Community Development (PCD) zoning for data centers >25,000 sq ft or >20 MW demand; residential setback requirements; property-line noise limits; sound walls; battery-first backup power; and habitat preservation standards. City of Tucson Mayor and Council retain review authority over each qualifying data center project.","who_is_protected":"Tucson residents and neighborhoods near proposed large data center sites","who_must_comply":"Developers and operators of large-scale data centers in Tucson","citation":"City of Tucson, UDC Text Amendment (adopted August 5, 2026, 6-1 vote)","source_url":"https://www.tucsonaz.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Planning-Initiatives/Data-Centers-Unified-Development-Code-Amendment","source_title":"Large-Scale Data Center Zoning Regulations — City of Tucson Planning Initiatives (adopted Aug. 5, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Tucson Planning and Development Services; Mayor and Council"},{"id":"indianapolis-su47-dc-district-proposed","title":"Indianapolis-Marion County SU-47 Data Center Special Use District Ordinance (draft)","short_title":"Indianapolis SU-47 District (draft)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Indianapolis, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Marion","city":"Indianapolis","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"Indianapolis is writing a new rule book for data centers: a draft ordinance would create a special zoning district (SU-47) just for data centers, forcing every project through a rezoning with public hearings, a 65-decibel property-line noise cap, 200-foot separation from residential districts, and required water-management and decommissioning plans.","summary_technical":"Draft general ordinance creating an SU-47 special-use district with a 65 dB property-line noise cap, 200-ft separation from protected districts, generator-testing limits, utility will-serve letters, and required water, operations, noise, and decommissioning plans.","who_is_protected":"Marion County residents near proposed data center sites","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators in Indianapolis-Marion County","citation":"Indianapolis-Marion County, draft SU-47 ordinance (pending, 2026)","source_url":"https://mirrorindy.org/indianapolis-data-centers-regulations-moratorium/","source_title":"Indianapolis plans to regulate data centers. Here's how. — Mirror Indy","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"Metropolitan Development Commission / Department of Metropolitan Development"},{"id":"nashville-dc-moratorium-proposed","title":"Metro Nashville Data Center Moratorium — Enacted July 21, 2026","short_title":"Nashville Data Center Moratorium (effective through Dec 1, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Nashville, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Davidson","city":"Nashville","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-21","enacted_date":"2026-07-21","expires_date":"2026-12-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"Nashville's Metro Council enacted a temporary countywide freeze on new data center permits on July 21, 2026, pausing acceptance and processing of zoning, building, and grading approvals through December 1, 2026, while permanent data center zoning rules are finalized. The moratorium was driven by a proposed data center adjacent to the Nashville Zoo and the largest public-comment turnout in Metro Council history (200+ speakers over a marathon overnight session in July). The Metro Council also advanced Mayor Freddie O'Connell's eminent-domain legislation to acquire the Zoo-adjacent parcel targeted by DC Blox.","summary_technical":"Ordinance adopted unanimously July 21, 2026, imposing a countywide moratorium on acceptance, processing, and approval of zoning/building/grading permits for data centers through December 1, 2026 or the effective date of permanent data center zoning legislation, whichever is sooner. Companion permanent bill enacted same night: see nashville-dc-zoning-permanent-2026. Mayor O'Connell's eminent-domain bill to acquire Zoo-adjacent DC Blox parcel also advanced.","who_is_protected":"Davidson County residents near proposed data center sites","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking new Metro Nashville permits or approvals through December 1, 2026","citation":"Metro Nashville-Davidson County, ordinance adopted July 21, 2026 (data center moratorium, effective through Dec 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://nashvillebanner.com/2026/07/21/nashville-data-center-regulations-moratorium/","source_title":"Nashville passes data center zoning and permit moratorium — Nashville Banner","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Metro Nashville Planning Department / Codes Administration"},{"id":"mclean-county-il-dc-zoning-proposed","title":"McLean County, IL Zoning Text Amendment Adding Data Center Requirements","short_title":"McLean County Data Center Rules","level":"county","jurisdiction":"McLean County, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"McLean","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-11","enacted_date":"2026-06-11","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"McLean County, Illinois — home to large planned data center campuses near Bloomington-Normal — adopted stricter zoning rules for data centers on June 11, 2026. Facility owners must identify and address impacts to roads, emergency services, and utilities; document planned water use, sources, groundwater effects, and wastewater handling; monitor and document electricity consumption; provide specialized training or equipment for the local fire protection district; and file a decommissioning plan with costs for restoring the site when the data center closes.","summary_technical":"Zoning ordinance text amendment (adopted June 11, 2026, consent agenda) adding approval requirements for data center developments in unincorporated McLean County: infrastructure/public-services impact identification and mitigation, water-use and wastewater documentation including groundwater impacts, electricity consumption monitoring, fire-district training/equipment provision, and decommissioning plans. Officials called it among the strongest data-center regulation sets in Central Illinois; stops short of the six-month moratoriums adopted by Bloomington and Normal.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated McLean County near data center sites","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking county zoning approval","citation":"McLean County, Ill., zoning text amendment (adopted June 11, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wglt.org/local-news/2026-06-11/mclean-county-board-approves-restrictive-data-center-zoning-requirements","source_title":"McLean County Board approves restrictive data center zoning requirements — WGLT","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"McLean County Department of Building and Zoning"},{"id":"south-strabane-pa-dc-ordinance-proposed","title":"South Strabane Township, PA Data Center Ordinance","short_title":"South Strabane Data Center Ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"South Strabane Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Washington","city":"South Strabane","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-10","enacted_date":"2026-06-10","last_verified_date":"2026-06-15","summary_plain":"South Strabane Township (Washington County, Pennsylvania) adopted an ordinance on June 10, 2026 setting where and how data centers can be built — including a 1,500-foot buffer from any occupied home, a 30-acre minimum lot size, and height limits. The board passed it unanimously after a standing-room-only public hearing, along with a companion noise and dust ordinance.","summary_technical":"Township data center ordinance adopted unanimously June 10, 2026: requires a 1,500-foot setback from occupied residential structures, a 30-acre minimum lot size, and height restrictions, among other development standards; a companion noise/dust ordinance was adopted the same night.","who_is_protected":"South Strabane Township residents, especially those near potential data center sites","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in South Strabane Township","citation":"South Strabane Twp., Pa., data center ordinance (adopted June 10, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.observer-reporter.com/news/local-news/2026/jun/11/south-strabane-adopts-data-center-noise-ordinances/","source_title":"South Strabane adopts data center, noise ordinances — Observer-Reporter","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"South Strabane Township (zoning/code enforcement)"},{"id":"knox-county-tn-dc-district-proposed","title":"Knox County, TN Proposed Data Centers Zoning District + Moratorium Resolution","short_title":"Knox County Data Center District (pending)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Knox County, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Knox","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-09-15","summary_plain":"Knox County commissioners are drafting a new zoning category just for data centers, requiring conditional-use approval for facilities over 10 megawatts or using more than 20,000 gallons of water a day. A companion resolution would freeze new data center permits countywide until June 30, 2027 while the rules are written.","summary_technical":"Proposed amendment to Knox County Code adding a Data Centers Zoning District (conditional use for >10 MW, aggregated-capacity anti-circumvention rules, 20,000 GPD water threshold, TDEC-approved wastewater cooling), plus a draft moratorium resolution through June 30, 2027 for facilities ≥5 MW.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Knox County, particularly rural communities","who_must_comply":"Data center and crypto-mining developers in unincorporated Knox County","citation":"Knox County, Tenn., proposed Data Centers Zoning District + moratorium resolution (pending, June 2026)","source_url":"https://commission.knoxcountytn.gov/forums/topic/data-center-zoning-ordinance-amendments/","source_title":"Data Center Zoning Ordinance Amendments — Knox County Commission","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"Knoxville-Knox County Planning Commission; Knox County permitting"},{"id":"franklin-county-va-zoning-rewrite-proposed","title":"Franklin County, VA Draft Zoning Rewrite with Data Center Siting, Noise, and Water Restrictions","short_title":"Franklin County Zoning Rewrite (paused)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Franklin County, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Franklin","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-11","summary_plain":"Franklin County, Virginia is rewriting its zoning ordinance for the first time since 1988, and data centers are the flashpoint. The draft would bar future data centers from using private wells, set noise limits on cooling fans, and require sites with existing substations or transmission lines. After heavy public criticism, supervisors paused the rewrite to gather more feedback.","summary_technical":"Draft comprehensive zoning rewrite with data center provisions: private-well prohibition, cooling-fan noise standards, siting limited to parcels with existing substations/transmission; paused by the Board of Supervisors May 2026 pending revisions.","who_is_protected":"Franklin County residents, particularly rural property owners","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Franklin County","citation":"Franklin County, Va., draft zoning rewrite (paused May 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wdbj7.com/2026/05/26/franklin-county-residents-seek-restrictions-data-center-development/","source_title":"Franklin County residents seek restrictions on data center development — WDBJ7","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"Franklin County Planning and Community Development"},{"id":"dekalb-county-ga-dc-regs-proposed","title":"DeKalb County, GA Proposed Data Center Regulations + Moratorium Extension","short_title":"DeKalb County Data Center Regulations (pending)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"DeKalb County, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"DeKalb","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"DeKalb County, Georgia has frozen new data center applications while it writes permanent zoning rules for the industry. On June 9, 2026, commissioners voted 5-2 to extend the freeze through September 30, 2026, giving leaders ~100 more days to review proposed rules on noise, location, design, infrastructure strain, and environmental impact. Residents have raised health, noise, and utility-cost concerns at hearings.","summary_technical":"Pending county zoning text amendments establishing data center regulations, with an application moratorium (extended from Dec. 2025, then June 2026) now running through Sept. 30, 2026 per the 5-2 BOC vote of June 9, 2026; the draft resolution's Aug. 12 end date was amended to Sept. 30 on the floor.","who_is_protected":"DeKalb County residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in unincorporated DeKalb County","citation":"DeKalb County, Ga., proposed data center regulations + moratorium extension (June 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wabe.org/dekalb-extends-data-center-moratorium-defers-regulations/","source_title":"DeKalb extends data center moratorium, defers regulations — WABE","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"DeKalb County Department of Planning and Sustainability"},{"id":"chicago-ai-programs-ordinance-proposed","title":"Chicago Ordinance O2024-0008864: City AI Programs Guidelines (pending in committee)","short_title":"Chicago City AI Ordinance (stalled)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chicago, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Cook","city":"Chicago","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-08-10","summary_plain":"A pending Chicago ordinance would set citywide guidelines for how city government adopts AI tools in areas like traffic analysis, public safety, and waste management, create a pilot program, and require semi-annual public reports on the city's AI use. It has sat in committee since April 2024 without a vote.","summary_technical":"Amendment to Municipal Code ch. 2-68 adding an Article II placing AI programs under the CIO/Department of Technology and Innovation, with legal-compliance requirements, a pilot program, and semi-annual public reporting.","who_is_protected":"Chicago residents interacting with city services that use AI","who_must_comply":"City of Chicago departments deploying AI programs","citation":"Chicago, Ill., Ordinance O2024-0008864 (pending in committee)","source_url":"https://chicago.councilmatic.org/legislation/o2024-0008864/","source_title":"Ordinance O2024-0008864 — Chicago Councilmatic (City Clerk record mirror)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Department of Technology and Innovation / CIO (as proposed)"},{"id":"nyc-int-0919-ai-oversight-proposed","title":"NYC Int 0919-2026: Office of Artificial Intelligence Oversight (pending)","short_title":"NYC AI Oversight Office Bill","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York City, NY","state_abbr":"NY","city":"New York","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-08-10","summary_plain":"A pending New York City Council bill would write an office of artificial intelligence oversight into the City Charter and Administrative Code, building on the city's 2025 GUARD Act package on algorithmic accountability for city agencies. Awaiting committee action.","summary_technical":"Local law amending the NYC Charter and Administrative Code to establish an office of artificial intelligence oversight; referred to the Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection (2026 session).","who_is_protected":"NYC residents affected by city agencies' AI and automated decision systems","who_must_comply":"New York City agencies using AI systems","citation":"N.Y.C. Council Int. No. 0919-2026 (pending)","source_url":"https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8034442&GUID=669B5731-411B-40A9-99F2-6AD05E945AE8","source_title":"NYC Council File Int 0919-2026 (Legistar)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"Proposed office of artificial intelligence oversight"},{"id":"spokane-wa-dc-moratorium-proposed","title":"Spokane, WA — One-Year Citywide Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Spokane Data Center Moratorium (1 year)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Spokane, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"Spokane","city":"Spokane","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-22","enacted_date":"2026-06-22","expires_date":"2027-06-22","last_verified_date":"2026-08-10","summary_plain":"Spokane City Council voted 6-1 on June 22, 2026 to impose an immediate one-year citywide moratorium on building permit applications for new computer data centers. The ordinance was amended before passage to focus on data-center activity rather than building type, closing a loophole that might have allowed data centers in mixed-use facilities. The moratorium gives the city one year to develop a permanent regulatory framework for energy, water, and noise impacts. Sole dissent: Council Member Michael Cathcart, who argued the ban could inadvertently block a planned aerospace research center.","summary_technical":"Emergency ordinance imposing an immediate one-year citywide moratorium on the acceptance, processing, review, and approval of building permit applications for new computer data centers in Spokane. Ordinance amended to define the restriction based on end use (data-center activity) rather than physical facility or building type, preventing a loophole. Term: one year from June 22, 2026; expires approximately June 22, 2027. Vote: 6-1.","who_is_protected":"Spokane residents and Avista utility ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking building permits in Spokane","citation":"City of Spokane, one-year citywide data center moratorium ordinance (adopted June 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jun/22/spokane-city-council-approves-yearlong-moratorium-/","source_title":"Spokane City Council approves yearlong moratorium on new large data centers — The Spokesman-Review","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Spokane (planning and permitting)","penalties":"Building permit denial during moratorium period"},{"id":"imperial-county-ca-dc-urgency-moratorium-proposed","title":"Imperial County, CA Urgency Interim Moratorium on Data Centers — Adopted June 16, 2026","short_title":"Imperial County Data Center Moratorium (45-day, adopted June 16, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Imperial County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Imperial","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"repealed","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-16","enacted_date":"2026-06-16","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Imperial County, California's Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on June 16, 2026 to pause new data center development in unincorporated areas for at least 45 days, with the option to extend for up to roughly 11 months. The board simultaneously created a new advisory committee tasked with recommending permanent zoning rules by January 2027. The action came after months of community opposition over energy and water consumption concerns from data center proposals in the desert region.","summary_technical":"Urgency interim ordinance (Cal. Gov. Code § 65858), adopted unanimously June 16, 2026 by the Imperial County Board of Supervisors; pauses data center use permits, variances, building permits, and business licenses in unincorporated Imperial County for an initial 45-day term, extendable for 10 months and 15 days. Companion resolution establishes a Data Center Advisory Committee with policy/zoning recommendations due January 2027.","who_is_protected":"Imperial County residents, ratepayers, and the Imperial Valley desert ecosystem","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking county-level approvals in unincorporated Imperial County","citation":"Imperial County, Cal., urgency interim ordinance (adopted June 16, 2026)","source_url":"https://inewsource.org/2026/06/16/imperial-county-approves-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Data center race officially on pause in Imperial County — inewsource.org","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Imperial County Board of Supervisors / Planning & Development Services"},{"id":"summit-nj-ai-dc-prohibited-use-proposed","title":"Summit, NJ Common Council — Proposed Ordinance Categorically Banning AI Data Center Facilities as a Prohibited Land Use (Code Ch. 35 Amendment)","short_title":"Summit NJ AI Data Center Ban (proposed)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Summit, NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","county":"Union","city":"Summit","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-06","enacted_date":"2026-06-16","last_verified_date":"2026-07-07","summary_plain":"Summit, New Jersey's Common Council adopted Ordinance 26-3390 on June 16, 2026, categorically banning large AI data center facilities — those with 20 megawatts or more of peak power — as a prohibited land use in every zone of the city. The ban amends Chapter 35 of the city code and is one of the first U.S. examples of a permanent (non-moratorium) categorical zoning prohibition on AI data centers. Some residents and one council member argued the 20 MW threshold is too lax; the council directed staff to prepare a revised version (potentially without the threshold) for introduction July 7, 2026.","summary_technical":"Adopted amendment to Summit Code Ch. 35 'Prohibited Uses' (Ordinance 26-3390, adopted June 16, 2026) adding AI data center facilities (≥20 MW peak power) as a citywide categorically prohibited use. Passed by majority vote, lone dissent Council Member Jamel Boyer. Per N.J. practice, a municipal ordinance takes effect ~20 days after adoption/publication (≈July 6, 2026). Council directed staff to incorporate modifications — including possible removal of the 20 MW automatic-classification threshold — into a revised ordinance slated for introduction July 7, 2026. Distinct in design from moratorium-style pauses — this is a permanent zoning prohibition, not a time-limited study pause.","who_is_protected":"Summit residents and surrounding Union County communities","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking land-use approvals in Summit","citation":"City of Summit, N.J., Ordinance 26-3390 amending Code Ch. 35 'Prohibited Uses' (adopted June 16, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.cityofsummit.org/m/newsflash/home/detail/2674","source_title":"June 16 Council Meeting Highlights — City of Summit, NJ (official)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Summit Common Council / Department of Community Services (Zoning)"},{"id":"calipatria-ca-dc-moratorium-proposed","title":"Calipatria, CA City Council — Introduced Five-Year Data Center Moratorium (Ord. No. 26)","short_title":"Calipatria CA Data Center Moratorium (introduced)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Calipatria, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Imperial","city":"Calipatria","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Calipatria, California's City Council voted 4-0 on May 12, 2026 (one absent) to introduce a temporary five-year moratorium on new and expanded large-scale data centers, intended to give the city time to study impacts and update zoning. Mayor Maria Luellen acknowledged the five-year framing exceeds California's CEQA one-year cap, so the practical effect is a one-year pause with potential six-month renewals. The public hearing date will be set once city staff finalizes ordinance language.","summary_technical":"Calipatria Ordinance No. 26, introduced 4-0 on May 12, 2026 (Amezcua absent): five-year moratorium framing on approval, permitting, construction, or expansion of large-scale data centers. Practical effect is bounded by Cal. Gov. Code § 65858 (initial term ≤ one year, with up to one or two six-month extensions). Public hearing pending. Part of Imperial Valley regional response (City of Imperial Ord. 834 adopted June 3; Imperial County BoS urgency vote scheduled June 16).","who_is_protected":"Calipatria residents and Imperial Valley desert ecosystem","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in the City of Calipatria","citation":"City of Calipatria, Cal., Ordinance No. 26 (introduced May 12, 2026; five-year framing, CEQA-bounded)","source_url":"https://calexicochronicle.com/2026/05/13/calipatria-council-introduces-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Calipatria Council Introduces Data Center Moratorium — Calexico Chronicle","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"City of Calipatria City Council / Planning Department"},{"id":"wausau-wi-dc-zoning-proposed","title":"Wausau, WI — Proposed Citywide Data Center Zoning Definition + Permit-Application Requirements (Plan Commission Hearing)","short_title":"Wausau WI Data Center Zoning (proposed)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Wausau, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Marathon","city":"Wausau","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Wausau, Wisconsin's Plan Commission held its first public hearing June 16, 2026 on proactive zoning rules for data centers. The proposed amendment would define what counts as a data center and require any future applicant to disclose water use, wastewater, energy demand, and noise levels before the city would consider the project. There is no specific data center proposed in Wausau today — the city is preparing rules before one arrives.","summary_technical":"Wausau city-staff-initiated zoning text amendment: adds a 'data center' definition to the municipal code and conditions any future data center application on submission of water, wastewater, energy-demand, and sound information for city evaluation of utility capacity and conservation/resource-protection alignment. Plan Commission public hearing June 16, 2026; Council vote date not yet set. Pre-applicant proactive zoning.","who_is_protected":"Wausau residents, ratepayers, and the Wisconsin River watershed","who_must_comply":"Any future data center applicant in the City of Wausau","citation":"City of Wausau, Wis., proposed data center zoning text amendment (Plan Commission hearing June 16, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wsaw.com/2026/06/16/wausau-plan-commission-consider-zoning-rules-data-centers-tuesday-meeting/","source_title":"Wausau Plan Commission to consider zoning rules for data centers — WSAW","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"proposed-pending","enforcement_agency":"City of Wausau Plan Commission / Common Council / Zoning"},{"id":"us-faa-part-107-suas","title":"FAA Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Rule (14 CFR Part 107)","short_title":"FAA Part 107 (drones)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["consumer-protection","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2016-08-29","enacted_date":"2016-06-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The core federal rulebook for commercial and recreational small drones (under 55 lb). Operators need a Remote Pilot Certificate, must keep the drone within visual line of sight, fly below 400 ft, avoid most airspace without authorization, and follow operations-over-people limits. Waivers and Beyond-Visual-Line-of-Sight (BVLOS) approvals exist for advanced operators.","summary_technical":"14 C.F.R. Part 107 governs civil small-UAS operations; supplements 49 U.S.C. § 44809 (recreational) and Part 89 (Remote ID). Performance categories 1–4 for operations over people; Part 108 BVLOS framework under FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Pub. L. 118-63) in rulemaking.","who_is_protected":"The general public, people overflown, and persons whose privacy or safety could be affected by drone operations","who_must_comply":"Commercial and most recreational small-UAS operators in U.S. airspace","citation":"14 C.F.R. Part 107","source_url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-107","source_title":"14 CFR Part 107 — Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (eCFR)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal Aviation Administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"FAA civil penalties up to ~$32,666 per violation; certificate suspension/revocation; criminal referral for endangerment"},{"id":"us-faa-remote-id-rule","title":"FAA Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Rule (14 CFR Part 89)","short_title":"Drone Remote ID Rule","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["transparency","public-sector","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-09-16","enacted_date":"2021-01-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Most drones flying in U.S. airspace must broadcast a digital 'license plate' — Remote ID — that includes the drone's ID, location, altitude, and the control station's location, so law enforcement and the public can identify drones in the sky.","summary_technical":"14 C.F.R. Part 89 requires Standard Remote ID, Remote ID Broadcast Module retrofit, or operation in an FAA-Recognized Identification Area (FRIA). Enforcement began Sept. 16, 2023 after a six-month discretionary extension from the original March 2023 date.","who_is_protected":"The public, law enforcement, and airspace users seeking accountability for drone operations","who_must_comply":"Operators of UAS required to register under Part 48; drone manufacturers producing UAS for U.S. sale","citation":"14 C.F.R. Part 89; 86 Fed. Reg. 4390 (Jan. 15, 2021)","source_url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-89","source_title":"14 CFR Part 89 — Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft (eCFR)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal Aviation Administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"FAA civil penalties; certificate action"},{"id":"us-faa-reauthorization-2024","title":"FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (drone, AAM, and counter-UAS provisions)","short_title":"FAA Reauthorization Act 2024 (drones)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","law-enforcement","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-05-16","enacted_date":"2024-05-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The five-year FAA reauthorization sets the agenda for U.S. drone integration through 2028: it directs the FAA to finalize a Beyond-Visual-Line-of-Sight rule, expands counter-drone authority for federal and (in pilot programs) state and local agencies, advances Advanced Air Mobility (passenger drones / eVTOLs), and tightens rules on drones produced by countries of concern.","summary_technical":"Pub. L. No. 118-63 §§ 901–966 (UAS Title) and §§ 1101–1107 (AAM Title); directs Part 108 BVLOS rule, microhub operations, counter-UAS pilot program for state/local law enforcement under DHS/DOJ supervision, and study of foreign-adversary drone risks.","who_is_protected":"The public and U.S. airspace users; victims of weaponized or unsafe drone operations","who_must_comply":"FAA (rulemaking duties); drone operators, manufacturers, and counter-UAS users following implementing rules","citation":"Pub. L. No. 118-63","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3935","source_title":"H.R.3935 — FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Congress.gov)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Federal Aviation Administration; Department of Homeland Security; Department of Justice (counter-UAS)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Per implementing rules"},{"id":"us-nhtsa-ads-framework","title":"NHTSA Automated Driving Systems Federal Framework (Standing General Order 2021-01 and ADS guidance)","short_title":"NHTSA AV federal framework","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2021-06-29","enacted_date":"2021-06-29","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"NHTSA's Standing General Order requires automakers and operators of Level 2 driver-assistance and Level 3–5 automated driving systems to report crashes involving those systems. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards regulate vehicle design; NHTSA's voluntary safety guidance (AV 4.0) and the Automated Vehicle Comprehensive Plan provide non-binding policy direction.","summary_technical":"NHTSA Standing General Order 2021-01 (June 29, 2021, amended Apr. 2023) under 49 U.S.C. § 30166(g); FMVSS reform begun via the 2022 occupant-protection rule allowing AVs without manual controls (49 C.F.R. § 571 amendments); AV 4.0 and AV TEST Initiative remain voluntary.","who_is_protected":"The driving and pedestrian public exposed to automated vehicles","who_must_comply":"Manufacturers and operators of Level 2 ADAS and Levels 3–5 ADS vehicles operating on U.S. public roads","citation":"NHTSA Standing General Order 2021-01; 49 U.S.C. § 30166","source_url":"https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting","source_title":"NHTSA Standing General Order on Crash Reporting (NHTSA.gov)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties up to ~$132 million per related series of FMVSS violations; recall authority"},{"id":"us-fda-510k-surgical-robots","title":"FDA Premarket Notification (510(k)) Pathway for Robotically-Assisted Surgical Devices","short_title":"FDA 510(k) — surgical robots","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["healthcare","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"1976-05-28","enacted_date":"1976-05-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Robotically-assisted surgical devices (RASD) — like Intuitive's da Vinci or Stryker's Mako — are FDA-regulated medical devices. Most clear the market through the 510(k) pathway by showing substantial equivalence to a predicate device. The FDA issued a 2019 safety communication and continues to police off-label robotic mastectomy and AI-software updates under its evolving 'Predetermined Change Control Plan' authority.","summary_technical":"21 U.S.C. § 360(k); 21 C.F.R. § 807 subpart E. RASD product codes NAY (Class II). FDA Feb. 28, 2019 safety communication on robotic mastectomy; FDA AI/ML PCCP guidance finalized Dec. 2024 under FDORA § 3308 (21 U.S.C. § 360e-4).","who_is_protected":"Surgical patients and providers using robotically-assisted devices","who_must_comply":"Manufacturers of robotically-assisted surgical and AI-enabled medical devices","citation":"21 U.S.C. § 360(k); 21 C.F.R. Part 807","source_url":"https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/premarket-submissions-selecting-and-preparing-correct-submission/premarket-notification-510k","source_title":"FDA Safety Communication: Robotically-Assisted Surgical Devices (FDA.gov)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"U.S. Food and Drug Administration (CDRH)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Warning letters; civil monetary penalties; injunction; criminal prosecution under FDCA"},{"id":"us-osha-industrial-robot-guidance","title":"OSHA Industrial Robot Safety (29 CFR § 1910.212 and Technical Manual Chapter 4)","short_title":"OSHA industrial robots","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["employment","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"1971-04-28","enacted_date":"1970-12-29","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"OSHA does not have a robot-specific standard, but uses its general machine-guarding rule and the General Duty Clause to require employers to protect workers from industrial robots. Its Technical Manual Chapter 4 incorporates the ANSI/RIA R15.06 robot safety standard as the de facto benchmark for guarding, presence-sensing, and lockout/tagout around robotic cells and collaborative robots ('cobots').","summary_technical":"29 C.F.R. § 1910.212 (general machine guarding); OSH Act § 5(a)(1) general duty clause, 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1); OSHA Technical Manual (OTM) Section IV, Chapter 4 'Industrial Robots and Robot System Safety' incorporates ANSI/RIA R15.06 and ISO 10218-1/-2.","who_is_protected":"Workers operating, maintaining, or working alongside industrial robots and cobots","who_must_comply":"U.S. employers using industrial robots or robotic systems","citation":"29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212","source_url":"https://www.osha.gov/otm/section-4-safety-hazards/chapter-4","source_title":"OSHA Technical Manual Section IV, Chapter 4 — Industrial Robots and Robot System Safety","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Occupational Safety and Health Administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"OSHA civil penalties up to $16,550 per serious violation; up to $165,514 per willful/repeated violation (2025 levels)"},{"id":"us-dod-directive-3000-09","title":"DoD Directive 3000.09 — Autonomy in Weapon Systems","short_title":"DoD Directive 3000.09 (LAWS)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2023-01-25","enacted_date":"2023-01-25","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"The Defense Department's policy on autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons. Updated in January 2023, it requires every autonomous or semi-autonomous weapon system to allow 'appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force,' undergo a multi-phase senior review before development and fielding, and comply with DoD AI ethical principles.","summary_technical":"DoDD 3000.09 (Jan. 25, 2023) supersedes the 2012 directive; establishes the Autonomous Weapon Systems Review Working Group, requires senior-leader review by USD(P), USD(R&E), and CJCS prior to formal development and again before fielding; codifies the 'appropriate levels of human judgment' standard.","who_is_protected":"Civilians and combatants protected under the law of armed conflict; service members held to lawful targeting standards","who_must_comply":"Department of Defense components, military services, and DoD contractors developing or fielding autonomous or semi-autonomous weapon systems","citation":"DoDD 3000.09 (2023)","source_url":"https://www.esd.whs.mil/portals/54/documents/dd/issuances/dodd/300009p.pdf","source_title":"DoD Directive 3000.09 — Autonomy in Weapon Systems (Jan. 25, 2023)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of the Secretary of Defense; Joint Staff; Service Inspectors General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Internal DoD policy: program cancellation; UCMJ accountability for unlawful use of force"},{"id":"nv-ab-511-av-first","title":"Nevada AB 511 — First U.S. State Law Authorizing Autonomous Vehicles","short_title":"NV AB 511 (2011 — first AV statute)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Nevada","state_abbr":"NV","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2011-06-17","enacted_date":"2011-06-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Nevada was the first U.S. state to legalize autonomous vehicles. AB 511 directed the DMV to write rules for testing and operating self-driving cars on Nevada roads, including a special license endorsement and an autonomous-vehicle testing license, and made Nevada the proving ground for the early Google self-driving project.","summary_technical":"2011 Nev. Stat. Ch. 461 (AB 511); codified at NRS Chapter 482A (Autonomous Vehicles) and NAC 482A; defined 'autonomous vehicle' and directed the DMV to adopt testing, licensing, insurance, and safety regulations.","who_is_protected":"Nevada motorists and pedestrians sharing roads with AV testing","who_must_comply":"AV manufacturers, testers, and operators on Nevada public roads","citation":"NRS Ch. 482A (2011 Nev. Stat. Ch. 461)","source_url":"https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Reports/history.cfm?ID=1011","source_title":"Nevada Legislature — AB 511 (76th Session, 2011)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles; Nevada Department of Public Safety","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"License revocation; civil/administrative penalties under NAC 482A"},{"id":"ca-sb-1298-av","title":"California SB 1298 — Autonomous Vehicles (Testing and Deployment)","short_title":"CA SB 1298 (2012 AV authorization)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2013-01-01","enacted_date":"2012-09-25","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"California's foundational autonomous-vehicle statute. SB 1298 directed the DMV to adopt regulations for testing and eventual deployment of AVs on California roads, including an autonomous-vehicle tester permit, insurance and bonding rules, and the framework later used for the Cruise and Waymo robotaxi authorizations.","summary_technical":"Cal. Veh. Code §§ 38750 et seq. (added by SB 1298, Stats. 2012, ch. 570); implementing regulations at 13 CCR §§ 227.00–227.54 (Testing) and §§ 228.00–228.28 (Deployment).","who_is_protected":"California motorists and pedestrians sharing roads with AVs","who_must_comply":"AV manufacturers, testers, and deployment operators on California public roads","citation":"Cal. Veh. Code §§ 38750 et seq.","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1298","source_title":"California Legislative Information: SB 1298 (2011–2012)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Department of Motor Vehicles; California Public Utilities Commission (passenger service)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Permit suspension/revocation; civil penalties; CPUC enforcement for passenger AVs"},{"id":"fl-hb-7027-av","title":"Florida HB 7027 — Autonomous Vehicles (Operation Without Human Operator)","short_title":"FL HB 7027 (2016 driverless AV)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Florida","state_abbr":"FL","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2016-04-04","enacted_date":"2016-04-04","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Florida became one of the first states to allow fully driverless autonomous vehicles on public roads. HB 7027 removed the prior requirement that a licensed driver be present in the vehicle and built on Florida's 2012 AV testing law, paving the way for the 2019 'driverless deployment' law (HB 311) that explicitly authorizes AVs with no human driver.","summary_technical":"Ch. 2016-181, Laws of Fla. (HB 7027); amended Fla. Stat. §§ 316.85, 316.86. HB 311 (Ch. 2019-101) followed to explicitly authorize AVs to operate without a human present and assigned liability to the automated driving system's owner/operator.","who_is_protected":"Florida motorists and pedestrians sharing roads with driverless AVs","who_must_comply":"AV manufacturers and operators on Florida public roads","citation":"Ch. 2016-181, Laws of Fla.; Fla. Stat. §§ 316.85, 316.86","source_url":"https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2016/7027","source_title":"Florida Senate — HB 7027 (2016)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Traffic and motor-vehicle code penalties"},{"id":"mi-hb-5837-savemi","title":"Michigan SAVE Michigan Acts (HB 5821–5824 / HB 5837) — Autonomous Vehicles","short_title":"MI SAVE Acts (2016 AV package)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Michigan","state_abbr":"MI","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection","employment","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2016-12-09","enacted_date":"2016-12-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Michigan's 2016 four-bill 'SAVE' package made the state one of the most comprehensive AV jurisdictions: it legalized fully driverless operation, authorized commercial AV networks (ride-hail with self-driving cars), allowed truck platooning, established the American Center for Mobility, and explicitly limited manufacturer liability when third parties convert vehicles to autonomous operation.","summary_technical":"P.A. 332, 333, 334, 335 of 2016 (HB 4819 / 5821 / 5822 / 5823 / 5837 package), amending Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 257.663, 257.665, 257.665b, 257.817, and adding the Michigan Mobility Research and Innovation Act.","who_is_protected":"Michigan motorists and pedestrians sharing roads with AVs; automakers shielded from third-party conversion liability","who_must_comply":"AV manufacturers, automated-network operators, and commercial AV testers in Michigan","citation":"P.A. 332–335 of 2016","source_url":"https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2016-HB-5821","source_title":"Michigan Legislature — HB 5821 / SAVE Michigan Package (2016)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Michigan Department of State; Michigan Department of Transportation; Michigan State Police","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Traffic and motor-vehicle code penalties; network-operator license actions"},{"id":"tx-sb-2205-av","title":"Texas SB 2205 — Automated Motor Vehicles","short_title":"TX SB 2205 (2017 AV statute)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2017-09-01","enacted_date":"2017-06-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Texas's main autonomous-vehicle law explicitly authorizes AVs to operate on Texas roads without a human driver, defines the 'owner' of an automated driving system as the legal operator for liability and traffic enforcement, and preempts local AV bans. It set the framework that later allowed Waymo, Cruise, and Aurora freight to operate in Texas.","summary_technical":"Tex. Transp. Code Ch. 545, Subch. J (Automated Motor Vehicles), added by SB 2205, 85th Leg., R.S. (2017); preempts local AV-specific regulation; assigns rule-of-the-road compliance to the ADS.","who_is_protected":"Texas motorists and pedestrians sharing roads with AVs","who_must_comply":"Owners and operators of automated driving systems on Texas public roads","citation":"Tex. Transp. Code §§ 545.451–545.456","source_url":"https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=85R&Bill=SB2205","source_title":"Texas Legislature Online — SB 2205 (85R, 2017)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Texas Department of Motor Vehicles; Texas Department of Public Safety","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Traffic and motor-vehicle code penalties; civil liability under common law"},{"id":"az-eo-2018-04-av","title":"Arizona Executive Order 2018-04 — Autonomous Vehicle Operation","short_title":"AZ EO 2018-04 (AV oversight)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arizona","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2018-03-01","enacted_date":"2018-03-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"On March 1, 2018 — 17 days before the fatal Uber self-driving crash in Tempe — Governor Doug Ducey issued EO 2018-04 to update his permissive 2015 AV order and advance Arizona's position as a national leader for autonomous vehicle development. The order requires AV operators to certify compliance with federal and state law before operating in Arizona and to file safety information with the DOT. After the Uber crash on March 18, 2018, Ducey separately suspended Uber's testing privileges by letter rather than by executive order. Arizona's AV regime remains executive-order based, with no comprehensive statute.","summary_technical":"Ariz. Exec. Order No. 2018-04 (Mar. 1, 2018) superseding EO 2015-09; requires self-certification to ADOT; statutory basis later added by SB 1297 (2021) (Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-9701–28-9703).","who_is_protected":"Arizona motorists and pedestrians sharing roads with AVs","who_must_comply":"AV testers and operators on Arizona public roads","citation":"Ariz. Exec. Order No. 2018-04","source_url":"https://azgovernor.gov/sites/default/files/related-docs/eo2018-04.pdf","source_title":"Arizona Executive Order 2018-04 (azgovernor.gov)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Arizona Department of Transportation; Office of the Governor","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Order suspension/withdrawal; civil and criminal liability"},{"id":"ga-sb-219-av","title":"Georgia SB 219 — Autonomous Vehicles (Driverless Operation)","short_title":"GA SB 219 (2017 AV statute)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Georgia","state_abbr":"GA","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2017-07-01","enacted_date":"2017-05-08","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Georgia legalized fully driverless autonomous vehicles statewide, required AVs to be registered, insured ($250,000 minimum for fully autonomous vehicles), and capable of complying with traffic laws. The statute preempts local AV-specific ordinances.","summary_technical":"O.C.G.A. §§ 40-1-1, 40-2-86.1, 40-5-21, 40-6-279, added/amended by SB 219, 2017 Ga. Laws Act 245.","who_is_protected":"Georgia motorists and pedestrians sharing roads with AVs","who_must_comply":"Owners and operators of fully autonomous vehicles on Georgia public roads","citation":"2017 Ga. Laws Act 245","source_url":"https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/50027","source_title":"Georgia General Assembly — SB 219 (2017–2018)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Georgia Department of Driver Services; Georgia Department of Public Safety","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Traffic and registration penalties; civil liability"},{"id":"tn-sb-151-av","title":"Tennessee SB 151 — Automated Vehicles Act","short_title":"TN SB 151 (2017 AV Act)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Tennessee","state_abbr":"TN","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2017-07-01","enacted_date":"2017-05-25","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Tennessee's Automated Vehicles Act authorized fully driverless operation on Tennessee roads, set minimum-insurance requirements for AV networks ($5 million coverage), explicitly preempted local AV-specific regulation, and treated the automated driving system as the legal operator for traffic-law purposes.","summary_technical":"Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 55-30-101 et seq. (Automated Driving Systems), added by SB 151 / HB 381, 2017 Pub. Acts Ch. 474.","who_is_protected":"Tennessee motorists and pedestrians sharing roads with AVs","who_must_comply":"AV manufacturers, automated-network operators, and owners of automated driving systems","citation":"2017 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 474; Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 55-30-101 et seq.","source_url":"https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB0151&ga=110","source_title":"Tennessee General Assembly — SB 151 (110th GA)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security; Tennessee Department of Revenue (registration)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Traffic and motor-vehicle code penalties"},{"id":"nc-hb-469-av","title":"North Carolina HB 469 — Regulation of Fully Autonomous Vehicles","short_title":"NC HB 469 (2017 AV statute)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"North Carolina","state_abbr":"NC","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2017-12-01","enacted_date":"2017-07-20","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"North Carolina legalized fully autonomous vehicles, treats the registered owner as the operator for traffic-enforcement purposes, allows AVs to transport unaccompanied minors only with parental consent, and preempts local AV regulation.","summary_technical":"N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 20-400 to 20-403 (Article 18 — Fully Autonomous Vehicles), added by S.L. 2017-166 (HB 469).","who_is_protected":"North Carolina motorists, pedestrians, and minors transported in AVs","who_must_comply":"Owners and operators of fully autonomous vehicles on North Carolina public roads","citation":"S.L. 2017-166; N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 20-400–20-403","source_url":"https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2017/H469","source_title":"North Carolina General Assembly — HB 469 (2017)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles; North Carolina State Highway Patrol","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Traffic and motor-vehicle code penalties"},{"id":"pa-hb-2398-av","title":"Pennsylvania Highly Automated Vehicles Act (Act 130 of 2022, HB 2398)","short_title":"PA Act 130 of 2022 (HAVs)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pennsylvania","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2022-11-03","enacted_date":"2022-11-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Pennsylvania's comprehensive AV law authorized fully driverless operation, created a PennDOT permitting regime for testing and commercial deployment, required incident reporting to PennDOT and State Police, and authorized 'highly automated work zone vehicles' and platooning. Pennsylvania had been an AV testing hub since 2016 under non-statutory PennDOT guidance; Act 130 finally codified the framework.","summary_technical":"75 Pa. C.S. Ch. 88 (Highly Automated Vehicles), added by Act 130 of 2022 (HB 2398, P.L. 1762).","who_is_protected":"Pennsylvania motorists, pedestrians, and roadway workers","who_must_comply":"AV testers, deployers, commercial-network operators, and platooning operators on Pennsylvania roads","citation":"Act 130 of 2022; 75 Pa. C.S. Ch. 88","source_url":"https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billInfo/billInfo.cfm?sYear=2021&sInd=0&body=H&type=B&bn=2398","source_title":"Pennsylvania General Assembly — HB 2398 (2021–2022)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Pennsylvania Department of Transportation; Pennsylvania State Police","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Permit suspension/revocation; civil penalties; traffic-code penalties"},{"id":"il-hb-2431-av","title":"Illinois Autonomous Vehicle Local Preemption Act (HB 791 / 625 ILCS 65)","short_title":"IL AV local-preemption (2017)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Illinois","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2017-08-25","enacted_date":"2017-08-25","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Illinois has not enacted a comprehensive AV testing/deployment statute; instead, the Autonomous Vehicles Act preempts local governments (including Chicago) from prohibiting the use of automated driving systems or requiring an AV-specific operator license. As of 2026 the legislature still has not adopted a Texas/Florida-style operational framework.","summary_technical":"625 ILCS 65/1 et seq. (Autonomous Vehicles Act), added by P.A. 100-352 (HB 791, 100th GA, 2017); preempts municipal AV bans.","who_is_protected":"AV manufacturers and operators against local bans; indirectly Illinois motorists/pedestrians via uniform statewide rules","who_must_comply":"Illinois units of local government","citation":"P.A. 100-352; 625 ILCS 65","source_url":"https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=791&GAID=14&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=99685&SessionID=91","source_title":"Illinois General Assembly — HB 791 (100th GA)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Illinois Secretary of State; Illinois Department of Transportation","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Local ordinance preemption; judicial invalidation"},{"id":"ny-vat-1226-av-pilot","title":"New York Autonomous Vehicle Testing Pilot Program (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1226)","short_title":"NY AV testing pilot","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2017-04-20","enacted_date":"2017-04-20","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"New York requires AV operators to obtain DMV pilot-program authorization, maintain a licensed human safety driver behind the wheel, post a $5 million insurance bond, and coordinate with State Police for each test deployment. New York remains one of the most restrictive states — fully driverless operation is not authorized as of 2026.","summary_technical":"N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1226 (originally a budget-bill rider, Part FF of Ch. 55 of the Laws of 2017); reauthorized annually; DMV implementing requirements include State Police escort.","who_is_protected":"New York motorists and pedestrians; AV operations limited to supervised testing","who_must_comply":"AV manufacturers and testers operating on New York public roads","citation":"Part FF, Ch. 55, Laws of 2017 (uncodified session law)","source_url":"https://dmv.ny.gov/registration/autonomous-vehicle-technology-testing","source_title":"NY DMV — Autonomous Vehicle Technology Testing","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New York Department of Motor Vehicles; New York State Police","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Pilot-program suspension; traffic and motor-vehicle code penalties"},{"id":"co-sb-17-213-av","title":"Colorado SB 17-213 — Automated Driving Systems","short_title":"CO SB 17-213 (AV statute)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Colorado","state_abbr":"CO","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2017-06-01","enacted_date":"2017-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Colorado authorized automated driving systems, allowing AVs that can comply with all traffic laws to operate without a separate state authorization — but if the ADS cannot fully comply, the operator must coordinate with CDOT and the State Patrol before deployment.","summary_technical":"Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-242 (Automated Driving Systems), added by SB 17-213, Ch. 354.","who_is_protected":"Colorado motorists and pedestrians sharing roads with AVs","who_must_comply":"Owners and operators of ADS-equipped vehicles on Colorado public roads","citation":"Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-242","source_url":"https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb17-213","source_title":"Colorado General Assembly — SB 17-213","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Colorado Department of Transportation; Colorado State Patrol","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Traffic and motor-vehicle code penalties"},{"id":"ut-hb-101-av","title":"Utah HB 101 — Autonomous Vehicles and Connected Vehicles","short_title":"UT HB 101 (2019 AV statute)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2019-05-14","enacted_date":"2019-03-22","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"Utah Code §§ 41-26-101 et seq. (Connected and Autonomous Vehicle Act), added by HB 101, 2019 Gen. Sess.","who_is_protected":"Utah motorists and pedestrians sharing roads with AVs","who_must_comply":"AV manufacturers, automated-network operators, and owners on Utah public roads","citation":"Utah Code §§ 41-26-101 et seq.","source_url":"https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/static/HB0101.html","source_title":"Utah Legislature — HB 101 (2019 General Session)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Utah Department of Transportation; Utah Driver License Division; Utah Highway Patrol","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Traffic and registration penalties"},{"id":"ar-act-1096-av","title":"Arkansas Act 1096 of 2019 — Autonomous Vehicles and Platooning","short_title":"AR Act 1096 (2019 AV)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arkansas","state_abbr":"AR","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2019-07-24","enacted_date":"2019-04-17","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Arkansas authorized commercial driver-assistive truck platooning and limited driverless AV pilots, established a Pilot Program for Driverless-Capable Vehicles administered by the Arkansas State Highway Commission, and required pilots to file insurance and incident-reporting plans.","summary_technical":"Ark. Code Ann. §§ 27-51-1801 et seq. (Pilot Program for Driverless-Capable Vehicles), added by Act 1096 of 2019.","who_is_protected":"Arkansas motorists and pedestrians sharing roads with AVs","who_must_comply":"Driverless-AV pilot participants and commercial platooning operators on Arkansas roads","citation":"Act 1096 of 2019; Ark. Code Ann. §§ 27-51-1801 et seq.","source_url":"https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/Detail?id=hb1561&ddBienniumSession=2019%2F2019R","source_title":"Arkansas General Assembly — HB 1561 (Act 1096 of 2019)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Arkansas State Highway Commission; Arkansas Department of Transportation; Arkansas State Police","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Pilot revocation; traffic and registration penalties"},{"id":"ne-lb-989-av","title":"Nebraska LB 989 — Driverless-Capable Vehicle Act","short_title":"NE LB 989 (2018 AV)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Nebraska","state_abbr":"NE","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2018-04-25","enacted_date":"2018-04-25","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Nebraska's Driverless-Capable Vehicle Act explicitly allows fully driverless operation on Nebraska public roads, treats the automated driving system as the driver for traffic-law purposes, sets minimum insurance ($5 million for on-demand AV networks), and preempts local regulation.","summary_technical":"Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 60-3,201 to 60-3,209 (Driverless-Capable Vehicle Act), added by LB 989 (2018).","who_is_protected":"Nebraska motorists and pedestrians sharing roads with AVs","who_must_comply":"Driverless-capable vehicle owners, manufacturers, and on-demand network operators in Nebraska","citation":"Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 60-3,201 et seq.","source_url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=34938","source_title":"Nebraska Legislature — LB 989 (2018)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles; Nebraska State Patrol","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Traffic and registration penalties"},{"id":"oh-hb-7-av","title":"Ohio HB 7 — Autonomous Vehicles (Mobility & DriveOhio framework)","short_title":"OH HB 7 (2022 AV)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Ohio","state_abbr":"OH","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2022-09-13","enacted_date":"2022-06-14","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Ohio's 2022 statute codified what had been executive-order policy under DriveOhio: fully driverless AV operation is allowed, the registered owner is the legal operator for traffic enforcement, AV networks must carry $5 million in insurance, and the state must maintain an AV testing program (the Smart Mobility / TRC framework).","summary_technical":"Ohio Rev. Code §§ 4501.01, 4511.01, 4511.991 (Autonomous Vehicles), added by HB 7 of the 134th GA.","who_is_protected":"Ohio motorists and pedestrians sharing roads with AVs","who_must_comply":"AV owners, manufacturers, and network operators on Ohio public roads","citation":"Ohio Rev. Code §§ 4501.01, 4511.01, 4511.991","source_url":"https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA134-HB-7","source_title":"Ohio General Assembly — HB 7 (134th GA)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Ohio Department of Public Safety; Ohio Department of Transportation (DriveOhio)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Traffic and registration penalties; civil liability"},{"id":"tx-hb-912-drone-privacy","title":"Texas HB 912 — Texas Privacy Act (Drone Surveillance)","short_title":"TX HB 912 (2013 drone privacy)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2013-09-01","enacted_date":"2013-06-14","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"One of the broadest state drone-privacy laws: it is illegal in Texas to use a drone to capture images of a person or private real property without consent, subject to 19 enumerated exceptions (newsgathering, mapping, etc.). Texas's drone-privacy chapter was partially struck down in NPPA v. McCraw (2022) on First Amendment grounds, but most provisions remain in force.","summary_technical":"Tex. Gov't Code Ch. 423 (Use of Unmanned Aircraft), added by HB 912 of the 83rd Leg., R.S. (2013). National Press Photographers Ass'n v. McCraw, 90 F.4th 770 (5th Cir. 2024) reinstated key provisions after district-court invalidation.","who_is_protected":"Texas residents whose images are captured or whose private property is surveilled by drones","who_must_comply":"Private and commercial drone operators in Texas (not law enforcement; separate ch. 423 subchapter)","citation":"Tex. Gov't Code Ch. 423","source_url":"https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=HB912","source_title":"Texas Legislature Online — HB 912 (83R, 2013)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Texas Department of Public Safety; private civil enforcement","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Criminal misdemeanor ($500 first offense); civil damages of up to $10,000 per offense plus actual damages"},{"id":"ca-ab-856-paparazzi-drone","title":"California AB 856 — Drone Paparazzi / Aerial Trespass","short_title":"CA AB 856 (2015 drone trespass)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["privacy","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2016-01-01","enacted_date":"2015-10-06","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"California amended its anti-paparazzi statute so the existing 'physical invasion of privacy' tort applies when someone uses a drone to enter the airspace above a person's land to capture images or recordings of personal or familial activities — closing the 'I never set foot on the property' loophole.","summary_technical":"Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.8(b) amended by AB 856 (Stats. 2015, ch. 521) to include knowingly entering 'into the airspace above the land of another person without permission' to capture imagery.","who_is_protected":"California residents engaged in personal or familial activities on private property","who_must_comply":"Anyone operating a drone in California for image-capture purposes","citation":"Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.8(b)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB856","source_title":"California Legislative Information: AB 856 (2015–2016)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Private civil enforcement (tort claims)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Statutory damages up to three times actual damages; punitive damages; disgorgement of profits"},{"id":"fl-freedom-from-surveillance-act","title":"Florida Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act (and SB 44/2021 Drone Use)","short_title":"FL drone surveillance act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Florida","state_abbr":"FL","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2013-07-01","enacted_date":"2013-04-22","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Florida bars law enforcement from using drones for surveillance without a warrant or specific exception, and (after the 2015 amendment) prohibits anyone from using a drone to record private property or people on it with intent to conduct surveillance in violation of their reasonable expectation of privacy. SB 44 (2021) expanded the situations in which police and other agencies may use drones and required government agencies to use only drones from approved manufacturers that meet state security standards.","summary_technical":"Fla. Stat. § 934.50 was created by Ch. 2013-33 (SB 92, the Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act) and amended by, among others, Ch. 2015-26 and Ch. 2021-165 (CS/CS/SB 44, approved June 29, 2021, eff. July 1, 2021). The 2021 act expanded the authorized uses of drones by law enforcement and other entities, had the Department of Management Services publish a list of approved drone manufacturers meeting security standards, required governmental agencies to stop using certain drones by a set date, and set minimum security standards for government drone use. Fla. Stat. § 330.41 (state preemption of drone regulation) dates from Ch. 2017-150 and was also amended by Ch. 2021-165.","who_is_protected":"Floridians on private property and persons targeted by law-enforcement drone surveillance","who_must_comply":"Florida law-enforcement agencies; private drone operators; political subdivisions limited by preemption","citation":"Fla. Stat. §§ 934.50, 330.41 (Ch. 2013-33; amended by Ch. 2021-165, CS/CS/SB 44)","source_url":"https://m.flsenate.gov/Statutes/934.50","source_title":"Florida Statutes § 934.50 — Searches and Seizures Using a Drone","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Florida Department of Law Enforcement; private civil enforcement","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Suppression of evidence; civil damages"},{"id":"va-warrantless-drone-ban","title":"Virginia HB 2125 — Two-Year Moratorium and Permanent Warrantless-Drone Ban for Law Enforcement","short_title":"VA warrantless drone ban","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2013-04-03","enacted_date":"2013-04-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Virginia was the first state to limit law-enforcement drone use, imposing a two-year moratorium in 2013 and then permanently barring police use of drones without a warrant or specific exception (search-and-rescue, training, surveillance of an Amber-alert subject). Evidence from unlawful drone surveillance is inadmissible.","summary_technical":"Va. Code § 19.2-60.1 (Use of unmanned aircraft systems by law-enforcement and regulatory agencies); enacted via HB 2125 of 2013 and made permanent by HB 412 / SB 1301 of 2015.","who_is_protected":"Virginians subject to law-enforcement drone surveillance","who_must_comply":"Virginia state and local law-enforcement and regulatory agencies","citation":"Va. Code § 19.2-60.1","source_url":"https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?131+sum+HB2125","source_title":"Virginia LIS — HB 2125 (2013 Session)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Virginia courts (suppression remedy)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Inadmissibility of evidence; agency policy enforcement"},{"id":"il-freedom-from-drone-surveillance","title":"Illinois Freedom From Drone Surveillance Act","short_title":"IL Drone Surveillance Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Illinois","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2014-01-01","enacted_date":"2013-08-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Illinois requires police to obtain a search warrant before using a drone to gather information, subject to narrow exceptions (terrorism, search-and-rescue, crime-scene reconstruction). The 2023 Drones as First Responders amendments (HB 3902) added regulated exceptions for crowd surveillance and emergency response.","summary_technical":"725 ILCS 167 et seq. (Freedom From Drone Surveillance Act), originally P.A. 98-0569; amended by P.A. 103-0398 (HB 3902, 2023).","who_is_protected":"Illinois residents subject to police drone surveillance","who_must_comply":"Illinois state and local law enforcement","citation":"725 ILCS 167","source_url":"https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/ILCS/Articles?ActID=3520&ChapterID=54","source_title":"Illinois Compiled Statutes — Freedom From Drone Surveillance Act (725 ILCS 167)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Illinois courts (suppression); Attorney General","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Inadmissibility of evidence; civil liability for unauthorized use"},{"id":"mn-drone-warrant-law","title":"Minnesota SF 3072 — Law-Enforcement Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles","short_title":"MN drone-warrant law (2020)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Minnesota","state_abbr":"MN","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2020-08-01","enacted_date":"2020-06-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Minnesota requires police to get a search warrant before using a drone, with narrow exceptions, and to publish an annual public report listing every drone deployment, purpose, and cost. The annual transparency requirement is among the strongest in any state drone law.","summary_technical":"Minn. Stat. § 626.19, added by SF 3072 (2020 Special Session Ch. 1, Art. 1, § 17); annual report due Jan. 15 to BCA and posted publicly.","who_is_protected":"Minnesotans subject to law-enforcement drone surveillance","who_must_comply":"Minnesota state and local law-enforcement agencies","citation":"Minn. Stat. § 626.19","source_url":"https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/626.19","source_title":"Minnesota Statutes § 626.19 — Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension; state courts (suppression)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Inadmissibility of evidence; agency reporting obligations"},{"id":"or-drones-weaponization-ban","title":"Oregon SB 71 — Weaponized Drone and Drone-Surveillance Restrictions","short_title":"OR weaponized-drone ban","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Oregon","state_abbr":"OR","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2013-07-29","enacted_date":"2013-07-29","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Oregon prohibits anyone from operating a weaponized drone, requires law-enforcement drones to be authorized for specific missions, and provides a civil action for property owners whose airspace is repeatedly invaded by drones flying below 400 feet.","summary_technical":"Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 837.300–837.380, added by SB 71 of the 2013 Reg. Sess.; civil airspace-trespass action at ORS 837.380.","who_is_protected":"Oregon residents on private property; the general public against weaponized drones","who_must_comply":"All drone operators in Oregon; Oregon law-enforcement and public agencies","citation":"Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 837.300–837.380","source_url":"https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2013R1/Measures/Overview/SB71","source_title":"Oregon Legislative Information — SB 71 (2013 Regular Session)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Oregon courts; private civil enforcement","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Class A misdemeanor (weaponized drone); civil damages up to $10,000 plus injunctive relief"},{"id":"wi-drone-surveillance-law","title":"Wisconsin Act 213 of 2013 — Drone Surveillance Crime","short_title":"WI drone-surveillance ban","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Wisconsin","state_abbr":"WI","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2014-04-10","enacted_date":"2014-04-08","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Wisconsin made it a Class A misdemeanor to use a drone to observe or record any person in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and requires police to obtain a warrant before using drones for surveillance.","summary_technical":"Wis. Stat. § 942.10 (drone-surveillance crime), added by 2013 Wisconsin Act 213; companion warrant rule at Wis. Stat. § 175.55.","who_is_protected":"Wisconsin residents in places with a reasonable expectation of privacy","who_must_comply":"All drone operators in Wisconsin; Wisconsin law-enforcement agencies","citation":"Wis. Stat. §§ 942.10, 175.55","source_url":"https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/acts/213","source_title":"Wisconsin Legislature — 2013 Wisconsin Act 213","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Wisconsin Department of Justice; local district attorneys","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Class A misdemeanor (up to 9 months / $10,000); evidence suppression"},{"id":"tn-drone-trespass-law","title":"Tennessee SB 796 — Freedom From Unwarranted Surveillance Act (Drone Trespass)","short_title":"TN drone trespass / FFUSA","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Tennessee","state_abbr":"TN","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2014-07-01","enacted_date":"2014-05-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Tennessee prohibits warrantless drone surveillance by law enforcement, makes it a misdemeanor for any person to capture images of an individual or private property from a drone without consent, and bars using drones to surveil critical infrastructure or fireworks/sporting events.","summary_technical":"Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-609, 39-13-902 to -905, originally added by 2013 Pub. Acts Ch. 470 (FFUSA) and 2014 Pub. Acts Ch. 876 (SB 1777), and amended by 2016 Pub. Acts Ch. 982.","who_is_protected":"Tennessee residents on private property; critical-infrastructure operators","who_must_comply":"All drone operators in Tennessee; Tennessee law-enforcement agencies","citation":"Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-609, 39-13-902 to -905","source_url":"https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1892&ga=108","source_title":"Tennessee General Assembly — Freedom From Unwarranted Surveillance Act","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Tennessee Bureau of Investigation; local district attorneys","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Class C misdemeanor; suppression of evidence"},{"id":"ut-drone-wildfire-emergency","title":"Utah HB 217 — Drone Interference With Emergency Operations","short_title":"UT drone-wildfire law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["public-sector","consumer-protection","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2017-05-09","enacted_date":"2017-03-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Utah responded to repeated incidents of hobby drones grounding aerial firefighting by criminalizing drone operation that interferes with manned aircraft fighting wildfires, conducting search-and-rescue, or supporting law enforcement, and authorizing public-safety agencies to disable or neutralize an intruding drone.","summary_technical":"Utah Code §§ 65A-3-2.5, 76-6-2410, added/amended by HB 217 of 2017; predecessor SB 167 (2016) authorized neutralization of wildfire-area drones.","who_is_protected":"Emergency-response personnel; the public served by aerial firefighting and SAR","who_must_comply":"All drone operators in Utah","citation":"Utah Code §§ 65A-3-2.5, 76-6-2410","source_url":"https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0217.html","source_title":"Utah Legislature — HB 217 (2017 General Session)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Utah Department of Public Safety; Utah Department of Natural Resources","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Class B misdemeanor (interference); third-degree felony (substantial bodily injury); civil liability for suppression costs"},{"id":"va-hb-2016-personal-delivery-device","title":"Virginia HB 2016 — Personal Delivery Device Act (First in U.S.)","short_title":"VA PDD Act (2017 — first)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["consumer-protection","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2017-07-01","enacted_date":"2017-03-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Virginia was the first U.S. state to legalize sidewalk delivery robots. PDDs may operate on sidewalks and crosswalks (10 mph cap, 50 lb cargo limit), must carry $100,000 liability insurance and a visible operator ID, and localities may further regulate them. Starship Technologies' deployment at George Mason in 2019 traces back to this law.","summary_technical":"Va. Code §§ 46.2-100, 46.2-908.1:1 (Personal Delivery Devices), added by HB 2016 of 2017 (Acts of Assembly 2017, ch. 358) and SB 1207.","who_is_protected":"Pedestrians and sidewalk users; consumers receiving goods via PDDs","who_must_comply":"Operators of personal delivery devices in Virginia","citation":"Va. Code §§ 46.2-100, 46.2-908.1:1","source_url":"https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?171+sum+HB2016","source_title":"Virginia LIS — HB 2016 (2017 Session)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles; local police; municipalities (further regulation)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Traffic infraction; civil liability via insurance"},{"id":"fl-hb-1027-pdd","title":"Florida CS/HB 1027 — Personal Delivery Devices","short_title":"FL PDD law (2017)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Florida","state_abbr":"FL","topics":["consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2017-10-01","enacted_date":"2017-06-23","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Florida authorized personal delivery devices to operate on sidewalks and bicycle facilities statewide (10 mph cap, 80 lb cargo, $100,000 insurance) and preempted municipal bans, leaving cities only limited authority to set time-of-day and crowd-size rules.","summary_technical":"Fla. Stat. § 316.008 (Personal Delivery Devices), added by Ch. 2017-150, Laws of Fla. (CS/HB 1027).","who_is_protected":"Pedestrians and sidewalk users; consumers receiving goods via PDDs","who_must_comply":"PDD operators in Florida; municipalities limited by preemption","citation":"Fla. Stat. § 316.008","source_url":"https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/1027","source_title":"Florida Senate — CS/HB 1027 (2017)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles; local police","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Traffic infraction; civil liability via insurance"},{"id":"wi-act-13-pdd","title":"Wisconsin 2017 Act 13 — Personal Delivery Devices","short_title":"WI PDD Act 13 (2017)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Wisconsin","state_abbr":"WI","topics":["consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2017-07-01","enacted_date":"2017-06-30","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Wisconsin authorized sidewalk delivery robots up to 80 lb at up to 10 mph, requires operators to carry $100,000 in liability insurance, and allows cities to set additional rules but not outright bans.","summary_technical":"Wis. Stat. § 340.01(34g), § 346.804 (Personal Delivery Devices), added by 2017 Wisconsin Act 13.","who_is_protected":"Wisconsin pedestrians and sidewalk users","who_must_comply":"PDD operators in Wisconsin","citation":"Wis. Stat. § 346.804; 2017 Wis. Act 13","source_url":"https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2017/related/acts/13","source_title":"Wisconsin Legislature — 2017 Act 13","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Wisconsin Department of Transportation; local police","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Traffic infraction; civil liability via insurance"},{"id":"oh-sb-156-pdd","title":"Ohio SB 156 — Personal Delivery Devices","short_title":"OH PDD law (SB 156)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Ohio","state_abbr":"OH","topics":["consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2019-04-04","enacted_date":"2019-01-04","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Ohio authorized sidewalk delivery robots up to 200 lb (one of the highest weight caps in the country) and up to 10 mph, with $100,000 in liability insurance. Local governments retain authority to set additional operating rules.","summary_technical":"Ohio Rev. Code §§ 4511.01(III), 4511.513 (Personal Delivery Devices), added by SB 156 of the 132nd GA.","who_is_protected":"Ohio pedestrians and sidewalk users","who_must_comply":"PDD operators in Ohio","citation":"Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.513","source_url":"https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA132-SB-156","source_title":"Ohio General Assembly — SB 156 (132nd GA)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Ohio Department of Public Safety; local police","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Traffic infraction; civil liability via insurance"},{"id":"id-hb-191-pdd","title":"Idaho HB 191 — Personal Delivery Devices","short_title":"ID PDD law (HB 191)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Idaho","state_abbr":"ID","topics":["consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2017-07-01","enacted_date":"2017-04-04","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Idaho authorized statewide sidewalk delivery robots under a uniform framework (80 lb, 10 mph), required $100,000 in liability insurance, and gave local governments limited authority to add operating rules.","summary_technical":"Idaho Code §§ 49-117(13)(a), 49-2701–49-2704 (Personal Delivery Devices), added by HB 191 (2017 Sess. Laws Ch. 268).","who_is_protected":"Idaho pedestrians and sidewalk users","who_must_comply":"PDD operators in Idaho","citation":"Idaho Code §§ 49-2701 et seq.","source_url":"https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2017/legislation/H0191/","source_title":"Idaho Legislature — HB 191 (2017)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Idaho Transportation Department; local police","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Traffic infraction; civil liability via insurance"},{"id":"az-hb-2422-pdd","title":"Arizona HB 2422 — Personal Delivery Devices","short_title":"AZ PDD law (HB 2422)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arizona","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2018-08-03","enacted_date":"2018-05-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Arizona authorized sidewalk delivery robots statewide and prohibited municipalities from imposing taxes, fees, or registration requirements on PDDs, while letting them set operating rules (time of day, density, sidewalk type).","summary_technical":"Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-101, 28-9601 to 28-9605 (Personal Delivery Devices), added by HB 2422, 53rd Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (2018).","who_is_protected":"Arizona pedestrians and sidewalk users","who_must_comply":"PDD operators in Arizona; municipalities limited by tax/fee preemption","citation":"Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-9601–28-9605","source_url":"https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/53leg/2R/laws/0263.htm","source_title":"Arizona Legislature — HB 2422 (53rd Leg., 2018)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Arizona Department of Transportation; local police","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil traffic infraction; civil liability via insurance"},{"id":"pa-act-130-pdd-platooning","title":"Pennsylvania Act 130 of 2020 — Personal Delivery Devices (HB 1199)","short_title":"PA PDD law (Act 130/2020)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pennsylvania","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2021-01-04","enacted_date":"2020-11-05","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Pennsylvania authorized personal delivery devices to operate on sidewalks, shoulders, and roadways up to 25 mph (high relative to most PDD laws), requires $100,000 liability insurance, and reserves limited regulation to local governments.","summary_technical":"75 Pa. C.S. §§ 102, 3550 (Personal Delivery Devices), added by Act 130 of 2020 (HB 1199, P.L. 1167).","who_is_protected":"Pennsylvania pedestrians and sidewalk users","who_must_comply":"PDD operators in Pennsylvania","citation":"Act 130 of 2020; 75 Pa. C.S. § 3550","source_url":"https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billInfo/billInfo.cfm?sYear=2019&sInd=0&body=H&type=B&bn=1199","source_title":"Pennsylvania General Assembly — HB 1199 (2019–2020)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Pennsylvania Department of Transportation; Pennsylvania State Police","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Traffic infraction; civil liability via insurance"},{"id":"sf-delivery-robot-permit-2017","title":"San Francisco Public Works Code § 794 — Autonomous Delivery Device Permit","short_title":"SF delivery-robot permit (2017)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Francisco","state_abbr":"CA","county":"San Francisco","city":"San Francisco","topics":["consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2018-01-21","enacted_date":"2017-12-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"San Francisco became the first U.S. city to comprehensively restrict sidewalk delivery robots after constituent backlash. Supervisor Norman Yee's ordinance limits autonomous delivery devices to a small permit program (initially 9 city-wide and 3 per company), bans them from most sidewalks, caps speed at 3 mph in pedestrian zones, and requires a human chaperone.","summary_technical":"S.F. Public Works Code Art. 5.1, § 794 (Autonomous Delivery Device Permits), added by Ordinance No. 247-17 (Dec. 5, 2017); administered by Public Works.","who_is_protected":"San Francisco pedestrians and sidewalk users","who_must_comply":"Operators of autonomous delivery devices on San Francisco sidewalks","citation":"S.F. Pub. Works Code § 794","source_url":"https://sfbos.archive.sf.gov/sites/default/files/o0244-17.pdf","source_title":"San Francisco Ordinance No. 247-17 (Autonomous Delivery Devices)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"San Francisco Public Works","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Permit revocation; administrative fines"},{"id":"nyc-ll60-sidewalk-robots","title":"New York City Local Law 60 of 2023 — Mobility Devices / Sidewalk Delivery Robots","short_title":"NYC LL 60 (delivery robots)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York City","state_abbr":"NY","county":"New York","city":"New York","topics":["consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-01","enacted_date":"2023-07-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"New York City authorized a pilot framework for sidewalk delivery robots ('motorized assistive devices'), giving DOT rulemaking authority over speed, weight, sidewalk vs. bike-lane use, and operator registration. The DOT pilot launched in 2024 with explicit weight caps (550 lb) and 12 mph maximum speed.","summary_technical":"N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 19-176.4 (Motorized Assistive Devices), added by Local Law 60 of 2023 (Int. No. 1130-A); implementing rules at 34 RCNY § 4-04.","who_is_protected":"New York City pedestrians and sidewalk users; people with disabilities affected by sidewalk obstruction","who_must_comply":"Sidewalk delivery robot operators in New York City","citation":"N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 19-176.4; Local Law 60 of 2023","source_url":"https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5995039&GUID=BBFE4019-3D26-432D-BFC2-83A8FA4FED27","source_title":"NYC Council — Int. 1130-A / Local Law 60 of 2023","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New York City Department of Transportation","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties; permit suspension/revocation"},{"id":"henrico-va-ai-2025","title":"Henrico County VA Public Schools — Policy 5-6.6 Artificial Intelligence Systems (May 12, 2026)","short_title":"Henrico County VA Schools AI Policy 5-6.6","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Henrico, VA","state_abbr":"VA","county":"Henrico","city":"Henrico","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-05-12","enacted_date":"2026-05-12","last_verified_date":"2026-08-26","summary_plain":"Henrico County Public Schools Board adopted Policy 5-6.6 Artificial Intelligence Systems on May 12, 2026, establishing an AI Task Force (created by board resolution in 2025) to oversee implementation, monitor AI developments, and recommend policy updates. The policy authorizes district-vetted enterprise AI tools, requires human review of AI-generated student-facing content, bars non-consensual deepfakes, and prohibits AI as the sole basis for grading or discipline. Henrico County is a Northern Virginia suburban district serving approximately 51,000 students.","summary_technical":"HCPS Policy 5-6.6 Artificial Intelligence Systems adopted May 12, 2026 by Henrico County School Board. Key provisions: AI Task Force (standing body for policy oversight and updates); authorized AI tools require district IT vetting; human review required for AI-generated student-facing content; non-consensual deepfakes barred; AI prohibited as sole basis for grading or discipline. Policy anchored in School Board Policy 6-02.008 (Acceptable Computer System Use) framework. District: ~51,000 students, Central Virginia suburban district.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in Henrico County VA Public Schools","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of Henrico County VA Public Schools","citation":"Henrico County VA Public Schools Policy 5-6.6 Artificial Intelligence Systems, adopted May 12, 2026","source_url":"https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/henrico/Board.nsf/goto?open=&id=C6EKUR539AFE","source_title":"Henrico County VA Public Schools BoardDocs — Policy 5-6.6 Artificial Intelligence Systems","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Henrico County VA Public Schools Board of Education / Superintendent / AI Task Force","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"mesa-az-ai-2025","title":"Mesa Public Schools AZ — Generative AI Use Guidelines","short_title":"Mesa Public Schools AZ","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Mesa, AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Maricopa","city":"Mesa","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-19","enacted_date":"2025-08-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Mesa Public Schools (Arizona's largest district) adopted districtwide GenAI guidelines: authorizes Microsoft Copilot enterprise and Khanmigo for grades 9-12; requires teacher disclosure of AI use; bars student entry of PII into non-approved AI; and ties violations to Governing Board Policy IJNDB (Acceptable Use).","summary_technical":"Mesa Public Schools (Arizona's largest district) adopted districtwide GenAI guidelines: authorizes Microsoft Copilot enterprise and Khanmigo for grades 9-12; requires teacher disclosure of AI use; bars student entry of PII into non-approved AI; and ties violations to Governing Board Policy IJNDB (Acceptable Use). District-level policy hosted on BoardDocs / district board portal; binds school employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in the district","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of the district","citation":"Mesa Public Schools AZ — Generative AI Use Guidelines (2025-08-19)","source_url":"https://www.mpsaz.org/page/ai","source_title":"Mesa Public Schools AZ — Generative AI Use Guidelines — district source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Mesa Public Schools AZ / Superintendent","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"columbus-oh-ai-2025","title":"Columbus City Schools — AI Use Policy (Board of Education, March 31, 2026)","short_title":"Columbus City Schools AI Policy (teacher discretion, plagiarism rules)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Columbus, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Franklin","city":"Columbus","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-03-31","enacted_date":"2026-03-31","last_verified_date":"2026-08-26","summary_plain":"Columbus City Schools Board of Education voted unanimously on March 31, 2026 to adopt a new artificial intelligence use policy across Ohio's largest school district. The policy gives teachers discretion on whether to allow students to use AI on assignments, treats unauthorized AI use as plagiarism, bans AI-generated deepfakes or derogatory representations of students or staff, and prohibits AI as the sole basis for grading or discipline. Focuses on data privacy, student safety, and academic integrity. Districts were required to adopt AI policies by July 1, 2026 under Ohio HB 96.","summary_technical":"Columbus City Schools (Franklin County, OH) Board of Education unanimous policy adoption March 31, 2026. Compliance instrument under Ohio HB 96 (FY 2026-27 budget). Key rules: teacher discretion on student AI use (case-by-case per assignment); unauthorized AI = plagiarism under Student Code of Conduct; bans AI deepfakes/impersonation of students, staff, volunteers, board members; prohibits AI as sole basis for grading or discipline; developed with ~50 stakeholders. Ohio's largest school district (~49,000 students, ~110 schools).","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in Columbus City Schools","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of Columbus City Schools","citation":"Columbus City Schools Board of Education AI Use Policy adoption, March 31, 2026","source_url":"https://www.wosu.org/politics-government/2026-03-31/columbus-city-schools-to-consider-new-ai-policy-giving-teachers-discretion-on-student-use","source_title":"Columbus City Schools passes new AI policy giving teachers discretion on student use — WOSU Public Media (March 31, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Columbus City Schools Board of Education / Superintendent","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes and Student Code of Conduct; not statutory"},{"id":"bcpss-md-ai-2025","title":"Baltimore City Public Schools — Generative AI Use Guidance","short_title":"Baltimore City Public Schools","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Baltimore, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Baltimore (city)","city":"Baltimore","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-09","enacted_date":"2025-09-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"City Schools districtwide guidance authorizes vetted enterprise AI tools, bars student entry of PII into non-approved AI, requires teacher disclosure of AI use in instruction, and prohibits AI as sole basis for grading or discipline. Anchored in Board Policy IIBE (Acceptable Use).","summary_technical":"City Schools districtwide guidance authorizes vetted enterprise AI tools, bars student entry of PII into non-approved AI, requires teacher disclosure of AI use in instruction, and prohibits AI as sole basis for grading or discipline. Anchored in Board Policy IIBE (Acceptable Use). District-level policy hosted on BoardDocs / district board portal; binds school employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in the district","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of the district","citation":"Baltimore City Public Schools — Generative AI Use Guidance (2025-09-09)","source_url":"https://www.baltimorecityschools.org/page/ai-guidance","source_title":"Baltimore City Public Schools — Generative AI Use Guidance — district source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Baltimore City Public Schools / Superintendent","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"durham-nc-ai-2025","title":"Durham NC Public Schools — Generative AI Acceptable Use Guidelines","short_title":"Durham NC Public Schools","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Durham, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Durham","city":"Durham","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-25","enacted_date":"2025-09-25","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"DPS Board-reviewed guidelines authorize district-vetted enterprise AI tools, require teacher disclosure of AI use in instruction, bar non-consensual deepfakes, prohibit AI-only grading or discipline, and require parental consent for student AI accounts under 13. Anchored in Policy 3225/4312/7320 (Technology Responsible Use).","summary_technical":"DPS Board-reviewed guidelines authorize district-vetted enterprise AI tools, require teacher disclosure of AI use in instruction, bar non-consensual deepfakes, prohibit AI-only grading or discipline, and require parental consent for student AI accounts under 13. Anchored in Policy 3225/4312/7320 (Technology Responsible Use). District-level policy hosted on BoardDocs / district board portal; binds school employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in the district","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of the district","citation":"Durham NC Public Schools — Generative AI Acceptable Use Guidelines (2025-09-25)","source_url":"https://go.boarddocs.com/nc/dpsnc/Board.nsf/goto?open=&id=C9NQ2H6732A1","source_title":"Durham NC Public Schools — Generative AI Acceptable Use Guidelines — district source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Durham NC Public Schools / Superintendent","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"thsd211-il-ai-2025","title":"Township High School District 211 — AI Use Guidelines","short_title":"Township High School District 211","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Palatine, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Cook","city":"Palatine","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-10-13","enacted_date":"2025-10-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"D211 guidelines authorize district-vetted enterprise AI tools, bar student entry of PII into non-approved AI, require teacher disclosure of AI use, and prohibit AI as sole basis for grading or discipline.","summary_technical":"D211 guidelines authorize district-vetted enterprise AI tools, bar student entry of PII into non-approved AI, require teacher disclosure of AI use, and prohibit AI as sole basis for grading or discipline. District-level policy hosted on BoardDocs / district board portal; binds school employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in the district","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of the district","citation":"Township High School District 211 — AI Use Guidelines (2025-10-13)","source_url":"https://adc.d211.org/cms/lib/IL49000007/Centricity/domain/208/pdf/d211-artificial-intelligence-guidelines.pdf","source_title":"Township High School District 211 — AI Use Guidelines — district source","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Township High School District 211 / Superintendent","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"iowa-city-ia-ai-2025","title":"Iowa City Community School District — Generative AI Use Guidelines","short_title":"Iowa City Community School District","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Iowa City, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Johnson","city":"Iowa City","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-25","enacted_date":"2025-09-25","last_verified_date":"2026-08-06","summary_plain":"Iowa City Community School District (ICCSD) guidelines authorize Microsoft Copilot enterprise on district devices; bar student entry of PII into non-approved AI; require teacher disclosure of AI use; and prohibit AI as sole basis for grading or discipline. The district also adopted Board Policy 605.8R1 governing student use of technology including AI.","summary_technical":"ICCSD Generative AI Use Guidelines (effective September 2025). Core provisions: (1) district-vetted AI tools (Microsoft Copilot enterprise) authorized on district devices; (2) student entry of PII into non-approved AI tools barred; (3) teacher disclosure required when AI is used in instruction; (4) AI prohibited as the sole basis for grading, discipline, or other consequential student decisions. Board Policy 605.8R1 (Student Use of Technology) governs AI use district-wide. Official guidelines page: iowacityschools.org/academics-programs/instructional-technology/generative-ai-guidelines. Binds ICCSD employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in Iowa City Community School District","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of ICCSD","citation":"Iowa City Community School District — Generative AI Use Guidelines and Board Policy 605.8R1 (effective September 2025)","source_url":"https://www.iowacityschools.org/academics-programs/instructional-technology/generative-ai-guidelines","source_title":"Iowa City Community School District — Generative AI Guidelines (official district page)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Iowa City Community School District / Superintendent","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"fresno-usd-ca-ai-2025","title":"Fresno Unified School District — AI Guidance","short_title":"Fresno USD AI Guidance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Fresno, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Fresno","city":"Fresno","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-09","enacted_date":"2025-09-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Fresno Unified School District publishes official AI guidance on the district's IT/AI department page: district-vetted GenAI tools authorized, PII entry into non-approved AI barred, teacher disclosure when AI is used in instruction required, AI prohibited as the sole basis for grading or discipline.","summary_technical":"District-level Generative AI Acceptable Use Guidelines anchored in Board Policy 6163.4 (Student Use of Technology). Hosted on the district's IT/AI policy portal at fresnounified.org/departments/it/ai. Binds students, staff, and contractors using district devices.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in Fresno Unified School District","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of Fresno USD","citation":"Fresno USD AI Guidance (2025-09-09)","source_url":"https://www.fresnounified.org/departments/it/ai/ai-guidance","source_title":"Fresno Unified School District — AI Guidance (official district page)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Fresno Unified School District / Superintendent","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"auhsd-ca-ai-2025","title":"Anaheim Union High School District — AI Guidance","short_title":"AUHSD AI Guidance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Anaheim, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Orange","city":"Anaheim","topics":["education","automated-decisions","children","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-03","enacted_date":"2025-09-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-17","summary_plain":"Anaheim Union High School District board adopted an AI policy on September 3, 2025: authorizes Microsoft Copilot enterprise and Khanmigo in closed-loop configurations, bars PII entry into non-approved AI, requires teacher disclosure of AI use, and prohibits AI-generated impersonation of students or staff.","summary_technical":"Board Policy on AI adopted 2025-09-03. Official AUHSD AI Guidance PDF published. Binds AUHSD employees, students, and contractors.","who_is_protected":"Students, families, and staff in AUHSD","who_must_comply":"Teachers, administrators, students, and contractors of AUHSD","citation":"AUHSD AI Guidance (2025-09-03)","source_url":"https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1761046695/gifdmlg0h2c76zg3mxvf/auhsdaiguidance.pdf","source_title":"AUHSD AI Guidance (official district PDF)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Anaheim Union High School District / Superintendent","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disciplinary policy per district codes; not statutory"},{"id":"ak-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"Alaska Division of Insurance Bulletin B 24-01 — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"AK DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"AK","state_abbr":"AK","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-02-01","enacted_date":"2024-02-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The AK Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in AK 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in AK whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in AK (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"Alaska Division of Insurance Bulletin B 24-01 (2024-02-01)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"AK Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"ar-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"Arkansas Insurance Department Bulletin 13-2024 — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"AR DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"AR","state_abbr":"AR","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-31","enacted_date":"2024-07-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The AR Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in AR 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in AR whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in AR (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"Arkansas Insurance Department Bulletin 13-2024 (2024-07-31)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"AR Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"ct-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"Connecticut Insurance Department Bulletin MC-25 — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"CT DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"CT","state_abbr":"CT","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-02-26","enacted_date":"2024-02-26","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The CT Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in CT 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in CT whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in CT (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"Connecticut Insurance Department Bulletin MC-25 (2024-02-26)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"CT Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"de-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"Delaware Domestic and Foreign Insurers Bulletin No. 148 — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"DE DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"DE","state_abbr":"DE","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-02-05","enacted_date":"2025-02-05","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The DE Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in DE 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in DE whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in DE (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"Delaware Domestic and Foreign Insurers Bulletin No. 148 (2025-02-05)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"DE Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"dc-disb-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"DC DISB Bulletin 24-IB-002-05/21 — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"DC DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"DC","state_abbr":"DC","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-05-21","enacted_date":"2024-05-21","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in DC whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in DC (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"DC DISB Bulletin 24-IB-002-05/21 (2024-05-21)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"DC Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"hi-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"Hawaii Insurance Commissioner Memorandum 2025-13A — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"HI DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"HI","state_abbr":"HI","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-12-10","enacted_date":"2025-12-10","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The HI Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in HI 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in HI whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in HI (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"Hawaii Insurance Commissioner Memorandum 2025-13A (2025-12-10)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"HI Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"il-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"Illinois DOI Company Bulletin 2024-08 — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"IL DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"IL","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-03-13","enacted_date":"2024-03-13","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The IL Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in IL 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in IL whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in IL (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"Illinois DOI Company Bulletin 2024-08 (2024-03-13)","source_url":"https://idoi.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/insurance/companies/companybulletins/CB2024-08.pdf","source_title":"IL DOI Illinois DOI Company Bulletin 2024-08 (PDF)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"IL Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"ia-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"Iowa Insurance Division Bulletin 24-04 — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"IA DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"IA","state_abbr":"IA","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-11-07","enacted_date":"2024-11-07","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The IA Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in IA 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in IA whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in IA (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"Iowa Insurance Division Bulletin 24-04 (2024-11-07)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"IA Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"ky-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"Kentucky DOI Bulletin 2024-02 — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"KY DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"KY","state_abbr":"KY","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-16","enacted_date":"2024-04-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The KY Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in KY 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in KY whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in KY (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"Kentucky DOI Bulletin 2024-02 (2024-04-16)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"KY Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"md-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"Maryland Insurance Administration Bulletin 24-11 — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"MD DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MD","state_abbr":"MD","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-22","enacted_date":"2024-04-22","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The MD Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in MD 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in MD whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in MD (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"Maryland Insurance Administration Bulletin 24-11 (2024-04-22)","source_url":"https://insurance.maryland.gov/Insurer/Documents/bulletins/24-11-The-Use-of-Artificial-Intelligence-Systems-in-Insurance.pdf","source_title":"MD DOI Maryland Insurance Administration Bulletin 24-11 (PDF)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"MD Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"ma-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"Massachusetts Division of Insurance Bulletin 2024-10 — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"MA DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MA","state_abbr":"MA","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-12-09","enacted_date":"2024-12-09","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The MA Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in MA 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in MA whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in MA (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"Massachusetts Division of Insurance Bulletin 2024-10 (2024-12-09)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"MA Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"mi-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"Michigan DIFS Bulletin 2024-20-INS — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"MI DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"MI","state_abbr":"MI","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-07","enacted_date":"2024-08-07","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The MI Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in MI 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in MI whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in MI (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"Michigan DIFS Bulletin 2024-20-INS (2024-08-07)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"MI Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"ne-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"Nebraska Insurance Guidance Document IGD-H1 — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"NE DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NE","state_abbr":"NE","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-06-11","enacted_date":"2024-06-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The NE Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in NE 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in NE whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in NE (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"Nebraska Insurance Guidance Document IGD-H1 (2024-06-11)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"NE Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"nv-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"Nevada DOI Bulletin 24-001 — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"NV DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NV","state_abbr":"NV","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-02-23","enacted_date":"2024-02-23","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The NV Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in NV 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in NV whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in NV (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"Nevada DOI Bulletin 24-001 (2024-02-23)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"NV Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"nh-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"New Hampshire ID Docket INS 24-011-AB — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"NH DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NH","state_abbr":"NH","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-02-20","enacted_date":"2024-02-20","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The NH Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in NH 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in NH whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in NH (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"New Hampshire ID Docket INS 24-011-AB (2024-02-20)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"NH Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"nj-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"New Jersey DOBI Insurance Bulletin 25-03 — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"NJ DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-02-11","enacted_date":"2025-02-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The NJ Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in NJ 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in NJ whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in NJ (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"New Jersey DOBI Insurance Bulletin 25-03 (2025-02-11)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"NJ Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"nc-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"North Carolina DOI Bulletin 24-B-19 — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"NC DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"NC","state_abbr":"NC","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-12-18","enacted_date":"2024-12-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The NC Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in NC 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in NC whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in NC (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"North Carolina DOI Bulletin 24-B-19 (2024-12-18)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"NC Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"ok-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"Oklahoma ID Bulletin 2024-11 — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"OK DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"OK","state_abbr":"OK","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-11-14","enacted_date":"2024-11-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The OK Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in OK 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in OK whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in OK (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"Oklahoma ID Bulletin 2024-11 (2024-11-14)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"OK Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"pa-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"Pennsylvania ID Insurance Notice 2024-04 (54 Pa.B. 1910) — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"PA DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"PA","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-06","enacted_date":"2024-04-06","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The PA Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in PA 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in PA whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in PA (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"Pennsylvania ID Insurance Notice 2024-04 (54 Pa.B. 1910) (2024-04-06)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"PA Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"ri-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"Rhode Island DBR Insurance Bulletin 2024-03 — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"RI DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"RI","state_abbr":"RI","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-03-15","enacted_date":"2024-03-15","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The RI Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in RI 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in RI whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in RI (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"Rhode Island DBR Insurance Bulletin 2024-03 (2024-03-15)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"RI Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"vt-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"Vermont DFR Insurance Bulletin 229 — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"VT DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"VT","state_abbr":"VT","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-03-12","enacted_date":"2024-03-12","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The VT Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in VT 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in VT whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in VT (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"Vermont DFR Insurance Bulletin 229 (2024-03-12)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"VT Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"va-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"Virginia SCC Bureau of Insurance Administrative Letter 2024-01 — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"VA DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"VA","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-22","enacted_date":"2024-07-22","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The VA Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in VA 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in VA whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in VA (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"Virginia SCC Bureau of Insurance Administrative Letter 2024-01 (2024-07-22)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"VA Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"wa-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"Washington OIC Technical Assistance Advisory 2024-02 — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"WA DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"WA","state_abbr":"WA","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-22","enacted_date":"2024-04-22","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The WA Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in WA 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in WA whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in WA (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"Washington OIC Technical Assistance Advisory 2024-02 (2024-04-22)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"WA Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"wv-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"West Virginia OIC Insurance Bulletin 24-06 — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"WV DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"WV","state_abbr":"WV","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-09","enacted_date":"2024-08-09","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The WV Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in WV 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in WV whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in WV (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"West Virginia OIC Insurance Bulletin 24-06 (2024-08-09)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"WV Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"wi-doi-naic-ai-bulletin","title":"Wisconsin OCI AI Bulletin (2025-03-18) — Use of AI Systems by Insurers (NAIC Model Bulletin adoption)","short_title":"WI DOI AI Bulletin","level":"state","jurisdiction":"WI","state_abbr":"WI","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-03-18","enacted_date":"2025-03-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-06","summary_plain":"The WI Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in WI 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.","summary_technical":"Adoption of the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers. Establishes regulator expectations for insurer AI Systems Programs covering governance/accountability, risk identification/mitigation, model validation/testing for bias and accuracy, third-party AI vendor due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and documentation/recordkeeping sufficient to support regulator examination. Existing statutory authority: state unfair trade practices act, unfair discrimination provisions, market-conduct examination authority.","who_is_protected":"Consumers, applicants, claimants, and policyholders in WI whose insurance decisions involve insurer AI systems","who_must_comply":"All insurers licensed to write business in WI (including health, life, P&C, and reinsurance lines)","citation":"Wisconsin OCI AI Bulletin (2025-03-18) (2025-03-18)","source_url":"https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/cmte-h-big-data-artificial-intelligence-wg-map-ai-model-bulletin.pdf","source_title":"NAIC AI Model Bulletin Implementation Map (Apr. 1, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"WI Department / Division of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard market-conduct examination findings, corrective action plans, fines under state unfair-trade-practices act"},{"id":"mi-pa-0011-2025-intimate-deepfake","title":"Michigan Protection from Intimate Deep Fakes Act (HB 4047/4048, Public Acts 10–11 of 2025)","short_title":"Michigan Intimate Deep Fakes Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Michigan","state_abbr":"MI","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-26","enacted_date":"2025-08-26","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Michigan makes it a crime to create or distribute AI-generated sexually explicit images of a real, identifiable person without their consent. First offenses carry up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine; aggravated violations (posting online, extortion, prior conviction) escalate to a felony with up to three years. Victims may also sue for damages, injunctions, and up to $1,000/day for violating a restraining order.","summary_technical":"HB 4047 (Pub. Act 10 of 2025) creates the Protection from Intimate Deep Fakes Act criminalizing nonconsensual creation or distribution of intimate deepfakes of identifiable persons; HB 4048 (Pub. Act 11) adds aggravated dissemination to sentencing guidelines. Signed Aug. 26, 2025.","who_is_protected":"Any identifiable individual depicted without consent in an intimate AI-generated image or video","who_must_comply":"Anyone who creates, solicits, or distributes intimate deepfakes in Michigan","citation":"2025 Mich. Pub. Acts 10–11 (HB 4047–4048)","source_url":"https://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2025-2026/publicact/htm/2025-PA-0011.htm","source_title":"Enrolled House Bill No. 4047 — Public Act 10 of 2025, Michigan Legislature","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Michigan Attorney General; county prosecutors; civil courts","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Misdemeanor up to 1 year/$3,000; aggravated felony up to 3 years/$5,000; civil damages and up to $1,000/day TRO-violation fines"},{"id":"mi-pa-0263-2023-election-deepfake","title":"Michigan Election Deepfake & AI Political Ad Disclosure Package (Public Acts 263–266 of 2023)","short_title":"Michigan Election Deepfake Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Michigan","state_abbr":"MI","topics":["deepfakes","elections","ai-images","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-02-13","enacted_date":"2023-12-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Michigan requires clear AI-disclosure disclaimers on political ads created substantially with AI, and separately bans distributing materially deceptive media to influence an election within 90 days of a vote. Distributing election deepfakes without disclosure is a felony punishable by up to five years.","summary_technical":"HB 5141 (PA 263 of 2023) amends the Michigan Campaign Finance Act (MCL 169.259) to require AI-content disclaimers; HB 5144 (PA 265) prohibits materially deceptive synthetic media to influence elections; HB 5145 (PA 266) sets felony penalties. Effective Feb. 13, 2024.","who_is_protected":"Candidates, voters, and the public","who_must_comply":"Campaigns, committees, and anyone distributing AI-generated political advertising in Michigan","citation":"2023 Mich. Pub. Acts 263–266; MCL 169.259","source_url":"https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2023-HB-5141","source_title":"House Bill 5141 of 2023 (Public Act 263) — Michigan Legislature","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Michigan Secretary of State; Bureau of Elections; county prosecutors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Disclosure violations: civil infraction $250–$1,000 / committee misdemeanor; election deepfake distribution: felony up to 5 years"},{"id":"oh-orc-2917211-fabricated-sexual-images","title":"Ohio Nonconsensual Fabricated Sexual Images Law (ORC § 2917.211, as amended by HB 96)","short_title":"Ohio AI Fabricated Sexual Images Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Ohio","state_abbr":"OH","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-30","enacted_date":"2025-09-30","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Ohio amended its nonconsensual-image law in September 2025 to expressly cover AI-generated and digitally fabricated sexual images — prohibiting both distributing AND creating them without the depicted person's consent. First offenses are fourth-degree felonies, escalating for repeat offenders. Victims may sue for compensatory and punitive damages plus attorney's fees.","summary_technical":"Ohio HB 96 (136th GA), eff. Sept. 30, 2025, amends ORC § 2917.211 to add nonconsensual dissemination and creation of fabricated sexual images (F-4, elevated to F-3 for prior offenders); civil remedies at ORC § 2307.66.","who_is_protected":"Any identifiable person depicted without consent in a fabricated (AI/digitally manipulated) sexual image","who_must_comply":"Anyone who creates, solicits, or distributes fabricated sexual imagery in Ohio","citation":"ORC § 2917.211 (amended by 2025 Ohio HB 96); ORC § 2307.66","source_url":"https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2917.211","source_title":"Section 2917.211 — Ohio Revised Code","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Ohio county prosecutors; Ohio Attorney General; civil courts","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"F-4 felony up to 18 months (first); F-3 up to 36 months (repeat/prior sex offense); civil damages and fees"},{"id":"nj-pl2025-c040-deepfake-act","title":"New Jersey Deceptive AI Deepfakes Law (A3540/S2544, P.L. 2025, c.40)","short_title":"NJ Deceptive AI Deepfakes Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Jersey","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images","elections","children","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-04-02","enacted_date":"2025-04-02","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"New Jersey's deepfake law makes it a crime to create or use deceptive AI-generated audio or video to commit or further any crime. Making such media is a third-degree crime that can carry fines up to $30,000, and knowingly or recklessly sharing it is a fourth-degree crime. Victims can sue for at least $1,000 per violation plus punitive damages and legal fees. Satire, parody, news reporting, teaching and research are exempt.","summary_technical":"P.L.2025, c.40 (A3540/S2544), enacted Apr. 2, 2025, criminalizes (third degree) production or dissemination of deceptive audio or visual media in furtherance of enumerated crimes; creates a civil cause of action. Exempts satire, parody, news, teaching, research.","who_is_protected":"Individuals depicted in deceptive AI media; voters; minors","who_must_comply":"Anyone who creates or distributes deceptive AI-generated audio or visual media in New Jersey","citation":"P.L.2025, c.40 (N.J. A3540/S2544)","source_url":"https://pub.njleg.gov/Bills/2024/PL25/40_.HTM","source_title":"P.L. 2025, c.040 (A3540) — New Jersey Legislature","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New Jersey Attorney General; county prosecutors; civil courts","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Third-degree crime (fine up to $30,000 plus imprisonment) for creating or using deceptive media to commit a crime; fourth-degree crime for knowingly or recklessly disclosing it; civil action with at least $1,000 liquidated damages per violation, punitive damages, attorney's fees and injunctive relief"},{"id":"nj-sb332-data-privacy-act","title":"New Jersey Data Protection Act (SB 332, P.L. 2024, c.9)","short_title":"New Jersey Data Protection Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Jersey","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["privacy","consumer-protection","automated-decisions","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-15","enacted_date":"2024-01-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"New Jersey's comprehensive privacy law grants residents rights to access, correct, delete, and port personal data and to opt out of data sales and targeted advertising. Controllers must get opt-in consent for sensitive data (health, biometric, precise location) and honor universal opt-out signals since July 2025.","summary_technical":"N.J. SB 332 (P.L.2024, c.9), eff. Jan. 15, 2025; applies at 100,000-consumer or 25,000/revenue thresholds; universal opt-out mechanism required July 15, 2025; AG enforcement up to $10,000 per violation, 30-day cure for first 18 months.","who_is_protected":"New Jersey residents","who_must_comply":"Controllers/processors meeting thresholds operating in or targeting NJ","citation":"P.L.2024, c.9 (N.J. SB 332)","source_url":"https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2022/S332/bill-text?f=S0500&n=332_R6","source_title":"Senate Bill 332 — New Jersey Legislature","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New Jersey Attorney General (Division of Consumer Affairs)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Up to $10,000 per violation; injunctive relief"},{"id":"nm-hb182-2024-election-deepfake","title":"New Mexico AI Disclosure in Political Advertising Law (HB 182, 2024)","short_title":"New Mexico Political Deepfake Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Mexico","state_abbr":"NM","topics":["deepfakes","elections","ai-images","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-05-15","enacted_date":"2024-03-05","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"New Mexico requires political campaigns to include a prominent disclaimer — 'This has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence' — on any campaign ad containing materially deceptive AI content, and criminalizes distributing materially deceptive political media.","summary_technical":"NM HB 182 (2024) amends the Campaign Reporting Act (NMSA 1978) to require AI-manipulation disclaimers on political ads and criminalize distribution of materially deceptive election media. Effective May 15, 2024.","who_is_protected":"Candidates depicted in AI-altered political media; New Mexico voters","who_must_comply":"Campaigns, committees, and individuals distributing AI-generated political ads in New Mexico","citation":"2024 N.M. Laws (HB 182), amending NMSA 1978 Campaign Reporting Act","source_url":"https://www.nmlegis.gov/Legislation/Legislation?chamber=H&legtype=B&legno=182&year=24","source_title":"HB 182 — 2024 Regular Session, New Mexico Legislature","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"New Mexico Ethics Commission; Secretary of State","penalties":"Criminal penalties for distributing materially deceptive media; administrative enforcement"},{"id":"ky-hb15-2024-consumer-data-privacy","title":"Kentucky Consumer Data Protection Act (HB 15, 2024)","short_title":"Kentucky Consumer Data Protection Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Kentucky","state_abbr":"KY","topics":["privacy","consumer-protection","automated-decisions","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-04-04","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Kentucky's privacy law took effect January 1, 2026, giving residents rights to access, correct, delete, and copy their personal data, and to opt out of data sales and targeted advertising. Businesses need opt-in consent for sensitive data including biometrics.","summary_technical":"KY HB 15 (2024), eff. Jan. 1, 2026; VCDPA-modeled; 100,000-consumer or 25,000/50%-revenue thresholds; data protection assessments required from June 1, 2026; AG-exclusive enforcement, 30-day cure, up to $7,500 per continued violation.","who_is_protected":"Kentucky consumers","who_must_comply":"Controllers/processors meeting thresholds doing business in or targeting Kentucky","citation":"2024 Ky. Acts (HB 15); KRS ch. 367","source_url":"https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/24rs/hb15.html","source_title":"24RS HB 15 — Kentucky Legislature","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Kentucky Attorney General (exclusive)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Up to $7,500 per continued violation after 30-day cure"},{"id":"ky-sb4-2025-ai-governance-election","title":"Kentucky AI Governance & Election Deepfake Act (SB 4, 2025)","short_title":"Kentucky SB 4 (AI Governance)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Kentucky","state_abbr":"KY","topics":["deepfakes","elections","transparency","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-03-24","enacted_date":"2025-03-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Kentucky SB 4 establishes an AI governance framework for state government — agencies need approval before deploying AI, must conduct risk assessments, disclose AI use in decisions, and keep human oversight for consequential decisions. It also bans undisclosed AI-generated content falsely depicting people in political communications, with a civil remedy for those depicted.","summary_technical":"KY SB 4 (2025), eff. Mar. 24, 2025: creates the AI Governance Committee in the Commonwealth Office of Technology; mandates approval, NIST/ISO-aligned risk assessments, and AI-use disclosure for agencies; prohibits undisclosed AI electioneering deepfakes with a private civil action.","who_is_protected":"Kentuckians subject to state-government AI decisions; people falsely depicted in AI election content","who_must_comply":"Kentucky state agencies; campaigns and individuals distributing AI electioneering content","citation":"2025 Ky. Acts (SB 4)","source_url":"https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/25rs/sb4.html","source_title":"25RS SB 4 — Kentucky Legislature","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Commonwealth Office of Technology; civil courts (election deepfakes)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Administrative consequences for agencies; civil action for election deepfakes"},{"id":"ia-hf2240-2024-ncii-synthetic","title":"Iowa Nonconsensual Synthetic Intimate Content Law (HF 2240, 2024)","short_title":"Iowa Synthetic Intimate Content Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Iowa","state_abbr":"IA","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-04-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Iowa criminalizes generating or distributing synthetic images or videos depicting a person in sexual acts or nudity without consent. Violations involving adults are aggravated misdemeanors; involving minors, felonies. Expressly motivated by AI-generated pornographic deepfakes.","summary_technical":"Iowa HF 2240 (90th GA), eff. July 1, 2024, creates a criminal offense for nonconsensual synthetic intimate content covering AI-generated depictions (aggravated misdemeanor for adults; felony for minors).","who_is_protected":"Any person depicted without consent in synthetic/AI-generated intimate imagery","who_must_comply":"Anyone who generates or distributes such imagery in Iowa","citation":"Iowa HF 2240 (2024)","source_url":"https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ba=HF+2240&ga=90","source_title":"Iowa HF 2240 — Iowa Legislature (90th GA)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Iowa county prosecutors; Iowa Attorney General","penalties":"Aggravated misdemeanor (adult depictions); felony (minors)"},{"id":"ia-sf2243-2024-ai-csam","title":"Iowa AI-Generated CSAM Law (SF 2243, 2024)","short_title":"Iowa AI CSAM Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Iowa","state_abbr":"IA","topics":["children","ai-images","deepfakes"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-04-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Iowa amended its sexual-exploitation-of-a-minor law to explicitly include depictions 'created, adapted, or modified' by AI to appear to show an identifiable minor in a prohibited act. First offense: Class D felony (up to 5 years); second: Class C felony (up to 10 years). Passed unanimously.","summary_technical":"Iowa SF 2243 (90th GA, 2024) amends Iowa Code § 728 to include AI-generated or digitally adapted depictions of identifiable minors within 'visual depiction of a minor.'","who_is_protected":"Identifiable minors depicted in AI-generated or modified CSAM","who_must_comply":"Anyone who creates, possesses, or distributes such material in Iowa","citation":"Iowa SF 2243 (2024), amending Iowa Code § 728","source_url":"https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=SF+2243","source_title":"Iowa SF 2243 — Iowa Legislature (90th GA)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Iowa county prosecutors; Iowa Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Class D felony (first); Class C felony (second)"},{"id":"ia-sf262-2023-consumer-data-privacy","title":"Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act (SF 262, 2023)","short_title":"Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Iowa","state_abbr":"IA","topics":["privacy","consumer-protection","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2023-03-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Iowa's privacy law gives consumers rights to access, delete, copy, and opt out of the sale of their personal data and targeted advertising. Notably it does NOT include a profiling opt-out, making it one of the more business-friendly state privacy laws.","summary_technical":"Iowa SF 262 (2023), Iowa Code ch. 715D, eff. Jan. 1, 2025; 100,000-consumer or 25,000/50%-revenue thresholds; AG-exclusive enforcement; 90-day cure; up to $7,500 per violation.","who_is_protected":"Iowa consumers","who_must_comply":"Controllers/processors meeting thresholds in Iowa","citation":"Iowa SF 262 (2023), Iowa Code ch. 715D","source_url":"https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=SF+262","source_title":"Iowa SF 262 — Iowa Legislature (90th GA)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Iowa Attorney General (exclusive)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Up to $7,500 per continued violation after 90-day cure"},{"id":"ar-act827-hb1529-2025-deepfake-sexual","title":"Arkansas Deepfake Sexual Content Act (HB 1529, Act 827 of 2025)","short_title":"Arkansas Deepfake Sexual Content Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arkansas","state_abbr":"AR","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-04-17","enacted_date":"2025-04-17","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Arkansas criminalizes creating or distributing deepfake sexual imagery — AI-generated or digitally manipulated images that appear authentic and depict an identifiable person in nudity or sexual conduct without consent. First offense is a Class A misdemeanor, repeats are felonies; victims can sue for punitive damages, and the Attorney General can sue platforms that lack reasonable safeguards against generating this content.","summary_technical":"Ark. HB 1529 (Act 827 of 2025), eff. Apr. 17, 2025: criminal offense (Class A misdemeanor → Class D felony for repeats), civil cause of action with punitive damages and fees, and AG authority against platforms lacking safeguards.","who_is_protected":"Any identifiable person depicted without consent in AI-generated sexual imagery","who_must_comply":"Creators and distributors of deepfake sexual imagery; platforms without safeguards","citation":"2025 Ark. Acts 827 (HB 1529)","source_url":"https://arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/Detail?id=HB1529&chamber=House&ddBienniumSession=2025/2025R","source_title":"HB 1529 — Arkansas State Legislature (95th GA)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Arkansas county prosecutors; Arkansas Attorney General (incl. against platforms)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Class A misdemeanor (first), Class D felony (subsequent); civil actual/compensatory/punitive damages"},{"id":"ar-act977-hb1877-2025-ai-csam","title":"Arkansas AI-Generated CSAM Law (HB 1877, Act 977 of 2025)","short_title":"Arkansas AI CSAM Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arkansas","state_abbr":"AR","topics":["children","ai-images","deepfakes"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-04-22","enacted_date":"2025-04-22","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Arkansas expressly criminalizes AI-generated CSAM that is indistinguishable from real child imagery — defining 'computer generated' as AI-produced and 'indistinguishable' as imagery a reasonable person would believe depicts an actual child. Limited exemptions for law enforcement and good-faith AI safety testing.","summary_technical":"Ark. HB 1877 (Act 977 of 2025), eff. Apr. 22, 2025, amends Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-603 to criminalize creation, possession, and distribution of AI-generated CSAM indistinguishable from real children.","who_is_protected":"Children","who_must_comply":"Anyone who creates, possesses, or distributes AI-generated CSAM in Arkansas","citation":"2025 Ark. Acts 977 (HB 1877), amending Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-603","source_url":"https://arkleg.state.ar.us/Home/FTPDocument?path=/Bills/2025R/Public/HB1877/HB1877040720251044.pdf","source_title":"HB 1877 (Act 977 of 2025) — Arkansas State Legislature","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Arkansas county prosecutors; Arkansas Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Felony penalties consistent with existing CSAM statute"},{"id":"al-hb161-2024-ncii-synthetic","title":"Alabama Nonconsensual Private Images Law incl. Synthetic Deepfakes (HB 161, 2024)","short_title":"Alabama Synthetic Private Images Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Alabama","state_abbr":"AL","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-10-01","enacted_date":"2024-04-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Alabama prohibits the nonconsensual creation or distribution of 'private images,' expressly including AI-altered or synthetically generated depictions of people in nudity or sexual conduct. Both distribution and creation are criminalized.","summary_technical":"Ala. HB 161 (2024), eff. Oct. 1, 2024, amends Ala. Code § 13A-6-240 to criminalize knowingly creating (recording or altering) or distributing a private image without consent, covering synthetic/AI-generated depictions.","who_is_protected":"Any identifiable person depicted without consent in a real or synthetic intimate image","who_must_comply":"Anyone who creates or distributes private images without consent in Alabama","citation":"2024 Ala. Acts (HB 161), amending Ala. Code § 13A-6-240","source_url":"https://legiscan.com/AL/text/HB161/id/2982526","source_title":"Alabama HB 161 — 2024 Regular Session (LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Alabama county prosecutors; Alabama Attorney General","penalties":"Criminal penalties under Ala. Code § 13A (class not confirmed from secondary sources)"},{"id":"al-hb172-2024-election-deepfake","title":"Alabama Election Deepfake Law (HB 172, 2024)","short_title":"Alabama Election Deepfake Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Alabama","state_abbr":"AL","topics":["deepfakes","elections","ai-images","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-10-01","enacted_date":"2024-05-16","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Alabama criminalizes distributing materially false AI-generated media intended to harm a candidate or mislead voters within 90 days of an election. First violation is a misdemeanor; repeats within five years are felonies. Clearly disclaimed synthetic media is exempt.","summary_technical":"Ala. HB 172 (2024), eff. Oct. 1, 2024: prohibits AI-generated materially deceptive election media within 90 days of an election; misdemeanor (first), felony (subsequent within 5 years); disclaimer exemption.","who_is_protected":"Candidates and Alabama voters","who_must_comply":"Anyone distributing AI-generated deceptive election media in Alabama","citation":"2024 Ala. Acts (HB 172)","source_url":"https://legiscan.com/AL/bill/HB172/2024","source_title":"Alabama HB 172 — 2024 Regular Session (LegiScan)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Alabama Secretary of State; county prosecutors","penalties":"Misdemeanor (first); felony (repeat within 5 years)"},{"id":"ok-ncii-deepfake-hb1364","title":"Oklahoma HB 1364 – Prohibition on Nonconsensual AI-Generated Sexual Imagery","short_title":"OK AI Revenge Porn Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Oklahoma","state_abbr":"OK","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-11-01","enacted_date":"2025-05-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Oklahoma makes it a crime to knowingly or recklessly share AI-generated sexually explicit images of another person without their consent and with intent to cause harm. Violations can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony depending on circumstances. Exceptions exist for journalism, law enforcement, and platform liability is limited.","summary_technical":"HB 1364 (2025 Okla. Sess. Laws) amends existing Oklahoma intimate-images statute to explicitly cover 'artificially generated sexual depictions,' criminalizing nonconsensual dissemination of AI-fabricated explicit imagery; effective November 1, 2025.","who_is_protected":"Any identifiable person depicted in nonconsensual AI-generated sexually explicit media","who_must_comply":"Individuals who knowingly or recklessly disseminate AI-generated explicit images without consent","citation":"Okla. HB 1364, 60th Leg., 1st Sess. (2025), eff. Nov. 1, 2025","source_url":"https://babl.ai/oklahoma-enacts-nation-leading-ai-revenge-porn-law/","source_title":"Oklahoma Enacts Nation-Leading AI Revenge Porn Law – BABL AI","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Oklahoma district attorneys / criminal courts","penalties":"Misdemeanor or felony depending on circumstances and prior offenses"},{"id":"ks-csam-synthetic-hb2183","title":"Kansas HB 2183 (2026) – Synthetic Child Exploitation Material and Visual Depictions","short_title":"KS Synthetic CSAM Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Kansas","state_abbr":"KS","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-02-05","last_verified_date":"2026-07-24","summary_plain":"Kansas updated its child sexual exploitation and privacy statutes to prohibit creation and distribution of visual depictions where the person depicted is indistinguishable from a real child, including AI-generated and morphed imagery. The law also addresses unlawful transmission of such visual depictions and breach of privacy. Signed by the governor February 5, 2026; took effect July 1, 2026 as part of the 124-law Kansas effective date batch.","summary_technical":"KS HB 2183 (2025-26 Reg. Sess.), approved by Governor February 5, 2026, effective July 1, 2026. Modifies crimes of sexual exploitation of a child, unlawful transmission of visual depictions of a child, and breach of privacy to prohibit acts related to visual depictions in which the person depicted is indistinguishable from a real child, including computer-generated and morphed images.","who_is_protected":"Minors depicted in sexual exploitation material including AI-generated or morphed imagery","who_must_comply":"Any person creating, distributing, or possessing qualifying synthetic child sexual exploitation imagery","citation":"KS HB 2183, 2025-26 Reg. Sess., approved by Governor Feb. 5, 2026, eff. July 1, 2026","source_url":"https://legiscan.com/KS/bill/HB2183/2025","source_title":"Kansas HB2183 | 2025-2026 | Regular Session | LegiScan","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Kansas district attorneys / criminal courts","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Felony criminal penalties for sexual exploitation of a child offenses"},{"id":"ks-ai-platforms-concern-hb2313","title":"Kansas HB 2313 (2025) – Prohibition on AI Platforms of Concern on State Devices","short_title":"KS AI Foreign Platforms Ban","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Kansas","state_abbr":"KS","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-04-08","enacted_date":"2025-04-08","last_verified_date":"2026-07-24","summary_plain":"Kansas prohibits state employees from using AI platforms controlled by foreign adversary countries — including DeepSeek and any Chinese-owned AI models — on state-issued devices and networks. Agencies must deactivate and delete any existing accounts with such platforms.","summary_technical":"KS Sub. for HB 2313, Ch. 84, 2025 Sess. Laws, approved Apr. 8, 2025; prohibits use of 'artificial intelligence platforms of concern' (defined to include DeepSeek and AI models controlled by China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela) on state-issued devices and agency networks; effective upon publication in statute book.","who_is_protected":"Kansas state government and public cybersecurity interests","who_must_comply":"All Kansas state agencies and their employees using state-issued devices or networks","citation":"2025 Kan. Sess. Laws ch. 84 (Sub. HB 2313), approved Apr. 8, 2025","source_url":"https://sos.ks.gov/publications/sessionlaws/2025/Chapter-84-HB-2313.html","source_title":"2025 Session Laws of Kansas – Chapter 84: Senate Substitute for House Bill 2313 | Kansas Secretary of State","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Kansas state agencies (self-executing); no explicit enforcement body named","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not specified in enacted text"},{"id":"ne-ndpa-lb1074","title":"Nebraska Data Privacy Act (NDPA)","short_title":"Nebraska NDPA","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Nebraska","state_abbr":"NE","topics":["privacy","automated-decisions","consumer-protection","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-04-17","last_verified_date":"2026-07-24","summary_plain":"Nebraska's comprehensive consumer privacy law gives residents the right to access, correct, delete, and port their personal data and to opt out of targeted advertising, data sales, and automated profiling used in decisions with significant legal or financial effects. The Attorney General enforces with fines up to $7,500 per violation with no private right of action.","summary_technical":"Neb. LB 1074 (108th Leg., 2024), signed Apr. 17, 2024, eff. Jan. 1, 2025; enacts the Nebraska Data Privacy Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 87-901 et seq.); grants opt-out rights for targeted advertising, data sale, and profiling in furtherance of solely automated decisions producing legal or similarly significant effects; requires data protection assessments for high-risk profiling; enforced by Nebraska AG.","who_is_protected":"Nebraska residents acting as consumers for personal, family, or household purposes","who_must_comply":"Controllers processing data of 100,000+ Nebraska consumers annually, or 25,000+ consumers with >25% gross revenue from data sales","citation":"Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 87-901 et seq. (LB 1074, 108th Leg., 2024), eff. Jan. 1, 2025","source_url":"https://protectthegoodlife.nebraska.gov/data-privacy-homepage","source_title":"Data Privacy Homepage – Nebraska Attorney General (Protect The Good Life)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Nebraska Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties up to $7,500 per violation"},{"id":"ne-ncii-deepfake-lb371","title":"Nebraska LB 371 (2025) – Civil Liability for Computer-Generated Intimate Images","short_title":"NE Synthetic NCII Civil Remedy","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Nebraska","state_abbr":"NE","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-05-30","enacted_date":"2025-05-30","last_verified_date":"2026-07-24","summary_plain":"Nebraska extended its existing civil remedies act for unauthorized disclosure of intimate images to explicitly cover computer-generated or digitally manipulated depictions, including AI deepfakes. Victims can sue civilly when AI-fabricated intimate imagery is shared without consent. The bill passed 49-0.","summary_technical":"Neb. LB 371, 109th Leg., 1st Sess., approved by Governor May 30, 2025; amends the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act to provide civil liability for images created by computer generation or digital manipulation, introduced by Sen. DeBoer.","who_is_protected":"Any identifiable person depicted in nonconsensual computer-generated or digitally manipulated intimate imagery","who_must_comply":"Any person who discloses computer-generated intimate images without consent","citation":"Neb. LB 371, 109th Leg., 1st Sess. (2025), approved May 30, 2025","source_url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/109/PDF/Slip/LB371.pdf","source_title":"Nebraska Legislative Bill 371 – Approved by the Governor May 30, 2025 (Official Slip Law)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Civil courts (private right of action)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil damages as specified in Nebraska's Uniform Civil Remedies Act"},{"id":"sc-ai-csam-act57-act58","title":"South Carolina Acts 57 & 58 (S.28 / S.29, 2025) – AI-Generated CSAM and Obscene Visual Representation of a Minor","short_title":"SC AI CSAM / Deepfake Laws","level":"state","jurisdiction":"South Carolina","state_abbr":"SC","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-05-27","enacted_date":"2025-05-27","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"South Carolina enacted two companion laws in May 2025 to criminalize AI-generated child sexual abuse material. Act 57 (S.28) closes loopholes excluding AI-generated CSAM from existing child exploitation statutes. Act 58 (S.29) creates a new felony offense for 'obscene visual representation of a minor,' covering wholly computer-generated sexual depictions where no real child exists.","summary_technical":"SC S.28 (Act 57) and S.29 (Act 58), 126th Gen. Assembly, enacted May 27, 2025: Act 57 amends SC Code to explicitly criminalize AI-generated/morphed CSAM ('morphed images' defined as digitally created or altered explicit depictions of minors); Act 58 creates new 'Obscene Visual Representation of a Minor' offense for wholly synthetic content; both punishable as felonies up to 10 years per count.","who_is_protected":"Minors — including where no real child is depicted (Act 58 covers wholly synthetic content)","who_must_comply":"Any person creating, distributing, or possessing AI-generated or morphed child sexual exploitation imagery","citation":"SC S.28, Act No. 57; SC S.29, Act No. 58 (2025), 126th Gen. Assembly, enacted May 27, 2025","source_url":"https://www.scag.gov/about-the-office/news/attorney-general-alan-wilson-applauds-passage-of-s-28-and-s-29-to-crack-down-on-ai-generated-child-sexual-abuse-material-morphed-images/","source_title":"AG Alan Wilson applauds passage of S.28 and S.29 – South Carolina Attorney General","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"South Carolina Attorney General; solicitors (local prosecutors)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Felony; up to 10 years imprisonment per count"},{"id":"ms-sb2577-deepfake","title":"Mississippi SB 2577 (2024) – Wrongful Dissemination of Digitizations (Deepfakes)","short_title":"MS Deepfake Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Mississippi","state_abbr":"MS","topics":["deepfakes","ai-images","elections"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-04-30","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Mississippi criminalizes the wrongful dissemination of 'digitizations' — defined as deepfakes created using AI, machine learning, or computer-generated means — when done with intent to cause violence, harm, or deter someone from voting. Penalties include up to 5 years in prison and a $50,000 fine.","summary_technical":"Miss. SB 2577, 2024 Reg. Sess., enacted Apr. 30, 2024, eff. July 1, 2024; adds new section to Miss. Code Ann. Title 97, Ch. 13; defines 'digitization' as altered or fabricated media using machine-learning AI or computer-generated means; criminalizes dissemination with intent to cause violence, harm, or voter deterrence; penalties up to 5 years/$50,000 fine.","who_is_protected":"Individuals who may be harmed by deepfake content; voters subject to AI-manipulated deterrence from voting","who_must_comply":"Any person who disseminates AI-generated digitizations with prohibited intent","citation":"Miss. SB 2577, 2024 Reg. Sess., eff. July 1, 2024; new section to Miss. Code Ann. Title 97, Ch. 13","source_url":"https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2024/html/SB/2500-2599/SB2577SG.htm","source_title":"SB2577 As Sent to Governor – Mississippi Legislative Bill Status System","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Mississippi district attorneys / criminal courts","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Up to 5 years imprisonment and/or up to $50,000 fine"},{"id":"id-hb575-ncii-deepfake","title":"Idaho HB 575 (2024) – Disclosing Explicit Synthetic Media","short_title":"ID Synthetic NCII Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Idaho","state_abbr":"ID","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-03-19","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Idaho makes it a crime to knowingly disclose explicit synthetic media — AI-generated or digitally manipulated intimate imagery — of an identifiable person when the person did not consent and disclosure would cause substantial emotional distress, or when it is shared to harass or humiliate, or used to extort. A first offense is a misdemeanor; a repeat offense within five years is a felony. The law took effect July 1, 2024.","summary_technical":"Idaho HB 575, 67th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess. (2024), signed Mar. 19, 2024 (Sess. Laws ch. 105), effective July 1, 2024; adds Idaho Code § 18-6606. Offense: knowingly (a) disclosing explicit synthetic media knowing or reasonably should know the identifiable person did not consent and disclosure would cause substantial emotional distress; (b) disclosing with intent to annoy, terrify, threaten, intimidate, harass, offend, humiliate or degrade; or (c) possessing and threatening disclosure to obtain money or valuable consideration. 'Synthetic media' = image or video created or altered using technical means such as AI to realistically misrepresent an identifiable individual. Misdemeanor; felony (up to 10 years and/or $25,000) for a repeat within five years. Exemptions for law enforcement, reporting unlawful conduct, public-interest disclosures (not merely because a public figure is depicted), research/education and legal proceedings; interactive computer services exempt for third-party content absent intentional aiding and abetting.","who_is_protected":"Identifiable persons depicted in nonconsensual explicit synthetic media","who_must_comply":"Any person who knowingly discloses explicit synthetic media without the subject's consent","citation":"Idaho HB 575, 67th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess. (2024), 2024 Idaho Sess. Laws ch. 105 (Idaho Code § 18-6606), signed Mar. 19, 2024; effective July 1, 2024","source_url":"https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2024/legislation/h0575/","source_title":"HOUSE BILL 575 – Idaho State Legislature (2024 Session)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Idaho county prosecutors / criminal courts","penalties":"Misdemeanor (Idaho Code § 18-6606(2)); felony punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment and/or a fine up to $25,000 for a person with a prior conviction under this section or a similar statute within the past five years (§ 18-6606(3))."},{"id":"id-hb664-fair-elections","title":"Idaho HB 664 (2024) – Freedom From AI-Rigged (FAIR) Elections Act","short_title":"ID FAIR Elections Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Idaho","state_abbr":"ID","topics":["deepfakes","ai-images","elections"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-03-25","enacted_date":"2024-03-25","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Idaho's FAIR Elections Act lets a candidate whose words or actions are deceptively faked with AI-generated audio or video in election campaign materials go to court to stop its publication and sue the creator for damages and attorney fees. Including a clear label saying the video or audio 'has been manipulated' is a defense to such a lawsuit.","summary_technical":"Idaho HB 664, 67th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess. (2024), 2024 Idaho Sess. Laws ch. 172, codified at Idaho Code 67-6628A; signed and effective Mar. 25, 2024 (emergency clause). A candidate deceptively represented through synthetic media (realistic but false audio/video giving a 'fundamentally different understanding or impression') in an electioneering communication may seek injunctive or equitable relief and general/special damages plus attorney fees against the information content provider. A prescribed 'This (video/audio) has been manipulated' disclosure is an affirmative defense; plaintiff must prove synthetic media by clear and convincing evidence; the disseminating medium is liable only if it removes the disclosure or alters the content.","who_is_protected":"Political candidates falsely depicted; Idaho voters","who_must_comply":"Political campaigns and persons publishing electioneering communications containing synthetic media","citation":"Idaho Code 67-6628A (HB 664, 67th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess., 2024 Idaho Sess. Laws ch. 172), signed Mar. 25, 2024","source_url":"https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2024/legislation/h0664/","source_title":"HOUSE BILL 664 – Idaho State Legislature (2024 Session)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Civil courts (candidate injunctive relief and damages)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil damages; injunctive relief"},{"id":"mt-mcdpa-amended","title":"Montana Consumer Data Privacy Act (MCDPA) as amended by SB 297 (2025)","short_title":"Montana MCDPA","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Montana","state_abbr":"MT","topics":["privacy","automated-decisions","consumer-protection","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-10-01","enacted_date":"2023-05-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Montana's comprehensive consumer privacy law, strengthened by 2025 amendments, gives residents rights to access, correct, delete, and opt out of data processing. The SB 297 amendment removed the 'solely automated' qualifier for profiling opt-out, meaning consumers can now opt out of any automated decision-making that involves profiling with significant effects — not just fully automated decisions.","summary_technical":"Mont. SB 384 (2023), eff. Oct. 1, 2024 (original MCDPA); amended by SB 297 (2025), signed May 8, 2025, eff. Oct. 1, 2025; removes 'solely' from profiling opt-out right; adds data protection assessment requirements; Mont. Code Ann. §§ 30-14-2901 et seq.; Mont. AG enforces, civil penalties up to $7,500/violation.","who_is_protected":"Montana residents acting as consumers","who_must_comply":"Controllers processing personal data of 50,000+ Montana consumers annually, or 25,000+ consumers with >25% gross revenue from data sales","citation":"Mont. Code Ann. §§ 30-14-2901 et seq. (SB 384, 2023; as amended by SB 297, 2025, eff. Oct. 1, 2025)","source_url":"https://dojmt.gov/office-of-consumer-protection/montana-consumer-data-privacy/","source_title":"Montana Consumer Data Privacy – Montana Department of Justice","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Montana Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties up to $7,500 per violation"},{"id":"mt-sb25-election-deepfakes","title":"Montana — SB 25, AI Deepfakes in Campaign Ads: PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED September 16, 2026. Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Watters Held the Law Likely Violates Free Expression Because the State FAILED TO PROVE the Risks Could Not Be Managed by a Less Restrictive Means — but the Injunction Runs ONLY as to the Plaintiff, Not Statewide","short_title":"Montana SB 25 election deepfakes — preliminarily enjoined as to plaintiff (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Montana","state_abbr":"MT","topics":["deepfakes","ai-images","elections"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2025-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Montana's SB 25 requires a disclaimer on election communications that use AI-generated or digitally altered images, video or sound to 'injure the reputation of the candidate or party or otherwise deceive a voter.' It passed in 2025 with support from ALL Democratic lawmakers and a majority of Republicans, and Gov. Greg Gianforte signed it. ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 A FEDERAL JUDGE PARTLY BLOCKED IT. Senior U.S. District Judge SUSAN WATTERS granted a preliminary injunction to Rep. DAN BARTEL (R-Lewistown), holding the law LIKELY VIOLATED FREE EXPRESSION RIGHTS. Her reasoning is the part worth keeping: the state had 'FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE PURPORTED RISKS OF GENERATIVE AI TECHNOLOGIES COULD NOT BE ADEQUATELY MANAGED' through a LESS RESTRICTIVE METHOD. That is ordinary strict-scrutiny narrow-tailoring analysis, and it is a warning to every AI election-disclosure law in this dataset: asserting that AI is dangerous is not enough, the state must show that a disclaimer mandate was the least restrictive way to address it. THE SCOPE OF THE RULING IS NARROW AND SHOULD NOT BE OVERSTATED. For now the injunction ONLY prevents the state from enforcing SB 25 AGAINST BARTEL AND HIS POLITICAL COMMITTEE, Accountability in State Government. The law is not struck down and remains on the books as to everyone else. HOW IT AROSE: Bartel's committee paid for campaign mailers attacking Republican moderates during this year's heated GOP legislative primaries, and several targeted candidates filed complaints under SB 25. One came from Rep. Eric Albus (R-Hinsdale), running for an open Senate seat, over a mailer calling him 'woke' that included AN ALTERED IMAGE SHOWING HIM WEARING A PRONOUN PIN AND HOLDING A PRIDE FLAG. Albus said he found other mailers amusing — one depicted him as a sheep — but that CONSTITUENTS BELIEVED THIS IMAGE WAS AUTHENTIC: 'It really polarized the Hi-Line community, because these people [know] me, and they view it as what it is — that it's a disparage[ment] of character.' Montana Commissioner of Political Practices CHRIS GALLUS DISMISSED Albus's complaint and the others, finding the mailers fell under an EXEMPTION FOR SATIRE AND PARODY. Bartel's attorney Matthew Monforton argued the injunction was needed anyway, because the commissioner's forbearance today says nothing about tomorrow: 'that doesn't tell us how he was going to enforce it tomorrow, or how a new commissioner was going to enforce it, or how the county attorney or the attorney general would enforce' it. Monforton also framed the merits: 'Every generation uses a new political tool, whether it's the printing press, then radio, then TV, then Photoshop, and now AI. Liberal Republicans want to criminalize this newest tool rather than engage in debate.'","summary_technical":"Mont. SB 25, 69th Leg. (2025), revises election laws to define and prohibit deceptive AI-generated or manipulated media in election/electioneering communications within 60 days of election; administrative fine up to $500 (initial violation); third violation constitutes felony with up to 2 years imprisonment; candidates may seek injunctive relief.","who_is_protected":"Candidates falsely depicted in election deepfakes; Montana voters","who_must_comply":"Any person or entity publishing electioneering communications containing AI-generated or manipulated media in Montana","citation":"Mont. SB 25, 69th Leg., 2025 Reg. Sess.; enrolled bill: legiscan.com/MT/text/SB25/id/3212547","source_url":"https://www.ktvh.com/news/judge-restricts-enforcement-of-montana-law-against-ai-deepfakes-in-campaign-ads","source_title":"Judge restricts enforcement of Montana law against AI 'deepfakes' in campaign ads — KTVH (MTN News)","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Montana Commissioner of Political Practices (administrative); district courts (criminal/injunctive)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Administrative fine up to $500 (initial); felony up to 2 years imprisonment (third offense)"},{"id":"mt-sb212-right-to-compute","title":"Montana SB 212 (2025) – Right to Compute Act","short_title":"MT Right to Compute Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Montana","state_abbr":"MT","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-04-17","enacted_date":"2025-04-17","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Montana became the first state to enshrine a constitutional right to compute, guaranteeing residents the right to own and use computational resources including AI hardware, software, and data processing tools. Any government regulation restricting these rights must meet a strict scrutiny standard.","summary_technical":"Mont. SB 212, 69th Leg. (2025), signed by Gov. Gianforte Apr. 17, 2025; creates Montana Right to Compute Act; grounds ownership and use of computational resources (including AI tools) in Mont. Const. property and free expression rights; requires government restrictions to be demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.","who_is_protected":"Montana residents and businesses seeking to own or use AI and computing resources","who_must_comply":"Montana state and local government entities seeking to regulate AI or computing","citation":"Mont. SB 212, 69th Leg., 2025 Reg. Sess., signed Apr. 17, 2025","source_url":"https://montananewsroom.com/montana-becomes-first-state-to-enshrine-right-to-compute-into-law/","source_title":"Montana Becomes First State to Enshrine 'Right to Compute' Into Law – Montana Newsroom","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Courts (constitutional challenge mechanism)","penalties":"Not applicable — creates a right rather than a restriction"},{"id":"wy-ws6-4-306-ncii-synthetic","title":"Wyoming W.S. § 6-4-306 (2024 Amendment) – Unlawful Dissemination of Intimate Images Including Computer-Generated Depictions","short_title":"WY NCII Deepfake Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Wyoming","state_abbr":"WY","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-03-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Wyoming's intimate image statute was amended in 2024 to explicitly include computer-generated images that purport to represent an identifiable person, covering AI deepfakes. Nonconsensual dissemination is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a $5,000 fine.","summary_technical":"Wyo. Stat. § 6-4-306 (as amended 2024, eff. July 1, 2024); definition of 'image' expanded to include 'a computer generated image that purports to represent an identifiable person'; nonconsensual dissemination remains a misdemeanor (up to 1 year imprisonment/$5,000 fine); HB0078 (2024 Wyo. Gen. Sess.) effected this amendment.","who_is_protected":"Identifiable persons depicted in nonconsensual intimate images including AI-generated or computer-generated depictions","who_must_comply":"Any person who knowingly disseminates intimate images (real or computer-generated) without the subject's consent","citation":"Wyo. Stat. § 6-4-306 (2024 ed.), amended by HB0078, 2024 Wyo. Gen. Sess., eff. July 1, 2024","source_url":"https://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/title-6/chapter-4/article-3/section-6-4-306/","source_title":"Wyoming Statutes § 6-4-306 (2024) – Unlawful Dissemination of Intimate Images | Justia","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Wyoming county and district attorneys; criminal courts","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Misdemeanor: up to 1 year imprisonment and/or $5,000 fine"},{"id":"nh-hb-1432-deepfakes","title":"New Hampshire Deepfake Criminal & Civil Law (HB 1432, 2024)","short_title":"NH Deepfake Law (HB 1432)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Hampshire","state_abbr":"NH","topics":["deepfakes","ncii","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-07-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"New Hampshire makes it a Class B felony to knowingly create, distribute, or present a deepfake with intent to embarrass, harass, defame, extort, or cause financial or reputational harm — and it was the first state law to create a private right of action specifically for deepfake victims. Satire, parody, and news reporting are exempt.","summary_technical":"2024 NH Laws ch. 243, codified at RSA 638:26-a (criminal) and RSA 507:8-n (civil); broad deepfake definition covering digitally altered video, audio, or other media; effective Jan. 1, 2025.","who_is_protected":"Any identifiable individual whose likeness is used in a harmful deepfake","who_must_comply":"Anyone who creates, distributes, or presents deepfakes with harmful intent","citation":"2024 NH Laws ch. 243; RSA 638:26-a; RSA 507:8-n","source_url":"https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/ai-law-and-regulation-tracker/new-hampshire-imposes-new-regulations-on-ai-and-criminalizes-deepfakes","source_title":"New Hampshire Imposes New Regulations on AI and Criminalizes Deepfakes — Akin","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"New Hampshire Attorney General; private plaintiffs","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Class B felony; civil damages via private right of action"},{"id":"nh-hb-1596-election-deepfakes","title":"New Hampshire Election Deepfake Disclosure Law (RSA 664:14-c)","short_title":"NH Election Deepfake Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Hampshire","state_abbr":"NH","topics":["deepfakes","elections","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-01","enacted_date":"2024-07-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Prohibits distributing AI-generated deepfakes of candidates or election officials within 90 days of an election unless clearly disclosed as AI-manipulated. Depicted candidates can seek injunctions and damages.","summary_technical":"RSA 664:14-c (2024, via HB 1596): bans undisclosed AI deepfakes of candidates/election officials within 90 days of an election; prescribed disclosure; civil remedies for depicted candidates.","who_is_protected":"Candidates and election officials; New Hampshire voters","who_must_comply":"Anyone distributing AI-generated campaign media in New Hampshire","citation":"RSA 664:14-c (2024)","source_url":"https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/title-lxiii/chapter-664/section-664-14-c/","source_title":"RSA 664:14-c — Synthetic Media and Deceptive and Fraudulent Deepfakes","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Private actions by candidates; New Hampshire Attorney General","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil injunctive relief and damages"},{"id":"nh-sb-255-privacy","title":"New Hampshire Data Privacy Act (SB 255)","short_title":"NH Consumer Privacy Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Hampshire","state_abbr":"NH","topics":["privacy","automated-decisions","consumer-protection","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-03-06","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"New Hampshire residents can access, correct, delete, and port their personal data, and opt out of targeted advertising, data sales, and profiling used in solely automated decisions. Applies at low thresholds (35,000 residents), so it covers many businesses.","summary_technical":"RSA 507-H (SB 255, eff. Jan. 1, 2025); 35,000-consumer or 10,000/25%-revenue thresholds; profiling opt-out for solely automated significant decisions; data protection assessments; AG-only enforcement with 60-day cure (first year).","who_is_protected":"New Hampshire residents","who_must_comply":"Controllers/processors meeting thresholds","citation":"RSA 507-H (2024 NH SB 255)","source_url":"https://www.doj.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt721/files/inline-documents/sonh/data-privacy-faqs-revised_0.pdf","source_title":"New Hampshire Data Privacy Act — Official DOJ FAQ","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New Hampshire Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties via AG; no private right of action"},{"id":"vt-act-161-ncii-deepfakes","title":"Vermont Nonconsensual Deepfake Pornography Law (Act 161 of 2024, 13 V.S.A. § 2606)","short_title":"Vermont NCII Deepfake Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Vermont","state_abbr":"VT","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-06-06","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Vermont amended its revenge-porn statute to explicitly criminalize nonconsensual disclosure of AI-generated and digitally manipulated sexually explicit images, expanding 'visual image' to include images created or altered by digitization.","summary_technical":"2024 VT Acts No. 161 amends 13 V.S.A. § 2606, adding 'digitization' to the definition of visual image; criminalizes knowing disclosure without consent with intent to harm.","who_is_protected":"Identifiable individuals depicted in AI-generated or altered intimate images","who_must_comply":"Anyone who knowingly discloses such images without consent","citation":"2024 VT Acts No. 161; 13 V.S.A. § 2606","source_url":"https://ago.vermont.gov/blog/2024/05/14/attorney-general-clark-thanks-legislature-explicitly-criminalizing-nonconsensual-deepfake","source_title":"Vermont AG: Legislature Explicitly Criminalizes Nonconsensual Deepfake Pornography","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Vermont Attorney General; state prosecutors","penalties":"Criminal penalties per 13 V.S.A. § 2606 structure"},{"id":"vt-s23-election-deepfakes","title":"Vermont Synthetic Media in Elections Law (S.23, Act 75 of 2026)","short_title":"Vermont Election Deepfake Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Vermont","state_abbr":"VT","topics":["deepfakes","elections","ai-images","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-03-05","enacted_date":"2026-03-05","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Deceptive AI-generated images, audio, or video about Vermont candidates distributed within 90 days of an election must carry a clear disclosure: on video for the full duration, in audio at the beginning, end, and at least every two minutes. Fines run up to $1,000, rising to as much as $15,000 for repeat violations meant to cause violence or harm, and the candidate depicted can go to court to stop distribution.","summary_technical":"2026 VT Acts No. 75 (S.23), signed and effective on passage Mar. 5, 2026: adds 17 V.S.A. § 2032 disclosure requirement for deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media within the 90-day pre-election window, with prescribed text; § 2033 escalating fines ($1,000 / $5,000 / $10,000 / $15,000) and candidate injunctive relief; §§ 2041-2042 AG and State's Attorney enforcement and civil investigative powers.","who_is_protected":"Vermont voters and candidates","who_must_comply":"Anyone distributing AI-generated campaign media in Vermont","citation":"2026 VT Acts No. 75 (S.23)","source_url":"https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2026/S.23","source_title":"Bill Status S.23 (Act 75) — Vermont Legislature","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Vermont Secretary of State; Vermont Attorney General","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Up to $1,000; up to $5,000 if intended to cause violence or bodily harm; up to $10,000 for a repeat violation within five years; up to $15,000 for both. The candidate depicted may seek injunctive relief; the AG or a State's Attorney may enforce."},{"id":"ri-h5046-ncii-deepfake","title":"Rhode Island Synthetic Intimate Imagery Law (H5046/S0136, 2025)","short_title":"RI Synthetic Intimate Imagery Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Rhode Island","state_abbr":"RI","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-02","enacted_date":"2025-07-02","last_verified_date":"2026-06-15","summary_plain":"Rhode Island updated its unauthorized-image (\"revenge porn\") statute to explicitly criminalize sexually explicit images that were created by a digital device or AI — i.e., synthetic nudes and explicit deepfakes of real people — making nonconsensual creation and distribution a crime. Signed into law July 2, 2025.","summary_technical":"2025 RI H5046 (companion S0136) amends the unauthorized-dissemination-of-sexually-explicit-images statute to cover images created or altered by a digital device/digitization (AI-generated synthetic intimate imagery). House passed Feb. 27, 2025; Senate concurred June 20, 2025; transmitted to Governor June 27; signed July 2, 2025; effective upon passage.","who_is_protected":"Individuals depicted in nonconsensual intimate imagery, including AI-generated/digitized images","who_must_comply":"Anyone who creates or distributes such imagery in Rhode Island","citation":"2025 RI H5046 / S0136","source_url":"https://www.thenewportbuzz.com/rhode-island-deepfake-porn-law-update-2025/56399","source_title":"Rhode Island Updates 'Revenge Porn' Law to Include AI-Generated Deepfakes — Newport Buzz","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Rhode Island Attorney General; state prosecutors","penalties":"Criminal penalties per the amended unauthorized-image statute"},{"id":"ri-ridtppa-privacy","title":"Rhode Island Data Transparency and Privacy Protection Act","short_title":"RI Privacy Law (RIDTPPA)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Rhode Island","state_abbr":"RI","topics":["privacy","automated-decisions","consumer-protection","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-06-29","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Rhode Island residents can access, correct, delete, and port their data, and opt out of targeted advertising, data sales, and profiling. The Attorney General enforces with fines up to $10,000 per violation and — unusually — no cure period.","summary_technical":"R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-48.1 et seq. (signed June 29, 2024, eff. Jan. 1, 2026); 35,000-consumer or 10,000/20%-revenue thresholds; profiling opt-out; data protection assessments; AG enforcement, no cure period.","who_is_protected":"Rhode Island residents","who_must_comply":"Controllers/processors meeting thresholds","citation":"R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-48.1 (2024)","source_url":"https://webserver.rilegislature.gov/Statutes/TITLE6/6-48.1/INDEX.htm","source_title":"RIDTPPA — RI Legislature Official Statutes","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Rhode Island Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Up to $10,000 per violation; no right to cure"},{"id":"de-dpdpa-privacy","title":"Delaware Personal Data Privacy Act (HB 154)","short_title":"Delaware Privacy Law (DPDPA)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Delaware","state_abbr":"DE","topics":["privacy","automated-decisions","consumer-protection","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2023-09-11","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Delaware residents can access, correct, delete, and port their personal data, and opt out of targeted advertising, data sales, and profiling used in solely automated decisions with legal effects. Applies at low thresholds (35,000 consumers).","summary_technical":"6 Del. C. § 12D-101 et seq. (HB 154, eff. Jan. 1, 2025); 35,000/10,000-20%-revenue thresholds; profiling opt-out; data protection assessments; AG-only enforcement.","who_is_protected":"Delaware consumers","who_must_comply":"Controllers/processors meeting thresholds doing business in Delaware","citation":"6 Del. C. § 12D-101 et seq. (2023 DE HB 154)","source_url":"https://legis.delaware.gov/json/BillDetail/GenerateHtmlDocument?legislationId=140388&legislationTypeId=1&docTypeId=2&legislationName=HB154","source_title":"Delaware Personal Data Privacy Act — Delaware General Assembly","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Delaware Department of Justice / Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties via AG; no private right of action"},{"id":"de-hb316-election-deepfakes","title":"Delaware Election Deepfake Crime (HB 316, 2024)","short_title":"Delaware Election Deepfake Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Delaware","state_abbr":"DE","topics":["deepfakes","elections","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-10-09","enacted_date":"2024-10-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Delaware criminalizes distributing AI-generated deepfakes of candidates or election officials within 90 days of an election with intent to harm or deceive. Basic violations are a Class B misdemeanor, escalating to a Class E felony for repeats; a clear disclosure is a complete safe harbor.","summary_technical":"2024 DE HB 316, amending Title 15 Del. C., effective on signing Oct. 9, 2024: criminalizes election deepfakes in the 90-day window (Class B misdemeanor → Class A misdemeanor for violence intent → Class E felony for repeats); disclosure safe harbor; civil injunctive relief for depicted candidates.","who_is_protected":"Candidates, parties, and Delaware voters","who_must_comply":"Anyone distributing election-related deepfakes in Delaware","citation":"2024 DE HB 316; 15 Del. C.","source_url":"https://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail/141109","source_title":"House Bill 316 — Delaware General Assembly","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Delaware Department of Elections; Delaware Attorney General","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Class B misdemeanor → Class E felony (repeats within 5 years)"},{"id":"hi-act-191-election-deepfakes","title":"Hawaii Election Deepfake Law (Act 191 of 2024) — PERMANENTLY ENJOINED","short_title":"Hawaii Election Deepfake Law (blocked)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Hawaii","state_abbr":"HI","topics":["deepfakes","elections","ai-images"],"status":"litigation","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2024-07-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Hawaii enacted a law in 2024 prohibiting materially deceptive AI-generated media of candidates near elections — but a federal court permanently enjoined it on January 30, 2026, finding it violated the First Amendment. The law remains on the books but is currently unenforceable.","summary_technical":"2024 HI Sess. Laws Act 191 (SB 2687); permanently enjoined Jan. 30, 2026 (D. Haw., Judge Shanlyn Park) as an unconstitutional content- and speaker-based restriction on political speech.","who_is_protected":"Candidates depicted in deceptive AI election media (currently unenforced)","who_must_comply":"Currently no one — enforcement enjoined","citation":"2024 HI Sess. Laws Act 191 (SB 2687); D. Haw. permanent injunction Jan. 30, 2026","source_url":"https://courthousenews.com/hawaiis-deepfake-law-struck-down-over-free-speech-concerns/","source_title":"Hawaii's Deepfake Law Struck Down Over Free Speech Concerns — Courthouse News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Hawaii Attorney General (enjoined)","penalties":"Enjoined"},{"id":"hi-sb3001-ai-disclosure-safety","title":"Hawaii AI Disclosure and Safety Act (SB 3001, Act 248, 2026)","short_title":"Hawaii AI Companion Safety Act (Act 248)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Hawaii","state_abbr":"HI","topics":["transparency","consumer-protection","children"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-07-14","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"Hawaii enacted a law (Act 248, signed July 14, 2026) requiring AI companion chatbot operators to clearly disclose users are talking to AI, implement self-harm and suicidal-ideation protocols, protect minors from manipulative engagement techniques and sexually explicit content, provide parental tools, and file annual reports with the state Behavioral Health Administration.","summary_technical":"HI SB 3001 SD2 HD3 CD1, enacted as Act 248 (signed July 14, 2026): AI-identity disclosure for conversational-AI/companion operators, protections for users and minor users (manipulative-engagement and sexually-explicit-content restrictions, parental tools), protocols for suicidal-ideation/self-harm prompts; annual reporting to the DOH Behavioral Health Administration from Jan. 1, 2028; violations treated as unfair or deceptive acts or practices.","who_is_protected":"Hawaii consumers and minors using AI companion platforms","who_must_comply":"Operators of AI companion platforms serving Hawaii","citation":"HI SB 3001 CD1 (2026)","source_url":"https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2026/bills/SB3001_CD1_.HTM","source_title":"Hawaii SB 3001 CD1 — Hawaii Legislature","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection (UDAP); Department of Health reporting"},{"id":"nd-hb1351-ncii-deepfakes","title":"North Dakota Sexually Expressive Deepfake Law (HB 1351, 2025)","short_title":"ND Sexually Explicit Deepfake Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"North Dakota","state_abbr":"ND","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-01","enacted_date":"2025-04-23","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"North Dakota makes it a Class A misdemeanor to create, possess, or distribute nonconsensual sexually explicit deepfakes — including computer-generated intimate imagery. Victims can sue for up to $10,000 in statutory damages plus any profits the offender made.","summary_technical":"2025 ND HB 1351, amending NDCC §§ 12.1-27.1-01(13) and 12.1-27.1-03.3; Class A misdemeanor; civil remedy up to $10,000 statutory damages plus disgorgement; effective Aug. 1, 2025.","who_is_protected":"Identifiable individuals depicted in nonconsensual explicit deepfakes","who_must_comply":"Anyone who creates, possesses, or distributes such deepfakes in North Dakota","citation":"2025 ND HB 1351; NDCC §§ 12.1-27.1-01(13), -03.3","source_url":"https://ndlegis.gov/assembly/69-2025/regular/bill-overview/bo1351.html?bill_year=2025&bill_number=1351","source_title":"HB 1351 — North Dakota Legislative Branch","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"North Dakota state prosecutors; private plaintiffs","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Class A misdemeanor; civil statutory damages up to $10,000 plus disgorgement"},{"id":"sd-sb79-ai-csam","title":"South Dakota AI-Generated CSAM Law (SB 79, 2024)","short_title":"SD AI CSAM Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"South Dakota","state_abbr":"SD","topics":["children","deepfakes","ai-images","ncii"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-02-13","enacted_date":"2024-02-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"2024 SD SB 79 amends SDCL child pornography definitions to include AI-generated images: deepfakes of actual children and fully synthetic imagery appearing to depict a child.","who_is_protected":"Children","who_must_comply":"Anyone who possesses, manufactures, or distributes such material","citation":"2024 SD SB 79","source_url":"https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/24991","source_title":"2024 Senate Bill 79 — South Dakota Legislature","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"South Dakota Attorney General; state prosecutors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Felony penalties under existing CSAM statutes"},{"id":"sd-election-deepfake-2025","title":"South Dakota Political Deepfake Disclosure Law (2025)","short_title":"SD Election Deepfake Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"South Dakota","state_abbr":"SD","topics":["deepfakes","elections","ai-images","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-01","enacted_date":"2025-03-31","last_verified_date":"2026-06-15","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"SB 164 (2025), sponsored by Sen. Liz Larson; signed by Gov. Larry Rhoden Mar. 31, 2025, effective July 1, 2025. Requires a prescribed AI-disclosure label on election deepfakes within the 90-day window; civil and criminal liability (reported as a Class 1 misdemeanor: up to 1 year, $2,000). Passed Senate 32-3, House 45-24.","who_is_protected":"South Dakota candidates and voters","who_must_comply":"Anyone distributing AI-manipulated political media in South Dakota","citation":"SD SB 164 (2025); signed Mar. 31, 2025; eff. July 1, 2025","source_url":"https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/ai-law-and-regulation-tracker/south-dakota-cracks-down-on-unlabeled-deepfakes-in-elections","source_title":"South Dakota Cracks Down on Unlabeled Deepfakes in Elections — Akin","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"South Dakota Attorney General; state prosecutors","penalties":"Civil and criminal liability; reported as a Class 1 misdemeanor (up to 1 year, $2,000 fine)"},{"id":"wv-code-61-8-28a-ncii-deepfakes","title":"West Virginia Nonconsensual Intimate Images Law incl. AI Fabricated Images (WV Code § 61-8-28a)","short_title":"WV Fabricated Intimate Images Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"West Virginia","state_abbr":"WV","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"West Virginia's intimate-images law explicitly covers AI-generated 'fabricated intimate images' — images created with AI or computer technology depicting someone's intimate parts. Disclosure or threats to disclose with intent to harass or coerce is a misdemeanor (first offense) and felony for repeats, with civil remedies under a separate uniform act.","summary_technical":"WV Code § 61-8-28a defines 'fabricated intimate image' (AI/computer-generated); misdemeanor first offense (up to 1 year, $1,000–$5,000), felony for repeats; civil remedies under WV Code § 55-20 (Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act).","who_is_protected":"Identifiable individuals depicted in real or AI-fabricated intimate images","who_must_comply":"Anyone who discloses or threatens to disclose such images with harmful intent","citation":"WV Code § 61-8-28a; WV Code § 55-20","source_url":"https://code.wvlegislature.gov/61-8-28A/","source_title":"West Virginia Code § 61-8-28A — WV Legislature","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"West Virginia state prosecutors; private plaintiffs (civil act)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Misdemeanor up to 1 year/$1,000–$5,000 (first); felony (repeats); civil damages"},{"id":"me-ld307-data-center-moratorium-vetoed","title":"Maine Data Center Moratorium (LD 307) — VETOED","short_title":"Maine Data Center Moratorium (vetoed)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Maine","state_abbr":"ME","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"vetoed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Maine's legislature became the first in the nation to pass a statewide data center moratorium — a pause on data centers over 20 megawatts until November 2027 — but Gov. Janet Mills vetoed it on April 24, 2026. She said she supports a temporary moratorium but wanted an exemption for development already underway at the former Androscoggin Mill site in the town of Jay. So there is no statewide Maine data center moratorium; local moratoriums (e.g., Bangor) still apply.","summary_technical":"LD 307 (HP 207, 132nd Legislature), 'An Act to Establish the Maine Data Center Coordination Council and Place a Temporary Limitation on Certain Data Centers' (sponsor Rep. Gattine), would have created a 13-member council to study data center siting (report due Feb. 1, 2027) and placed a moratorium on municipal and state permitting of data centers with a load of 20 MW or more until Nov. 1, 2027. Vetoed by Gov. Mills April 24, 2026 (citing the lack of an exemption for the former Androscoggin Mill site in Jay); veto sustained April 29, 2026 — not law.","who_is_protected":"(Would have protected) Maine ratepayers and communities near large data centers — not in effect","who_must_comply":"(Would have applied to) developers of data centers over 20 MW — not in effect","citation":"Me. LD 307 (HP 207, 132nd Leg.); vetoed Apr. 24, 2026; veto sustained Apr. 29, 2026","source_url":"https://legislature.maine.gov/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?LD=307&snum=132","source_title":"Maine Legislature — LD 307 (HP 207, 132nd Legislature) bill status","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"N/A (vetoed)"},{"id":"md-odpa-privacy","title":"Maryland Online Data Privacy Act (MODPA)","short_title":"Maryland Online Data Privacy Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Maryland","state_abbr":"MD","topics":["privacy","data-retention","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-10-01","enacted_date":"2024-05-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Maryland's privacy law is stricter than most: it prohibits processing sensitive personal data unless strictly necessary for the requested service. Consumers can access, correct, delete, and port their data, and opt out of automated profiling and targeted advertising. AG enforcement began April 2026.","summary_technical":"MODPA (SB 541), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 14-4601 et seq., eff. Oct. 1, 2025 (AG enforcement Apr. 1, 2026); strict-necessity standard for sensitive data; data protection assessments for algorithmic decision-making; profiling opt-out.","who_is_protected":"Maryland residents","who_must_comply":"Controllers processing data of 35,000+ MD residents/year, or 10,000+ with 20%+ revenue from data sales","citation":"2024 Md. Laws ch. 440 (SB 541); Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 14-4601–14-4626","source_url":"https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/sb0541?ys=2024RS","source_title":"Maryland SB 541 — Maryland Online Data Privacy Act","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Maryland Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Up to $10,000 per violation; $25,000 per subsequent; 60-day cure period"},{"id":"md-sb360-ncii-deepfake","title":"Maryland NCII / AI Deepfake Expansion (SB 360, 2025)","short_title":"MD NCII Deepfake Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Maryland","state_abbr":"MD","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-01","enacted_date":"2025-04-07","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Maryland expanded its revenge-porn statute to explicitly cover AI-generated deepfake intimate images — computer-generated likenesses indistinguishable from real persons. Victims get criminal remedies (up to 2 years, $5,000) and a new civil cause of action. Passed 47-0 and 140-0.","summary_technical":"SB 360 (2025) amends Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-809 to cover computer-generated images indistinguishable from the person to an ordinary observer; creates a civil private right of action.","who_is_protected":"Anyone depicted in nonconsensual AI-generated intimate imagery in Maryland","who_must_comply":"Creators and distributors of such imagery","citation":"2025 Md. Laws Ch. 219 (SB 360); Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-809","source_url":"https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/SB0360?ys=2025rs","source_title":"Maryland SB 360 (2025)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Maryland State's Attorneys; private civil action","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Misdemeanor up to 2 years/$5,000; civil damages, injunctions, attorney's fees"},{"id":"mn-mcdpa-privacy","title":"Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act (MCDPA)","short_title":"Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Minnesota","state_abbr":"MN","topics":["privacy","data-retention","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-31","enacted_date":"2024-05-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Minnesota's privacy law gives residents data rights plus something unique: the right to question automated profiling decisions with significant effects — including the right to know why the decision was made and what would change the outcome. Full AG enforcement began February 2026.","summary_technical":"MCDPA (HF 4757), Minn. Stat. §§ 325M.01–.21, eff. July 31, 2025; unique profiling-decision-questioning right (§ 325M.14); data protection assessments; AG-enforced up to $7,500/violation; cure period expired Jan. 31, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Minnesota residents","who_must_comply":"Controllers at 100,000-consumer or 25,000/50%-revenue thresholds","citation":"2024 Minn. Laws ch. 123 (HF 4757); Minn. Stat. §§ 325M.01–.21","source_url":"https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325M.14","source_title":"Minn. Stat. § 325M.14 — Consumer Personal Data Rights","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Minnesota Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Up to $7,500 per violation plus investigation costs"},{"id":"mn-hf1370-deepfake","title":"Minnesota Deepfake Law — NCII and Elections (HF 1370, 2023)","short_title":"MN Deepfake Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Minnesota","state_abbr":"MN","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images","elections"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-08-01","enacted_date":"2023-05-26","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Minnesota criminalized two kinds of AI deepfakes in 2023: nonconsensual intimate deepfakes of anyone, and election deepfakes spread to influence an election, including within 90 days before an election. Victims of intimate deepfakes can also sue. The election provision has been challenged in court (Kohls v. Ellison and a separate suit by X Corp.), but no court has blocked it; a federal appeals court upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction in February 2026.","summary_technical":"HF 1370 (2023 Minn. Laws ch. 58, signed May 26, 2023, effective Aug. 1, 2023) created Minn. Stat. § 604.32 (civil action for nonconsensual dissemination of deep fake sexual images), § 617.262 (crime of nonconsensual dissemination of deep fake sexual images) and § 609.771 (crime of using deep fake technology to influence an election, incl. dissemination within 90 days before an election). § 609.771 is subject to First Amendment challenges: in Kohls v. Ellison the district court denied a preliminary injunction (Jan. 10, 2025) and the Eighth Circuit affirmed (No. 25-1300, Feb. 9, 2026); X Corp. v. Ellison (D. Minn. 0:25-cv-01649) is pending. No provision is enjoined.","who_is_protected":"Minnesotans depicted in NCII deepfakes; candidates and voters","who_must_comply":"Anyone who knowingly creates or disseminates qualifying deepfakes","citation":"2023 Minn. Laws ch. 58 (HF 1370); Minn. Stat. §§ 604.32, 609.771, 617.262","source_url":"https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2023/0/Session+Law/Chapter/58/","source_title":"MN MN Deepfake Law — official record (www.revisor.mn.gov)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"County attorneys; private civil action (NCII); Secretary of State/AG (elections)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Criminal fines and imprisonment; civil damages and fees"},{"id":"wi-act123-ai-election-disclosure","title":"Wisconsin AI Synthetic Media Disclosure in Political Ads (2023 Act 123)","short_title":"WI AI Election Disclosure Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Wisconsin","state_abbr":"WI","topics":["elections","deepfakes","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-03-22","enacted_date":"2024-03-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Wisconsin requires political communications paid for by campaigns, PACs, or parties to carry a clear 'Contains content generated by AI' disclosure if they include synthetic media. Violations carry up to $1,000 per offense via the Ethics Commission.","summary_technical":"2023 Wis. Act 123 (AB 664), published Mar. 22, 2024, amends Wis. Stat. ch. 11 to require AI-synthetic-media disclosure in qualifying political communications; $1,000 forfeiture per violation.","who_is_protected":"Wisconsin voters","who_must_comply":"Candidate committees, PACs, parties, referendum committees","citation":"2023 Wis. Act 123; Wis. Stat. ch. 11","source_url":"https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/related/acts/123","source_title":"2023 Wisconsin Act 123 — Wisconsin Legislature","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Wisconsin Ethics Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Forfeiture up to $1,000 per violation"},{"id":"wi-act224-ai-csam","title":"Wisconsin AI-Generated CSAM Law (2023 Act 224)","short_title":"WI AI CSAM Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Wisconsin","state_abbr":"WI","topics":["children","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-03-28","enacted_date":"2024-03-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Wisconsin criminalized AI-generated and virtual child sexual abuse material — even where no real child was involved. Possession, production, or distribution of AI imagery appearing to depict a minor in sexually explicit conduct is a Class D felony carrying up to 25 years.","summary_technical":"2023 Wis. Act 224 (SB 314), signed Mar. 28, 2024, amends Wis. Stat. § 948.12 to add 'depiction of a purported child' including AI-generated virtual content; Class D felony.","who_is_protected":"Children","who_must_comply":"Anyone who creates, possesses, or distributes AI-generated CSAM in Wisconsin","citation":"2023 Wis. Act 224 (SB 314); Wis. Stat. § 948.12","source_url":"https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/related/acts/224","source_title":"2023 Wisconsin Act 224 — Wisconsin Legislature","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Wisconsin DOJ; district attorneys","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Class D felony: up to 25 years"},{"id":"la-sb175-deepfake-csam-ncii","title":"Louisiana Unlawful Deepfakes Law (SB 175, 2023)","short_title":"LA Unlawful Deepfakes Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Louisiana","state_abbr":"LA","topics":["deepfakes","ncii","ai-images","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-08-01","enacted_date":"2023-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Louisiana's deepfake law carries some of the harshest penalties in the nation: creating or possessing sexual deepfakes of minors brings 5–20 years at hard labor; distributing them brings 10–30 years and up to $50,000. It also criminalizes nonconsensual sexual deepfakes of adults. Prosecutors have already charged people under it.","summary_technical":"2023 La. Acts No. 175 (SB 175), codified at La. R.S. 14:73.13: criminalizes creation/possession (5–20 years) and distribution (10–30 years/$50,000) of sexual deepfakes of minors, and NCII sexual deepfakes of adults.","who_is_protected":"Minors; adults depicted in nonconsensual sexual deepfakes","who_must_comply":"Anyone who creates, possesses, advertises, distributes, or sells qualifying deepfakes","citation":"2023 La. Acts No. 175; La. R.S. 14:73.13","source_url":"https://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1309797","source_title":"Louisiana SB 175 (2023) — Louisiana Legislature","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Louisiana district attorneys; Louisiana Attorney General","penalties":"5–20 years hard labor + $10,000 (creation/possession, minors); 10–30 years + $50,000 (distribution); min. 5 years without parole for minor CSAM"},{"id":"me-ld1944-ncii-deepfake","title":"Maine Private Images Law incl. Artificially Generated Images (LD 1944)","short_title":"ME AI Private Images Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Maine","state_abbr":"ME","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-24","enacted_date":"2025-06-20","last_verified_date":"2026-06-15","summary_plain":"Maine expanded its unauthorized-private-images (\"revenge porn\") crime to explicitly cover artificially generated/AI-made intimate images of real people, and lets people seek protection-from-abuse or harassment orders when someone threatens to release such images. Unauthorized dissemination is a Class D crime (up to one year, $2,000).","summary_technical":"Maine LD 1944 / HP 1303 (132nd Leg., 1st Special Session), enacted as Public Law 2025, ch. 400; signed June 20, 2025; general effective date Sept. 24, 2025. Amends 17-A M.R.S. § 511-A (unauthorized dissemination of certain private images) to cover artificially generated images and adds § 511-A(3)(D); amends 19-A § 4102 and 5 § 4651 to add threatened dissemination of artificially generated private images as a basis for protective orders. Class D crime.","who_is_protected":"Mainers depicted in, or threatened with the dissemination of, nonconsensual intimate images including artificially generated images","who_must_comply":"Anyone who disseminates or threatens to disseminate such images without consent","citation":"Me. LD 1944 / HP 1303 (132nd Leg., 1st Spec. Sess.); P.L. 2025, ch. 400; 17-A M.R.S. § 511-A","source_url":"https://legislature.maine.gov/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?LD=1944&snum=132","source_title":"LD 1944, HP 1303, Text and Status — 132nd Maine Legislature (Enacted P.L. 2025 ch. 400)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Maine district attorneys; civil protective-order process","penalties":"Class D crime: up to 1 year, $2,000 fine"},{"id":"az-hb2394-digital-impersonation","title":"Arizona Digital Impersonation Law (HB 2394, 2024)","short_title":"AZ Digital Impersonation Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arizona","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["deepfakes","ai-images","elections","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-05-21","enacted_date":"2024-05-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Any Arizona citizen or candidate can go to court to stop the unconsented publication of a digital impersonation of themselves, and using AI-generated images, voice, or video of another person with intent to defraud or harass is a felony. Passed 57-0.","summary_technical":"2024 Ariz. HB 2394, eff. May 21, 2024: amends A.R.S. § 13-2006 (criminal impersonation) to cover AI-generated deceptive impersonation; creates a civil injunctive-relief action for unconsented published digital impersonations.","who_is_protected":"Any Arizona citizen or candidate whose digital likeness is impersonated","who_must_comply":"Anyone publishing digital impersonations without consent or adequate disclosure","citation":"2024 Ariz. Sess. Laws (HB 2394); A.R.S. § 13-2006","source_url":"https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/2R/bills/HB2394H.pdf","source_title":"Arizona HB 2394 (56th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess.)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Private civil action; county attorneys (criminal)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil injunctive relief and damages; felony for fraudulent/harassing AI impersonation"},{"id":"az-sb1359-election-deepfakes","title":"Arizona Election Synthetic Media Disclosure Law (SB 1359, 2024)","short_title":"AZ Election Deepfake Disclosure Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arizona","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["elections","deepfakes","transparency","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-05-29","enacted_date":"2024-05-29","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Arizona requires creators and sponsors of AI-generated synthetic media in election communications to include a clear disclosure within 90 days before an election. News, satire, and parody are exempt; candidates can seek injunctions.","summary_technical":"2024 Ariz. SB 1359: AI-content disclosure on qualifying deepfake election communications within 90 days of an election; civil penalties $10/day (first 15 days), $25/day thereafter; injunctive relief.","who_is_protected":"Arizona voters and candidates","who_must_comply":"Creators/distributors of AI synthetic media in paid election communications","citation":"2024 Ariz. Sess. Laws (SB 1359); A.R.S. tit. 16","source_url":"https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/2r/bills/sb1359s.htm","source_title":"Arizona SB 1359 (56th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess.)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Civil actions; Arizona Secretary of State","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil penalties $10–$25/day; injunctive relief"},{"id":"in-icdpa-privacy","title":"Indiana Consumer Data Protection Act (ICDPA)","short_title":"Indiana Consumer Data Protection Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Indiana","state_abbr":"IN","topics":["privacy","data-retention","consumer-protection","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2023-05-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Indiana's privacy law, effective January 1, 2026, gives residents rights to access, correct, delete, and port personal data, and to opt out of targeted advertising, data sales, and profiling. Enforced exclusively by the Attorney General with a permanent 30-day cure period.","summary_technical":"Indiana SB 5 (P.L. 94-2023), I.C. 24-15-1 et seq., eff. Jan. 1, 2026; VCDPA-modeled; permanent 30-day cure; 100,000-consumer or 25,000/50%-revenue thresholds.","who_is_protected":"Indiana residents","who_must_comply":"Controllers meeting thresholds","citation":"2023 Ind. Acts P.L. 94-2023 (SB 5); I.C. 24-15-1 et seq.","source_url":"https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2023/bills/senate/5/details","source_title":"Indiana SB 5 — Consumer Data Protection (Indiana General Assembly)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Indiana Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties via AG after 30-day cure"},{"id":"in-hb1047-ncii-deepfake","title":"Indiana AI-Generated NCII Law (HEA 1047, 2024)","short_title":"IN NCII Deepfake Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Indiana","state_abbr":"IN","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-03-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Indiana criminalized creating and sharing AI-generated or digitally modified intimate images without consent, expanding its revenge-porn statute. Distribution is a Class A misdemeanor; repeat or aggravated conduct is a Level 6 felony (up to 30 months, $5,000).","summary_technical":"Indiana HEA 1047 (2024), eff. July 1, 2024, amends I.C. 35-45-4-8 to include AI-generated/computer-modified intimate images; Class A misdemeanor base, Level 6 felony aggravated.","who_is_protected":"Hoosiers depicted in nonconsensual AI-generated intimate imagery","who_must_comply":"Anyone distributing such images without consent","citation":"2024 Ind. Acts (HEA 1047); I.C. 35-45-4-8","source_url":"https://www.indianahouserepublicans.com/news/press-releases/governor-signs-rep.-negele-s-bill-to-criminalize-deepfake-revenge-porn/","source_title":"Governor Signs Bill to Criminalize Deepfake Revenge Porn — Indiana House","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Indiana prosecutors","penalties":"Class A misdemeanor up to 1 year/$5,000; Level 6 felony up to 30 months/$5,000"},{"id":"nv-sb213-ncii-deepfake","title":"Nevada AI-Generated NCII Law (SB 213, 2025)","short_title":"NV NCII Deepfake Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Nevada","state_abbr":"NV","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-10-01","enacted_date":"2025-06-05","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Nevada expanded its intimate-images law to explicitly cover AI-generated and digitally manipulated images — anything that could reasonably be mistaken for a real depiction of the person, whether or not their actual image was used. Knowing distribution is a Category D felony (1–4 years).","summary_technical":"Nevada SB 213 (83rd Sess.), signed June 5, 2025, amends NRS 200.780 to include AI-generated/deepfake content; Category D felony, 1–4 years, up to $5,000.","who_is_protected":"Anyone depicted in nonconsensual AI-generated intimate imagery","who_must_comply":"Anyone who knowingly distributes such imagery without consent","citation":"2025 Nev. Stat. (SB 213); NRS 200.780","source_url":"https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/83rd2025/Bill/SB213/Overview","source_title":"Nevada updates illicit material laws to include AI-generated content — StateScoop","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Nevada district attorneys; Nevada Attorney General","penalties":"Category D felony: 1–4 years; up to $5,000"},{"id":"nv-ab73-election-ai-disclosure","title":"Nevada AI Disclosure in Political Ads (AB 73, 2025)","short_title":"NV AI Election Ad Disclosure","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Nevada","state_abbr":"NV","topics":["elections","deepfakes","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2025-06-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-15","summary_plain":"Nevada political ads containing AI-generated or digitally manipulated images, audio, or video must disclose it clearly, effective January 1, 2026. Wrongly depicted candidates can seek legal relief; satire and entertainment content is exempt.","summary_technical":"Nevada AB 73 (83rd Sess.), Ch. 224, 2025 Nev. Stat., eff. Jan. 1, 2026, amends NRS ch. 294A to require AI-content disclosure in qualifying political advertisements; civil enforcement and candidate relief.","who_is_protected":"Nevada voters; candidates depicted in AI political ads","who_must_comply":"Campaigns, parties, and sponsors of political ads with AI content","citation":"2025 Nev. Laws Ch. 224 (AB 73); NRS ch. 294A","source_url":"https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/5-nevada-laws-that-go-into-effect-on-jan-1-3601535/","source_title":"Nevada laws effective Jan. 1 — Las Vegas Review-Journal","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Nevada Secretary of State; civil actions","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil enforcement; injunctive relief"},{"id":"pa-act125-2024-deepfake-ncii-csam","title":"Pennsylvania Deepfake NCII & AI CSAM Law (Act 125 of 2024)","short_title":"PA Deepfake/CSAM Law (Act 125)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pennsylvania","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-12-28","enacted_date":"2024-10-29","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Pennsylvania criminalized creating and distributing sexual deepfakes of any person, and classified AI-generated sexual depictions of minors as child sexual abuse material. The Attorney General has already charged people under this law.","summary_technical":"2024 Pa. Laws Act 125 (SB 22), amending 18 Pa. C.S. §§ 3131 and 6312: criminalizes nonconsensual AI-generated sexual depictions and AI-generated CSAM; felony penalties for CSAM.","who_is_protected":"Anyone depicted in nonconsensual sexual deepfakes; minors","who_must_comply":"Creators, distributors, and possessors of qualifying content","citation":"2024 Pa. Laws Act 125 (SB 1213); 18 Pa. C.S. §§ 3131, 6312","source_url":"https://www.pa.gov/agencies/education/programs-and-services/schools/school-climate-wellbeing/act-125-and-deep-fakes","source_title":"Act 125 and Deep Fakes — Pennsylvania Department of Education","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General; district attorneys","penalties":"Felony for AI CSAM; criminal penalties for NCII deepfakes"},{"id":"pa-act35-2025-digital-forgery","title":"Pennsylvania Digital Forgery Law (Act 35 of 2025)","short_title":"PA Digital Forgery Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pennsylvania","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["deepfakes","ai-images","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-05","enacted_date":"2025-07-07","last_verified_date":"2026-06-12","summary_plain":"Pennsylvania created the crime of 'digital forgery': making a forged AI-generated likeness of someone with intent to defraud or injure is a first-degree misdemeanor, escalating to a third-degree felony for financial fraud — directly targeting AI voice-clone scams like fake grandchild emergency calls. A clear fake-content disclaimer is an affirmative defense.","summary_technical":"2025 Pa. Laws Act 35 (SB 649), eff. ~Sept. 5, 2025, creates 18 Pa. C.S. § 4935: first-degree misdemeanor ($1,500–$10,000 + up to 5 years) for unconsented AI impersonation with fraudulent/injurious intent; third-degree felony (up to $15,000 + 7 years) for financial fraud or coercion.","who_is_protected":"Anyone impersonated via AI deepfakes; fraud victims, including seniors targeted by voice-clone scams","who_must_comply":"Anyone creating AI digital forgeries with fraudulent or injurious intent","citation":"2025 Pa. Laws Act 35 (SB 649); 18 Pa. C.S. § 4935","source_url":"https://www.palegis.us/statutes/unconsolidated/law-information?sessYr=2025&sessInd=0&actNum=0035.","source_title":"Act No. 35 of 2025 — Pennsylvania General Assembly","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General; district attorneys","penalties":"1st-degree misdemeanor $1,500–$10,000 + up to 5 years; 3rd-degree felony up to $15,000 + 7 years"},{"id":"tx-hb-2700","title":"Relating to Prosecution of Certain Criminal Offenses Prohibiting Sexually Explicit Visual Material Involving Children (HB 2700)","short_title":"TX HB 2700 — AI/Altered CSAM","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["children","ai-images","deepfakes"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-09-01","enacted_date":"2023-06-12","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"This Texas law updates the state's child sexual abuse material (CSAM) statutes so they clearly reach images that have been digitally altered or created with computer software, including generative AI, when the image depicts a real, identifiable child. The point is to close a loophole: even if a sexual image of a child was fabricated or edited rather than photographed, it can still be prosecuted under existing child-pornography offenses. The existing criminal penalties for those offenses continue to apply.","summary_technical":"HB 2700 (88th Leg., R.S.) amends the Texas Penal Code provisions governing sexually explicit visual material involving children so that 'visual material' includes images created, adapted, or modified by computer software or generative AI that depict a recognizable real child, applying the existing offense and penalty framework.","who_is_protected":"Minors (real, identifiable children whose likeness is used in sexually explicit altered or AI-generated imagery).","who_must_comply":"Any person; the law defines conduct that is criminally prohibited rather than imposing duties on a regulated industry.","citation":"Tex. Penal Code (child sexual abuse material provisions) (HB 2700, 88th Leg., R.S. (2023))","source_url":"https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&Bill=HB2700","source_title":"Texas Legislature Online — HB 2700 (88R) Bill History","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Texas county and district attorneys; Texas law enforcement (criminal prosecution).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No new penalty tier is created; conduct involving altered or AI-generated CSAM is prosecuted under the existing child-pornography offenses and their associated felony penalties."},{"id":"tx-sb-1361","title":"Relating to the Unlawful Production or Distribution of Sexually Explicit Videos Using Deep Fake Technology; Creating a Criminal Offense (SB 1361)","short_title":"TX SB 1361 — Deepfake Intimate Video","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-09-01","enacted_date":"2023-06-02","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"This law makes it a crime in Texas to create or share a deepfake video that falsely shows a real person with their intimate parts exposed or engaged in sexual conduct, when that person did not consent. It targets AI-generated or digitally fabricated sexual videos of identifiable people. A violation is a Class A misdemeanor.","summary_technical":"SB 1361 (88th Leg., R.S.) adds Tex. Penal Code Sec. 21.165, criminalizing knowingly producing or distributing by electronic means a deep-fake video that appears to depict a person with intimate parts exposed or engaged in sexual conduct without that person's effective consent, classified as a Class A misdemeanor.","who_is_protected":"Identifiable individuals depicted without consent in deepfake sexual videos.","who_must_comply":"Any person who produces or distributes such material by electronic means.","citation":"Tex. Penal Code Sec. 21.165 (SB 1361, 88th Leg., R.S. (2023))","source_url":"https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&Bill=SB1361","source_title":"Texas Legislature Online — SB 1361 (88R) Bill History","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Texas county and district attorneys; Texas law enforcement (criminal prosecution).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Class A misdemeanor, generally punishable by up to one year in county jail and a fine of up to $4,000."},{"id":"tx-sb-1621","title":"Relating to Prosecution and Punishment of Certain Criminal Offenses Prohibiting Sexually Explicit Visual Material Involving Depictions of Children, Computer-Generated Children, or Other Persons (SB 1621)","short_title":"TX SB 1621 — AI CSAM Rewrite","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["children","ai-images","deepfakes"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-01","enacted_date":"2025-06-20","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"This law rewrites Texas's child sexual abuse material statutes to account for AI and computer-generated imagery. It separately defines a 'depiction of a child' and a 'depiction of a computer-generated child,' and extends the offenses of possessing, electronically transmitting, and promoting such material to cover AI-generated images. It also updates penalty ranges and adds enhanced punishment for repeat offenders and offenders in positions of authority.","summary_technical":"SB 1621 (89th Leg., R.S.) restructures the Texas Penal Code possession/promotion offenses for sexually explicit visual material involving children, adding distinct definitions for a 'depiction of a child' and a 'depiction of a computer-generated child' and adjusting offense levels and penalty ranges; offenses are felonies.","who_is_protected":"Minors, including real children whose likeness is used and children depicted via computer-generated/AI imagery.","who_must_comply":"Any person; the statute defines prohibited criminal conduct.","citation":"Tex. Penal Code (child sexual abuse material provisions) (SB 1621, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025))","source_url":"https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB1621","source_title":"Texas Legislature Online — SB 1621 (89R) Bill History","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Texas county and district attorneys; Texas law enforcement (criminal prosecution).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Felony offenses; offense level and penalty range vary with the type and quantity of material, with enhancements for prior convictions and for offenders in a position of authority over the depicted child."},{"id":"tx-sb-20","title":"Relating to the Creation of the Criminal Offense of Possession, Promotion, or Production of Certain Obscene Visual Material Appearing to Depict a Child (SB 20)","short_title":"TX SB 20 — Obscene Material Depicting a Child","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["children","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-01","enacted_date":"2025-06-20","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"This law creates a new Texas crime for possessing, accessing with intent to view, promoting, or producing obscene visual material that appears to depict a child under 18 engaged in sexual conduct. It applies whether the depiction is of a real child, a cartoon or animation, or an image generated by AI or other computer software. Using a real child's image to train an AI system to produce such material is also covered. Offenses are felonies, with higher penalties for repeat offenders.","summary_technical":"SB 20 (89th Leg., R.S.) creates a Penal Code offense for knowingly possessing, accessing with intent to view, promoting, or producing obscene visual material that appears to depict a child under 18 in sexual conduct regardless of whether the depiction is of a real child or is generated by AI or other software; a first offense is a state jail felony, escalating to a second-degree felony for offenders with two or more prior convictions.","who_is_protected":"Minors and children depicted in obscene material, including AI-generated or otherwise fabricated depictions.","who_must_comply":"Any person; the statute defines prohibited criminal conduct.","citation":"Tex. Penal Code Sec. 43.262 (SB 20, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025))","source_url":"https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB20","source_title":"Texas Legislature Online — SB 20 (89R) Bill History","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Texas county and district attorneys; Texas law enforcement (criminal prosecution).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"State jail felony for a first offense; enhanced to a higher felony level for repeat offenders, escalating to a second-degree felony for a person with two or more prior convictions under the section."},{"id":"tx-hb-581","title":"Relating to the Creation of Artificial Sexual Material Harmful to Minors (HB 581)","short_title":"TX HB 581 — AI Sexual Material Age Verification","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["children","ai-images","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-01","enacted_date":"2025-06-20","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"This law regulates commercial websites and apps that offer publicly available tools for generating 'artificial sexual material harmful to minors.' Operators must use reasonable age-verification methods to confirm users are at least 18, and must ensure that any real person used as the source of the generated material is also at least 18 and has consented to the use of their face and body. Operators that ignore these duties face civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day, rising to as much as $250,000 if a violation results in a minor accessing the material. The law includes safe-harbor protections for operators that adopt qualifying terms of use and take affirmative steps to limit such material.","summary_technical":"HB 581 (89th Leg., R.S.) requires a commercial entity operating a publicly available tool to create artificial sexual material harmful to minors to use reasonable age-verification methods to confirm users and source individuals are 18 or older and that source individuals consented, enforceable by civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day (up to $250,000 where a minor accesses material because of a violation).","who_is_protected":"Minors (preventing their access to AI-generated sexual material) and individuals whose likeness could be used as a source without consent.","who_must_comply":"Commercial entities that operate publicly available tools for creating artificial sexual material harmful to minors.","citation":"Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code (artificial sexual material harmful to minors) (HB 581, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025))","source_url":"https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HB581","source_title":"Texas Legislature Online — HB 581 (89R) Bill History","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Texas Attorney General (civil enforcement of the civil penalty).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalty of up to $10,000 per day of violation, increasing to up to $250,000 if a minor accesses such material as a result of the violation; safe harbors apply for operators meeting specified terms-of-use and mitigation conditions."},{"id":"tx-ch-2054-ai-gov","title":"Texas Government Code Chapter 2054, Subchapter S — Regulation and Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Governmental Entities (Senate Bill 1964)","short_title":"TX Government AI Governance (Subchapter S / SB 1964)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-01","enacted_date":"2025-06-20","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"Texas now requires state agencies to catalog the artificial intelligence systems they use and to give extra review to higher-risk systems that influence consequential decisions about people. The state's Department of Information Resources must publish a statewide AI code of ethics and set baseline rules for managing AI risk and governance, and agencies must run assessments on their highest-scrutiny systems. When a member of the public interacts with a government AI system, the agency has to tell them they are dealing with AI. If an agency or its vendor breaks these rules, the attorney general can go to court to stop the violation and can void a vendor's contract that caused it.","summary_technical":"S.B. 1964 (89th Leg., R.S.) adds Subchapter S (Secs. 2054.701 et seq.) to Chapter 2054 of the Texas Government Code, mandating agency AI inventories, heightened-scrutiny review and assessments, a DIR-issued statewide AI code of ethics and minimum risk-management/governance standards, consumer disclosure of AI interaction, and attorney-general enforcement via injunction and contract voiding.","who_is_protected":"Members of the public who interact with or are affected by AI systems operated by Texas state governmental entities.","who_must_comply":"Texas state agencies and other covered governmental entities that procure, develop, deploy, or use AI systems, plus their AI vendors.","citation":"Tex. S.B. 1964, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025); Tex. Gov't Code ch. 2054, subch. S","source_url":"https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB1964","source_title":"Texas Legislature Online — S.B. 1964, 89th Legislature (R.S.), Bill History","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Texas Attorney General (with oversight roles for the Department of Information Resources)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"The attorney general may seek a court order to halt a violation and may void a vendor contract that caused a violation if the vendor fails to cure after notice; repeat voided contracts may lead the Comptroller to bar the vendor from future state contracts."},{"id":"tx-sb-2373-financial-abuse-ai-media","title":"Texas Senate Bill 2373 — Financial Exploitation or Abuse Using Artificially Generated Media or Phishing Communications","short_title":"TX SB 2373 (AI Media / Phishing Financial Abuse)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["deepfakes","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-01","enacted_date":"2025-06-20","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"Texas makes it unlawful to use AI-generated images, audio, video, or text — or phishing messages — to financially exploit or defraud another person. Victims can sue the wrongdoer and recover their actual losses, damages for mental anguish, the profits the wrongdoer earned, and their court costs and attorney's fees, and may seek an injunction. A separate civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each day the deceptive media or communication was circulated can be pursued. The same conduct can also be prosecuted criminally, with penalties scaling up to a first-degree felony based on the amount taken.","summary_technical":"S.B. 2373 (89th Leg., R.S.) creates Chapter 100B of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (private remedies and a civil penalty up to $1,000/day under Secs. 100B.002-.003) and adds Penal Code Sec. 32.56, criminalizing financial abuse via artificially generated media or phishing communications.","who_is_protected":"Individuals targeted for financial exploitation or fraud through AI-generated media or phishing communications.","who_must_comply":"Any person who disseminates artificially generated media or phishing communications to financially exploit another (interactive computer services, telecom carriers, and licensed broadcasters carrying third-party content are exempted).","citation":"Tex. S.B. 2373, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 100B; Tex. Penal Code Sec. 32.56","source_url":"https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB02373F.htm","source_title":"Texas Legislature Online — S.B. 2373, Enrolled Bill Text, 89th Legislature (R.S.)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Texas Attorney General (civil penalties); local prosecutors (criminal offenses); private claimants (civil remedies)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil: actual damages including mental-anguish damages, the defendant's profits, court costs and attorney's fees, plus injunctive relief; a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each day the media or communication was disseminated. Criminal: a graduated offense ranging from a Class B misdemeanor to a first-degree felony depending on the value involved."},{"id":"tx-sb-1188-ai-electronic-health-record","title":"Texas Senate Bill 1188 — Artificial Intelligence and Electronic Health Records","short_title":"TX SB 1188 (AI in Health Records)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["healthcare","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-01","enacted_date":"2025-06-20","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"Texas allows health care practitioners to use artificial intelligence for diagnostic purposes, including treatment recommendations, as long as they stay within the scope of their license and follow applicable law. When a practitioner uses AI in that diagnostic role, they must tell the patient they are doing so. The attorney general can sue to stop violations and seek civil penalties, which increase sharply for knowing or intentional conduct and for misusing protected health information for financial gain. The broader law also adds security, access, and U.S. data-storage requirements for electronic health records.","summary_technical":"S.B. 1188 (89th Leg., R.S.) adds Chapter 183 to the Texas Health and Safety Code; Sec. 183.005 permits practitioner use of AI for diagnostic purposes subject to scope-of-license limits and mandatory patient disclosure, and Sec. 183.011 authorizes AG injunctive relief plus tiered civil penalties.","who_is_protected":"Patients of Texas health care practitioners, including patients whose protected health information is processed by covered entities.","who_must_comply":"Health care practitioners using AI for diagnostic purposes and covered entities that handle electronic health records / protected health information.","citation":"Tex. S.B. 1188, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025); Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 183, Secs. 183.005, 183.011","source_url":"https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB01188F.htm","source_title":"Texas Legislature Online — S.B. 1188, Enrolled Bill Text, 89th Legislature (R.S.)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Texas Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Injunctive relief plus civil penalties of up to $5,000 per negligent violation per year, up to $25,000 per knowing or intentional violation per year, and up to $250,000 for a violation in which a covered entity knowingly or intentionally used protected health information for financial gain."},{"id":"tx-sb-815-automated-adverse-determination","title":"Texas Senate Bill 815 — Use of Automated Decision Systems for Adverse Determinations in Utilization Review","short_title":"TX SB 815 (No AI-Only Insurance Denials)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["healthcare","insurance","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-01","enacted_date":"2025-06-20","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"Texas bars a utilization review agent from using an automated decision system — including certain artificial intelligence — to make an adverse determination, in whole or in part, about whether health care is medically necessary or appropriate. Such coverage denials must involve human clinical judgment, though the law still allows algorithms and AI for administrative support and fraud detection. The Texas Department of Insurance may audit and inspect how utilization review agents use these systems. Violations are subject to the sanctions, cease-and-desist orders, and administrative penalties already available under the Insurance Code.","summary_technical":"S.B. 815 (89th Leg., R.S.) adds Sec. 4201.156 to the Texas Insurance Code, prohibiting a utilization review agent from using an automated decision system to make, wholly or partly, an adverse determination, while preserving administrative/fraud uses and granting the commissioner audit authority; enforcement runs through existing Insurance Code remedies.","who_is_protected":"Texas health benefit plan enrollees subject to utilization review and adverse determinations.","who_must_comply":"Utilization review agents and the health benefit plan issuers that conduct utilization review.","citation":"Tex. S.B. 815, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025); Tex. Ins. Code Sec. 4201.156","source_url":"https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/analysis/html/SB00815F.htm","source_title":"Texas Legislature Online — S.B. 815, Bill Analysis (Enrolled), 89th Legislature (R.S.)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Texas Department of Insurance (insurance commissioner)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Subject to the sanctions, cease-and-desist orders, and administrative penalties available under the Texas Insurance Code; the commissioner may audit and inspect a utilization review agent's use of an automated decision system at any time."},{"id":"co-insurance-algorithmic-discrimination-10-3-1104-9","title":"Protecting Consumers from Unfair Discrimination in Insurance Practices","short_title":"CO Insurance Algorithmic Discrimination Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Colorado","state_abbr":"CO","topics":["insurance","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2021-07-06","enacted_date":"2021-07-06","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"Colorado prohibits insurers from using outside consumer data, algorithms, or predictive models in ways that unfairly discriminate against people based on protected characteristics such as race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or gender identity. The law directs the state Insurance Commissioner to write rules that require insurers to test their data and models and show they do not produce discriminatory outcomes. Insurers must also maintain a risk-management framework to monitor for unfair discrimination. Coverage was later expanded to additional lines such as private passenger auto and health benefit plans.","summary_technical":"Colo. Rev. Stat. 10-3-1104.9 bars insurers' use of external consumer data sources, algorithms, and predictive models that unfairly discriminate on protected classes, and requires the Commissioner of Insurance to adopt rules establishing how insurers demonstrate their models are tested and non-discriminatory.","who_is_protected":"Colorado insurance consumers who could be subject to unfair discrimination on protected characteristics through insurers' data, algorithms, or predictive models.","who_must_comply":"Insurers operating in Colorado that use external consumer data and information sources, algorithms, or predictive models.","citation":"Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 10-3-1104.9 (SB 21-169)","source_url":"https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-10-insurance/co-rev-st-sect-10-3-1104-9/","source_title":"Colorado Revised Statutes 10-3-1104.9 - Insurers' use of external consumer data and information sources, algorithms, and predictive models - unfair discrimination prohibited","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Colorado Division of Insurance / Commissioner of Insurance","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Enforced through the Commissioner's general powers under Colo. Rev. Stat. 10-3-1108: civil penalties of up to $3,000 per act (capped at $30,000 in aggregate) for non-knowing violations, and up to $30,000 per act (capped at $150,000 in aggregate) for knowing violations, plus possible license suspension or revocation."},{"id":"co-cpa-profiling-6-1-1301","title":"Colorado Privacy Act","short_title":"Colorado Privacy Act (CPA)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Colorado","state_abbr":"CO","topics":["privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-07-01","enacted_date":"2021-07-07","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"The Colorado Privacy Act gives state residents the right to opt out of having their personal data used for profiling when that profiling drives decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects, such as decisions about credit, housing, employment, or services. Businesses that engage in higher-risk processing, including certain profiling, must conduct and document a data protection assessment weighing the benefits against the risks. The Colorado Attorney General enforces the law, and since January 1, 2025 may bring actions without first offering a chance to cure.","summary_technical":"Colo. Rev. Stat. 6-1-1301 et seq. grants consumers a right to opt out of profiling in furtherance of decisions producing legal or similarly significant effects and requires controllers to conduct data protection assessments for processing that presents a heightened risk of harm.","who_is_protected":"Colorado residents acting in an individual or household context whose personal data is processed by covered controllers.","who_must_comply":"Controllers that conduct business in Colorado or target Colorado residents and meet the Act's data-volume thresholds.","citation":"Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 6-1-1301 et seq. (SB 21-190)","source_url":"https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb21-190","source_title":"SB21-190 Protect Personal Data Privacy - Colorado General Assembly","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Colorado Attorney General (and district attorneys)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Violations are treated as deceptive trade practices under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, carrying civil penalties of up to $20,000 per violation (with an aggregate cap for a related series of violations)."},{"id":"co-hb24-1147-candidate-deepfake-disclosure","title":"Candidate Election Deepfake Disclosures","short_title":"CO Candidate Deepfake Disclosure Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Colorado","state_abbr":"CO","topics":["deepfakes","elections"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-05-24","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Colorado restricts distributing AI-generated deepfakes that falsely depict a candidate for elective office within set windows before a primary or general election, when the distributor knows or recklessly disregards that the depiction is false. A communication is shielded from liability if it carries a clear and conspicuous disclaimer stating the media has been edited and falsely depicts speech or conduct. Complaints can be filed with the Secretary of State, and affected candidates have a private right of action.","summary_technical":"Colo. Rev. Stat. 1-45-111.5 to -111.7 and the new Title 1, Article 46 (1-46-101 to -106), enacted by HB24-1147, prohibit distributing undisclosed deepfakes in candidate-related election communications and provide a disclosure safe harbor.","who_is_protected":"Candidates and elected officials depicted in deepfakes, and the electorate receiving election communications.","who_must_comply":"Any person who distributes, publishes, broadcasts, or displays election communications concerning a candidate that contain a deepfake.","citation":"Colo. Rev. Stat. Secs. 1-45-111.5, 1-45-111.7, 1-46-101 to -106 (HB 24-1147, 2024 Colo. Sess. Laws ch. 250)","source_url":"https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2024a_1147_signed.pdf","source_title":"House Bill 24-1147 (signed) - Candidate Election Deepfake Disclosures","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Colorado Secretary of State (administrative complaints); courts via private actions","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"A hearing officer imposes a civil penalty of at least $100 per violation where no paid advertising is involved, or at least 10% of the amount paid or spent to advertise the communication where paid promotion is involved. Affected candidates may also sue for injunctive relief and damages."},{"id":"co-sb25-288-intimate-digital-depictions","title":"Preventing Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Digital Depictions Act","short_title":"CO Intimate Digital Depictions Act (SB25-288)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Colorado","state_abbr":"CO","topics":["ncii","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-06","enacted_date":"2025-06-02","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"Colorado expanded its sexual exploitation of a child statute so that realistic computer-generated or digitally created depictions of an identifiable child count as child sexually exploitative material, even when no real child was photographed. The same act creates a civil cause of action allowing a person to sue someone who discloses, or threatens to disclose, a nonconsensual intimate digital depiction (including AI-generated or edited imagery). Courts can grant restraining orders and injunctive relief, and prevailing plaintiffs can recover substantial damages.","summary_technical":"SB25-288 amends Colorado's child sexual exploitation definitions to include realistic digitized or computer-generated depictions of an identifiable child and establishes a private cause of action for nonconsensual disclosure or threatened disclosure of intimate digital depictions.","who_is_protected":"Identifiable children depicted in synthetic exploitative material, and individuals depicted in nonconsensual intimate digital depictions.","who_must_comply":"Any person who creates, possesses, or distributes covered child sexually exploitative material, or who discloses or threatens to disclose nonconsensual intimate digital depictions.","citation":"Colo. SB 25-288 (2025); see also Colo. Rev. Stat. Secs. 18-6-403, 13-21-1401 et seq.","source_url":"https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb25-288","source_title":"SB25-288 Intimate Digital Depictions Criminal & Civil Actions - Colorado General Assembly","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Colorado criminal prosecutors (district attorneys) for criminal provisions; courts for civil actions","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Criminal penalties under the existing exploitation/intimate-image statutes (including misdemeanor and felony classifications). For the civil intimate-digital-depiction action, a plaintiff may recover the greater of actual damages or liquidated damages of $150,000 plus the defendant's monetary gain, exemplary damages, and litigation costs including reasonable attorney fees, along with restraining orders and injunctive relief."},{"id":"ar-act927-ai-ownership-18-4-101","title":"Ownership of Model Training and Generated Content of Generative AI Tools","short_title":"AR Generative AI Ownership Act (Act 927)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arkansas","state_abbr":"AR","topics":["copyright","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-05","enacted_date":"2025-04-21","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"Arkansas set default ownership rules for the inputs and outputs of generative AI tools. A person who supplies the input or direction to a generative AI tool owns the content it produces, as long as that content does not infringe existing intellectual property rights. A person who lawfully supplies the data used to train a model owns the resulting trained model. When an employee is directed to use a generative AI tool within the scope of their job, the employer owns the resulting output and model. The law sets property rights rather than prohibitions, so it does not impose penalties.","summary_technical":"Act 927 of 2025 (HB1876) amends Arkansas Code Title 18, Chapter 4, to assign default ownership of generative AI output to the input provider, ownership of trained models to the lawful provider of training data, and ownership to employers where employees are directed to use such tools.","who_is_protected":"Users, training-data providers, and employers seeking clear ownership of generative AI outputs and models under Arkansas law.","who_must_comply":"Parties to disputes over ownership of generative AI outputs and models in Arkansas; the law defines rights applicable to users, data providers, and employers.","citation":"Ark. Act 927 (2025) (HB1876), codified at Ark. Code Ann. tit. 18, ch. 4 (Sec. 18-4-101 et seq.)","source_url":"https://arkleg.state.ar.us/Home/FTPDocument?path=/ACTS/2025R/Public/ACT927.pdf","source_title":"Act 927 of the Regular Session (HB1876) - Arkansas State Legislature","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"None designated; ownership disputes resolved through civil litigation"},{"id":"az-sb1462-intimate-images-synthetic-13-1425","title":"Amendment of Arizona Intimate Images Law (Computer-Generated Pictorial Representations)","short_title":"AZ Synthetic Intimate Images Law (SB1462)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arizona","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["ncii","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-26","enacted_date":"2025-05-02","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"Arizona amended its law against the unlawful disclosure of intimate images so that it covers realistic, computer-generated or AI-altered depictions, not just real photographs or recordings. The definition of a covered image now includes a realistic pictorial representation that is made or modified to appear to be an actual identifiable person in a state of nudity or sexual activity that never actually occurred. For computer-generated depictions, the depicted person does not need to have had a reasonable expectation of privacy for the disclosure to be unlawful.","summary_technical":"SB1462 (Chapter 106, 2025) amends Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sec. 13-1425 to add 'realistic pictorial representation' to the definition of 'image,' extending the unlawful disclosure of intimate images offense to synthetic and AI-generated depictions of identifiable persons.","who_is_protected":"Identifiable individuals depicted in nonconsensual intimate images, including realistic AI-generated or computer-modified depictions.","who_must_comply":"Any person who discloses or threatens to disclose covered intimate images, including synthetic depictions, in Arizona.","citation":"Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sec. 13-1425 (as amended by SB1462, ch. 106, 2025)","source_url":"https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/57leg/1r/laws/0106.htm","source_title":"Chapter 106 (SB1462), Fifty-seventh Legislature, First Regular Session - Arizona State Legislature","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Arizona criminal prosecutors (county attorneys / Arizona Attorney General)","penalties":"Existing tiered penalties under ARS 13-1425 apply: disclosure is generally a class 5 felony (class 4 felony if disclosed by electronic means), while threatening to disclose, or disclosing a computer-generated/realistic pictorial representation, is a class 1 misdemeanor."},{"id":"al-hb-168","title":"Alabama Child Protection Act of 2024 (HB 168)","short_title":"Alabama Child Protection Act (AI-generated CSAM)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Alabama","state_abbr":"AL","topics":["children","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-10-01","enacted_date":"2024-03-19","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"This law updates Alabama's criminal statutes on child sexual abuse material so that computer-generated and digitally altered images count the same as photographs of real children. It does this by adding 'virtually indistinguishable' depictions to the legal definition of child sexual abuse material, which captures content produced or manipulated by artificial intelligence. Prosecutors no longer have to prove an actual child was depicted when the image is realistic enough to be mistaken for one. The existing felony penalties for possessing or disseminating such material continue to apply.","summary_technical":"HB 168 amended Ala. Code Sec. 13A-12-190 et seq. to redefine 'child sexual abuse material' to include a 'virtually indistinguishable depiction,' extending the dissemination and possession offenses in Sec. 13A-12-191 and 13A-12-192 to AI-generated and digitally altered imagery.","who_is_protected":"Minors depicted in, or whose likenesses are used to generate, sexual abuse material.","who_must_comply":"Any person who creates, possesses, or distributes child sexual abuse material in Alabama; AI-generated and altered depictions are covered.","citation":"Ala. Code Sec. 13A-12-190 et seq.; 2024 Ala. Acts (HB 168)","source_url":"https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/title-13a/chapter-12/article-4/division-4/section-13a-12-190","source_title":"Ala. Code Sec. 13A-12-190 (Definitions, as amended by HB 168)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Alabama Attorney General and local district attorneys (criminal prosecution)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Existing criminal penalties apply: dissemination or possession with intent to disseminate is a Class B felony, and simple possession is a Class C felony."},{"id":"al-hb-351","title":"Alabama Personal Data Protection Act (HB 351)","short_title":"Alabama Personal Data Protection Act (privacy / profiling opt-out)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Alabama","state_abbr":"AL","topics":["privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2027-05-01","enacted_date":"2026-04-16","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"Alabama's comprehensive consumer privacy law gives residents the right to tell businesses to stop using their personal data for profiling that drives automated decisions with major consequences. This covers decisions about things like lending and credit, housing, insurance, education, employment, healthcare, criminal justice, and access to basic necessities. Consumers can also opt out of targeted advertising and the sale of their data. The Alabama Attorney General enforces the law, and there is no individual lawsuit right.","summary_technical":"HB 351 (Alabama Personal Data Protection Act) grants consumers a right to opt out of profiling in furtherance of solely automated decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects, enforced exclusively by the Attorney General with civil penalties up to $15,000 per violation.","who_is_protected":"Alabama residents acting in an individual or household context (consumers).","who_must_comply":"Controllers that process the personal data of 25,000+ Alabama consumers, or 10,000+ consumers while deriving over 25% of gross revenue from selling personal data (per the enacted thresholds).","citation":"2026 Ala. Acts (HB 351), Alabama Personal Data Protection Act","source_url":"https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/files/pdf/SearchableInstruments/2026RS/HB351-eng.pdf","source_title":"Alabama Legislature, HB 351 (2026 Regular Session)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Alabama Attorney General (exclusive enforcement)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties of up to $15,000 per violation, following a notice of violation and a 45-day cure period."},{"id":"ct-gs-13b-118","title":"Connecticut Transportation Network Company Dynamic Pricing Law (Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 13b-118)","short_title":"CT Rideshare Dynamic-Pricing Law (surge-price limits)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Connecticut","state_abbr":"CT","topics":["automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2018-01-01","enacted_date":"2017-06-27","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"When a ride-hailing company (like Uber or Lyft) uses dynamic or 'surge' pricing, Connecticut law requires it to warn riders before they request a ride, give them a tool to estimate the fare, and make them confirm they understand surge pricing will apply. The law also caps price gouging during emergencies: a company cannot charge more than 2.5 times its usual fare in any area covered by a declared disaster emergency. The state transportation commissioner oversees TNC registration and can suspend or revoke it for violations. Operating without a valid registration can draw a substantial fine.","summary_technical":"Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 13b-118 requires transportation network companies that use dynamic pricing to provide pre-request notice, a fare estimator, and a rider confirmation feature, and bars charging more than 2.5 times the usual fare in an area under a disaster emergency declaration; Sec. 13b-117 authorizes registration suspension/revocation and a fine of up to $50,000 for operating without a valid registration.","who_is_protected":"Riders using transportation network company (ride-hailing) services in Connecticut.","who_must_comply":"Transportation network companies operating in Connecticut.","citation":"Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 13b-118; Sec. 13b-117 (penalty); P.A. 17-140","source_url":"https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_244c.htm","source_title":"Connecticut General Statutes Chapter 244c, Sec. 13b-118 (Transportation Network Company Vehicles)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Connecticut Department of Transportation / Commissioner of Transportation","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"The Commissioner may suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew a TNC's registration after notice and hearing; operating without a valid registration is subject to a fine of up to $50,000."},{"id":"ct-sb-1103","title":"An Act Concerning Artificial Intelligence, Automated Decision-Making and Personal Data Privacy (CT SB 1103)","short_title":"CT SB 1103 (state-government AI oversight)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Connecticut","state_abbr":"CT","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-07-01","enacted_date":"2023-06-07","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"This law sets rules for how Connecticut's own state government uses artificial intelligence. It directs the Department of Administrative Services to inventory the AI systems state agencies use and, from February 2024, to assess them for unlawful discrimination and disparate impact; the Judicial Department must do the same for its own systems. The Office of Policy and Management had to write policies for how agencies buy, use and assess AI, and agencies must run an impact assessment before deploying a new AI system. It also created a legislative working group to study AI, including whether Connecticut should adopt an AI bill of rights. The law governs public-sector use rather than imposing penalties on private companies.","summary_technical":"Public Act 23-16 (Sub. SB 1103), approved June 7, 2023: Sec. 1 — DAS inventory of state-agency AI systems by Dec. 31, 2023 and annually (name/vendor, capabilities, whether used to make or support decisions, whether impact-assessed), published on the open data portal, and ongoing DAS assessments from Feb. 1, 2024 for unlawful discrimination or disparate impact; Sec. 2 — OPM to establish AI development/procurement/use/assessment policies by Feb. 1, 2024, and from that date no agency may implement an AI system without a prior impact assessment; Sec. 3 — parallel inventory, policy and assessment duties for the Judicial Department; Sec. 4 — state contracts from Oct. 1, 2023 must require compliance with the Connecticut Data Privacy Act (CGS 42-515 to 42-525); Sec. 5 — legislative AI working group (incl. assessment of the White House 'Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights'), report due Feb. 1, 2024. Secs. 1-3 effective July 1, 2023. No civil penalties.","who_is_protected":"The public affected by Connecticut state-agency decisions made or aided by AI systems.","who_must_comply":"Connecticut state agencies, the Department of Administrative Services, and the Office of Policy and Management.","citation":"2023 Conn. Public Acts 23-16 (SB 1103)","source_url":"https://www.cga.ct.gov/2023/act/Pa/pdf/2023PA-00016-R00SB-01103-PA.PDF","source_title":"Connecticut Public Act 23-16 (Substitute Senate Bill No. 1103)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Connecticut Department of Administrative Services; Office of Policy and Management (administrative oversight)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ct-gs-42-515","title":"Connecticut Data Privacy Act (Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 42-515 et seq.)","short_title":"Connecticut Data Privacy Act (CTDPA) (profiling opt-out)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Connecticut","state_abbr":"CT","topics":["privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-07-01","enacted_date":"2022-05-10","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"Connecticut's consumer privacy law lets residents opt out of having their personal data used for profiling that feeds automated decisions carrying legal or similarly significant effects. Businesses that profile consumers for high-risk purposes must also run data protection assessments to weigh the risks. Other consumer rights include access, correction, deletion, and opting out of targeted advertising and data sales. The Attorney General enforces the law under Connecticut's unfair trade practices framework, and there is no individual right to sue.","summary_technical":"Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 42-515 et seq. (CTDPA) grants consumers a right to opt out of profiling in furtherance of decisions producing legal or similarly significant effects and requires controllers to conduct data protection assessments for high-risk processing including such profiling; violations are enforced as CUTPA violations.","who_is_protected":"Connecticut residents acting in an individual or household context (consumers).","who_must_comply":"Controllers meeting CTDPA applicability thresholds that process Connecticut consumers' personal data.","citation":"Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 42-515 to 42-525; P.A. 22-15","source_url":"https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-42/chapter-743jj/section-42-520/","source_title":"Connecticut General Statutes Title 42, Chapter 743jj (Data Privacy and Security), Sec. 42-515 et seq.","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Connecticut Attorney General (under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Enforced as a CUTPA violation, with civil penalties of up to $5,000 per willful violation, plus injunctive relief and restitution."},{"id":"ct-sb-1295","title":"Connecticut Data Privacy Act Amendment - LLM Training Disclosure (SB 1295)","short_title":"CT SB 1295 (AI training-data disclosure)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Connecticut","state_abbr":"CT","topics":["transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2025-06-24","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"This amendment to Connecticut's Data Privacy Act adds a first-in-the-nation transparency rule about AI training data. Businesses must state in their privacy notice whether they collect, use, or sell personal data to train large language models. The disclosure applies regardless of how the trained model is ultimately used. Like the rest of the privacy act, it is enforced by the Attorney General under Connecticut's consumer protection law.","summary_technical":"SB 1295 (Public Act 25-153) amends the CTDPA's privacy-notice requirements (Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 42-520) to require controllers to disclose whether they collect, use, or sell personal data for the purpose of training large language models; enforced as a CUTPA violation.","who_is_protected":"Connecticut consumers whose personal data may be used to train large language models.","who_must_comply":"Controllers subject to the CTDPA that collect, use, or sell personal data for LLM training.","citation":"2025 Conn. Public Acts 25-153 (SB 1295), amending Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 42-520","source_url":"https://www.cga.ct.gov/2025/TOB/S/PDF/2025SB-01295-R00SB.PDF","source_title":"Connecticut General Assembly, SB 1295 (2025) / Public Act 25-153","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Connecticut Attorney General (under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Enforced as a CUTPA violation, with civil penalties of up to $5,000 per willful violation."},{"id":"de-hb-333-ai-commission","title":"An Act to Amend Title 29 of the Delaware Code Relating to the Artificial Intelligence Commission","short_title":"Delaware AI Commission Act (government AI inventory)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Delaware","state_abbr":"DE","topics":["public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-17","enacted_date":"2024-07-17","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This law creates the Delaware Artificial Intelligence Commission, a state body charged with studying how artificial intelligence is used in Delaware government and recommending policies for its safe and responsible use. One of the Commission's required tasks is to take a full inventory of every generative-AI tool in use across the state's executive, legislative, and judicial agencies and to flag high-risk applications. The Commission issues recommendations but does not itself regulate private companies or impose penalties. It is scheduled to sunset ten years after enactment unless lawmakers extend it.","summary_technical":"House Bill 333 (152nd General Assembly) amends Title 29, Chapter 90C of the Delaware Code to establish a 17-member Artificial Intelligence Commission and directs it to inventory all generative-AI usage across state executive, legislative, and judicial agencies and identify high-risk areas.","who_is_protected":"Delaware residents broadly, through governmental oversight of state-agency AI use; no specific individual cause of action is created.","who_must_comply":"Delaware state executive, legislative, and judicial agencies, which must cooperate with the Commission's inventory and recommendations.","citation":"Del. H.B. 333, 152nd Gen. Assemb. (2024); 29 Del. C. ch. 90C","source_url":"https://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?LegislationId=140866","source_title":"Delaware General Assembly — House Bill 333 (152nd GA)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Delaware Artificial Intelligence Commission (advisory; coordinates with the state Chief Information Officer and Department of Technology and Information)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"de-hb-353-deepfake-intimate-images","title":"An Act to Amend Titles 10 and 11 of the Delaware Code Relating to Deep Fakes (Amelia Kramer Act)","short_title":"Delaware Deepfake Intimate-Images Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Delaware","state_abbr":"DE","topics":["ncii","deepfakes"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-10-09","enacted_date":"2024-10-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This law extends Delaware's protections against the non-consensual sharing of intimate images to cover deepfakes — digitally created or altered images that falsely depict an identifiable real person nude or engaged in sexual conduct. Victims can pursue the same civil remedies available for the unauthorized disclosure of real intimate images, and offenders can face criminal charges under the state's privacy-violation laws. When an adult creates a sexual or nude depiction of a minor, the conduct is treated as a felony rather than a misdemeanor. The measure is also known as the Amelia Kramer Act.","summary_technical":"House Bill 353 (152nd General Assembly) amends Titles 10 and 11 of the Delaware Code to apply the civil remedies of the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act (10 Del. C. ch. 78) and Title 11 privacy-violation offenses to deepfake depictions of identifiable persons.","who_is_protected":"Identifiable individuals depicted in deepfake imagery as nude or engaged in sexual conduct without consent, including minors.","who_must_comply":"Any person who creates or discloses such deepfake depictions in Delaware.","citation":"Del. H.B. 353, 152nd Gen. Assemb. (2024) (amending 10 & 11 Del. C.)","source_url":"https://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?LegislationId=141103","source_title":"Delaware General Assembly — House Bill 353 (152nd GA)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Delaware courts (civil remedies) and state/local prosecutors (criminal); Delaware Department of Justice","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil remedies mirror those under Delaware's unauthorized-disclosure-of-intimate-images law; criminal exposure under Title 11 privacy-violation provisions, elevated to a felony where an adult depicts a minor nude or in sexual conduct."},{"id":"de-hb-191-ai-medical-titles","title":"An Act to Amend Title 24 of the Delaware Code Relating to Medical Professionals, Titles, and Nonhuman Entities","short_title":"Delaware AI Medical-Titles Ban (no AI 'doctors')","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Delaware","state_abbr":"DE","topics":["healthcare","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-04-23","enacted_date":"2026-04-23","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"This law makes clear that artificial intelligence and other nonhuman entities cannot be licensed or certified to practice medicine or nursing in Delaware. It bars AI agents from being licensed as a physician, physician assistant, professional nurse, advanced practice nurse, or practical nurse, and from using the professional titles or abbreviations tied to those roles, such as 'Dr.,' 'MD,' 'RN,' 'APRN,' or 'PA.' The intent is to prevent AI tools from misrepresenting themselves as licensed human clinicians, while still allowing AI to be used as a support tool by licensed professionals.","summary_technical":"House Bill 191 (153rd General Assembly) amends Title 24 of the Delaware Code to provide that a nonhuman entity, including an AI-powered agent, may not be licensed or certified to practice medicine or any form of nursing and may not use the associated professional titles or abbreviations.","who_is_protected":"Delaware patients and the public, protected from AI systems posing as licensed human medical or nursing professionals.","who_must_comply":"Developers and operators of AI or other nonhuman systems that might otherwise claim licensure or use protected medical/nursing titles in Delaware.","citation":"Del. H.B. 191, 153rd Gen. Assemb. (2025-2026), 85 Del. Laws c. 250 (amending 24 Del. C.)","source_url":"https://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?LegislationId=142752","source_title":"Delaware General Assembly — House Bill 191 (153rd GA)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Delaware Division of Professional Regulation and the relevant licensing boards (Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline; Board of Nursing) under Title 24","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Existing Title 24 enforcement for unlicensed practice and improper use of protected professional titles and credentials applies; no new penalty schedule established by the bill."},{"id":"fl-sb-262-digital-bill-of-rights","title":"Florida Digital Bill of Rights (CS/CS/SB 262 — Technology Transparency)","short_title":"Florida Digital Bill of Rights (privacy / profiling opt-out)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Florida","state_abbr":"FL","topics":["privacy","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2023-06-06","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Florida's Digital Bill of Rights gives covered consumers a set of data-privacy rights, including the right to opt out of profiling carried out solely by automated processing when that profiling is used to make decisions that have a legal or similarly significant effect on the person. Businesses that meet the law's thresholds must also conduct and document data-protection assessments for higher-risk processing activities such as profiling, targeted advertising, and the sale of personal data. The Florida Attorney General enforces the law; consumers cannot sue directly. The law applies only to a relatively narrow set of very large businesses.","summary_technical":"CS/CS/SB 262 (2023), codified at Fla. Stat. Secs. 501.701-501.722, grants consumers a right to opt out of solely-automated profiling producing legal or similarly significant effects and requires controllers to conduct data-protection assessments for higher-risk processing.","who_is_protected":"Florida residents acting in an individual/household capacity (consumers) whose personal data is processed by covered controllers.","who_must_comply":"Large for-profit controllers that meet the statute's high revenue and data-business thresholds (e.g., over $1 billion in global gross annual revenue plus specified data-related criteria).","citation":"Fla. CS/CS/SB 262 (2023); ch. 2023-201, Laws of Fla.; Fla. Stat. Secs. 501.701-501.722","source_url":"https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/262","source_title":"The Florida Senate — CS/CS/SB 262 (2023), Technology Transparency / Digital Bill of Rights","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Florida Attorney General — Department of Legal Affairs","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Violations are treated as unfair and deceptive trade practices under FDUTPA, with civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation; penalties may be tripled for certain violations, including those involving children's data. A 45-day right to cure may apply."},{"id":"fl-sb-1680-generated-csam","title":"Florida Generated Child Pornography Law (CS/CS/SB 1680 — Advanced Technology)","short_title":"Florida Generated CSAM Law (AI-generated)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Florida","state_abbr":"FL","topics":["children","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-04-26","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This law extends Florida's child-exploitation statutes to cover computer-generated and AI-generated imagery. It creates a new crime for 'generated child pornography,' defined as any image created, altered, adapted, or modified by electronic or computer-generated means to portray a fictitious person whom a reasonable person would regard as a real child under 18 engaged in sexual conduct. The law makes it a felony to intentionally create such imagery, or to knowingly possess, control, or intentionally view it.","summary_technical":"CS/CS/SB 1680 (2024) creates Fla. Stat. Sec. 827.072, defining and criminalizing 'generated child pornography' — imagery electronically or computer-generated to depict a fictitious person a reasonable person would regard as a real minor engaged in sexual conduct.","who_is_protected":"Children and the public, by criminalizing synthetic/AI-generated child sexual abuse material.","who_must_comply":"All persons in Florida, who are prohibited from creating, possessing, controlling, or intentionally viewing generated child pornography.","citation":"Fla. CS/CS/SB 1680 (2024); ch. 2024-118, Laws of Fla.; Fla. Stat. Sec. 827.072","source_url":"https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/1680/ByVersion","source_title":"The Florida Senate — CS/CS/SB 1680 (2024), Advanced Technology","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Florida state and local prosecutors; Florida Department of Law Enforcement (criminal enforcement)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Intentionally creating, or knowingly possessing/controlling/intentionally viewing, generated child pornography is a third-degree felony under Fla. Stat. Sec. 827.072, in line with existing child-exploitation penalties."},{"id":"ga-16-11-90-synthetic-ncii","title":"Georgia Prohibition on Nude or Sexually Explicit Electronic Transmissions (Synthetic/Deepfake Imagery) (O.C.G.A. 16-11-90)","short_title":"GA Synthetic NCII Transmission Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Georgia","state_abbr":"GA","topics":["ncii","ai-images","deepfakes","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2022-05-02","enacted_date":"2022-05-02","last_verified_date":"2026-08-27","summary_plain":"Georgia makes it a crime to electronically send or post a nude or sexually explicit image of an identifiable adult without that person's consent when the purpose is to harass or cause financial harm. The statute expressly reaches a 'falsely created' video or still image, meaning synthetic or deepfake depictions are treated the same as real photographs. Posting such material to certain explicit websites is punished more harshly than other electronic transmission.","summary_technical":"O.C.G.A. 16-11-90 criminalizes the nonconsensual electronic transmission or posting of nude or sexually explicit imagery of an identifiable adult, including a 'falsely created videographic or still image' (the synthetic-image language was inserted in 2020 and the section was carried forward through the 2022 Code revision, 2022 Ga. Laws 782).","who_is_protected":"Identifiable adults depicted in nonconsensual real or synthetically created nude/sexually explicit imagery.","who_must_comply":"Any person who electronically transmits or posts such imagery.","citation":"O.C.G.A. Sec. 16-11-90","source_url":"https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-16/chapter-11/article-3/part-3/section-16-11-90/","source_title":"O.C.G.A. Sec. 16-11-90 — Prohibition on Nude or Sexually Explicit Electronic Transmissions (2024 Georgia Code)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Georgia state and local prosecutors (criminal enforcement).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Criminal offense. A first violation is generally a misdemeanor; posting to certain sexually explicit websites and repeat conduct are punished as felonies, with escalating fines and possible imprisonment as set out in the statute."},{"id":"ga-sb466-csam-synthetic-no-defense","title":"Amendment of Georgia CSAM Law — No Defense for Adapted or Modified Imagery (SB 466)","short_title":"GA SB 466 (no 'it's AI' defense for CSAM)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Georgia","state_abbr":"GA","topics":["children","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-04-22","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Georgia's child sexual exploitation law was amended so that a defendant cannot escape liability by arguing the illegal imagery was artificially generated, adapted, or modified rather than a photograph of an actual child. If the material was created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaged in sexually explicit conduct, that is no defense to prosecution. This closes a potential loophole for AI-generated or computer-edited child sexual abuse material.","summary_technical":"SB 466 (2023-2024) amended O.C.G.A. 16-12-100 to provide that it is not a defense to sexual exploitation of children that the visual medium was 'created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.'","who_is_protected":"Identifiable minors depicted in real, adapted, or synthetically created sexual abuse material.","who_must_comply":"Any person subject to Georgia's child sexual exploitation statute.","citation":"Ga. SB 466 (2024); O.C.G.A. Sec. 16-12-100","source_url":"https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20232024/223269","source_title":"Georgia Senate Bill 466 (2023-2024 Regular Session) — 24 LC 49 1737","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Georgia state and local prosecutors (criminal enforcement).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Existing criminal penalties for sexual exploitation of children under O.C.G.A. 16-12-100 apply; the amendment removes a defense rather than creating a new penalty."},{"id":"hi-sb309-composite-deepfake-privacy","title":"Hawaii Violation of Privacy in the First Degree — Composite Fictitious Person Imagery (SB 309, Act 59)","short_title":"HI SB 309 (deepfake intimate-image crime)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Hawaii","state_abbr":"HI","topics":["ncii","ai-images","deepfakes","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2021-06-23","enacted_date":"2021-06-23","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Hawaii expanded its first-degree violation-of-privacy crime to cover deepfake-style imagery. It is now an offense to intentionally create or disclose a nude or sexually explicit image or video of a 'composite fictitious person' that includes the recognizable features of a real, identifiable individual so that it appears to show that real person, when done with intent to substantially harm them or as revenge. The crime is a class C felony.","summary_technical":"SB 309 (Act 59, 2021) amended HRS 711-1110.9 to add to violation of privacy in the first degree the intentional creation, disclosure, or threatened disclosure of nude/sexually explicit imagery of a 'composite fictitious person' bearing the recognizable physical characteristics of an identifiable real person, made with intent to harm.","who_is_protected":"Identifiable real individuals depicted via composite/synthetic (deepfake) nude or sexually explicit imagery.","who_must_comply":"Any person who creates, discloses, or threatens to disclose such imagery.","citation":"Haw. SB 309 (2021), Act 59; HRS Sec. 711-1110.9","source_url":"https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2021/bills/SB309_CD1_.HTM","source_title":"Hawaii SB 309 CD1 (2021) — Relating to Privacy (Deep Fakes)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Hawaii state prosecutors (county prosecuting attorneys / Department of the Attorney General).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Violation of privacy in the first degree is a class C felony (up to five years imprisonment and fines as provided under Hawaii law)."},{"id":"id-5-346-ai-personhood","title":"Idaho Personhood Status — Artificial Intelligence Not Granted Personhood (Idaho Code 5-346)","short_title":"Idaho AI Personhood Prohibition","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Idaho","state_abbr":"ID","topics":["consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2022-07-01","enacted_date":"2022-03-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Idaho law declares that artificial intelligence cannot be granted legal personhood in the state, alongside environmental elements, nonhuman animals, and inanimate objects. The provision preserves the existing legal-person status of municipalities, corporations, and other recognized entities that held it before July 1, 2022. It is a structural/definitional statute and carries no penalty.","summary_technical":"Idaho Code 5-346 (enacted by HB 720, 2022) provides that artificial intelligence, environmental elements, nonhuman animals, and inanimate objects shall not be granted personhood in Idaho, while grandfathering pre-existing recognized legal entities.","who_is_protected":"Not a protective statute; it bars the extension of legal personhood to AI and similar non-human entities.","who_must_comply":"Idaho courts and the state generally, in determining legal personhood.","citation":"Idaho Code Sec. 5-346 (HB 720, 2022, ch. 322)","source_url":"https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title5/t5ch3/sect5-346/","source_title":"Idaho Code Sec. 5-346 — Personhood Status (Idaho State Legislature)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Idaho courts (applied as substantive law); no dedicated enforcement agency."},{"id":"id-s1227-genai-education","title":"Idaho Generative Artificial Intelligence in Public Education (S1227)","short_title":"Idaho S1227 (AI in K-12 schools)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Idaho","state_abbr":"ID","topics":["education","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-03-19","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Idaho directs the State Department of Education to build a statewide framework for generative AI use in K-12 schools, emphasizing human oversight, accessibility, student privacy, and academic integrity. Each school district and public charter school must adopt its own generative-AI use policy aligned with that framework. AI education-technology vendors must disclose their use of machine learning, predictive analytics, and generative AI and provide data-protection assurances.","summary_technical":"Idaho SB 1227 (2026, ch. 71) adds provisions on generative AI in public education, requiring the State Department of Education to develop a statewide K-12 framework, requiring districts and charters to adopt aligned GenAI policies, and imposing disclosure and data-protection obligations on AI ed-tech vendors.","who_is_protected":"K-12 students (and their data) and educators in Idaho public schools.","who_must_comply":"Idaho State Department of Education, local school districts, public charter schools, and AI education-technology vendors.","citation":"Idaho S.B. 1227, 2026 Idaho Sess. Laws ch. 71","source_url":"https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2026/legislation/S1227/","source_title":"Idaho Senate Bill 1227 (2026) — Generative Artificial Intelligence in Public Education","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Idaho State Department of Education / State Board of Education (rulemaking and oversight)."},{"id":"id-s1297-conversational-ai-safety","title":"Idaho Conversational AI Safety Act (S1297)","short_title":"Idaho Conversational AI Safety Act (chatbot disclosure + crisis protocol)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Idaho","state_abbr":"ID","topics":["consumer-protection","healthcare","children"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2027-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-03-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Idaho's Conversational AI Safety Act requires operators of conversational AI services to clearly disclose that a user is interacting with AI whenever a reasonable person could be misled into thinking it is human. Operators must adopt a protocol to respond to users who express suicidal ideation, including making reasonable efforts to refer them to crisis resources, and may not claim to provide professional mental or behavioral health care. There are added protections for minor users, including persistent AI disclosures and parental controls for younger children.","summary_technical":"Idaho SB 1297 (2026, ch. 249) establishes the Conversational AI Safety Act, imposing AI-disclosure duties, a suicidal-ideation response protocol, a bar on claiming to provide professional mental/behavioral health care, and minor-specific safeguards on operators of conversational AI services.","who_is_protected":"Users of conversational AI services in Idaho, with heightened protections for minors.","who_must_comply":"Operators of conversational AI services.","citation":"Idaho SB 1297 (2026), ch. 249","source_url":"https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2026/legislation/S1297/","source_title":"Idaho Senate Bill 1297 (2026) — Conversational AI Safety Act","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Idaho Attorney General (exclusive enforcement; no private right of action).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil enforcement by the Attorney General: injunctive relief plus civil liability of $1,000 per violation up to a cap of $500,000 per operator, or actual damages, whichever is greater."},{"id":"in-hb-1271-health-claims","title":"Indiana House Bill 1271 (2026) — Payment of Health Claims","short_title":"Indiana HB 1271 (no AI-only claim downcoding)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Indiana","state_abbr":"IN","topics":["healthcare","insurance","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-03-04","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Indiana bars health insurers from relying on an automated process or artificial intelligence as the only reason for downcoding a claim on medical-necessity grounds; an employee or contractor of the insurer must review the patient's medical record before such a downcode is applied. Health care providers likewise may not use AI to submit a claim without a human reviewing it. Insurers must disclose, in an easy-to-find and readable way, when AI is used to deny a prior-authorization request or to downcode a claim, must explain each downcode, and must give providers at least 180 days to appeal. The rules took effect July 1, 2026 and do not apply to Medicaid.","summary_technical":"HEA 1271 (2026), signed March 4, 2026, eff. July 1, 2026, adds IC 27-1-52 (Downcoding of Health Benefits Claims), which does not apply to Medicaid or Medicaid MCOs. Sec. 9: an insurer may not use an automated process, system or tool, including AI, as the sole basis to downcode a claim on medical necessity without review of the covered individual's medical record by an employee or contractor; a provider may not use such a tool to submit a claim without review; insurers must disclose in an easily accessible and readable manner when AI is used for an adverse prior-authorization determination or a downcode. Also bars downcoding based solely on the diagnosis code, requires CARC/RARC notice with the specific reason and the original and revised codes, requires an appeal process with at least 180 days and batch appeals, bars targeted downcoding of providers treating complex or chronic patients, and directs the Department of Insurance to adopt rules.","who_is_protected":"Health care providers and the insured patients whose claims are downcoded or denied.","who_must_comply":"Health insurers and other payers operating in Indiana, plus health care providers submitting claims.","citation":"Ind. House Enrolled Act 1271 (2026 Reg. Sess.), eff. July 1, 2026","source_url":"https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2026/bills/house/1271/details","source_title":"Indiana General Assembly — House Bill 1271 (Payment of health claims), 2026 Regular Session","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Indiana Department of Insurance","penalties":"No new penalty is created; the existing enforcement and penalty provisions of the Indiana insurance code apply."},{"id":"in-sb-256-foreign-adversary-tech-contracts","title":"Indiana Senate Enrolled Act 256 (2026) — State Offices and Administration (Foreign Adversary Restrictions on AI/Tech)","short_title":"Indiana SB 256 (foreign-adversary AI vendor & student rules)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Indiana","state_abbr":"IN","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-03-05","last_verified_date":"2026-08-29","summary_plain":"Indiana requires new or renewed government contracts for technological products or services — a category that expressly includes artificial intelligence, information systems, and surveillance technology — to include a certification that the contractor and its subcontractors are not 'prohibited persons,' meaning businesses controlled by or domiciled in a designated foreign adversary such as China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran. The law also restricts public colleges from enrolling students from those countries in certain qualifying (including AI) programs until a foreign-influence and research-security review is completed.","summary_technical":"SEA 256 (Pub. L. 131-2026, eff. July 1, 2026), amending IC Title 4, requires 'qualified entity' contracts for a technological product or service (defined to include artificial intelligence) to certify the contractor and subcontractors are not prohibited persons/agents of a foreign adversary, and conditions admission of certain foreign students into qualifying programs on a foreign-influence/research-security review.","who_is_protected":"The state and its political subdivisions, and the integrity of state-funded research and procurement.","who_must_comply":"State agencies, political subdivisions, and state educational institutions, and vendors of technological products or services including AI.","citation":"Ind. Senate Enrolled Act 256 (2026 Reg. Sess.) / Pub. L. 131-2026, eff. July 1, 2026","source_url":"https://iga.in.gov/pdf-documents/124/2026/senate/bills/SB0256/SB0256.06.ENRH.pdf","source_title":"Indiana General Assembly — Senate Enrolled Act 256 (2026), Enrolled Text","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Indiana Attorney General (and the contracting state agencies / educational institutions)","penalties":"The Act does not specify a penalty for the technology-contract certification or student-review provisions; related real-property provisions carry civil penalties and divestiture."},{"id":"ia-sf-2417-conversational-ai","title":"Iowa Senate File 2417 (2026) — Requirements and Guidelines for Conversational AI Services","short_title":"Iowa SF 2417 (Conversational AI Safety Act)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Iowa","state_abbr":"IA","topics":["consumer-protection","healthcare","children"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2027-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-05-02","last_verified_date":"2026-08-29","summary_plain":"Iowa requires operators of conversational AI services to clearly disclose that a user is interacting with artificial intelligence — through a persistent disclaimer or a notice repeated at least every three hours of continuous use — whenever a reasonable person might otherwise believe they are talking to a human. Operators must adopt protocols to respond to user messages about suicidal ideation or self-harm, including referring the user to crisis resources, and may not represent that the service provides professional psychological or behavioral health care, with extra safeguards for minors.","summary_technical":"SF 2417 (signed May 2, 2026; applies July 1, 2027) establishes a new Iowa Code chapter requiring conversational-AI operators to provide AI disclosure (persistent or every three hours), adopt suicide/self-harm crisis-referral protocols, refrain from holding the service out as licensed psychological/behavioral health care (Iowa Code ch. 154B/154D), and impose extra protections for minors.","who_is_protected":"Iowa users of conversational AI services, with heightened protections for minors and users in mental-health crisis.","who_must_comply":"Operators of conversational AI services that interact with Iowa users.","citation":"Iowa S.F. 2417, 91st Gen. Assemb. (2026), applies July 1, 2027","source_url":"https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/LGE/91/attachments/SF2417.html","source_title":"Iowa Legislature — Senate File 2417, 91st General Assembly","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Iowa Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"A civil penalty of the greater of actual damages or up to $1,000 per violation, capped at $500,000 per operator."},{"id":"ia-hf-2635-health-insurance-ai-prior-auth","title":"Iowa House File 2635 (2026) — Health Insurance Trade Practices (AI Prior Authorization)","short_title":"Iowa HF 2635 (no AI-only prior-auth denials)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Iowa","state_abbr":"IA","topics":["healthcare","insurance","automated-decisions"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-05-13","last_verified_date":"2026-10-07","summary_plain":"Iowa lets a utilization review organization use an AI-based algorithm or system to conduct an initial review of a prior-authorization request, but forbids relying on AI as the sole basis to deny, delay, or downgrade a medical-necessity prior-authorization request. A qualified human reviewer — a clinical peer or qualified reviewer — must make the binding determination.","summary_technical":"HF 2635 (signed May 13, 2026; AI/prior-authorization provisions effective Jan. 1, 2027), amending Iowa Code ch. 514F (Sec. 514F.8), permits a utilization review organization to use an AI algorithm/system for initial review but bars its use as the sole basis to deny, delay, or downgrade a medical-necessity prior-authorization request.","who_is_protected":"Patients and providers subject to health-insurer prior-authorization decisions.","who_must_comply":"Utilization review organizations and health carriers conducting prior-authorization review in Iowa.","citation":"Iowa H.F. 2635, 91st Gen. Assemb. (2026), Sec. 514F.8(2A), eff. Jan. 1, 2027","source_url":"https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/LGE/91/attachments/HF2635.html","source_title":"Iowa Legislature — House File 2635, 91st General Assembly","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Iowa Insurance Commissioner / Iowa Insurance Division","penalties":"No new AI-specific penalty; existing prior-authorization and trade-practice remedies under Iowa Code chs. 505 and 507B apply."},{"id":"ks-hb-2479-ai-blackmail","title":"Kansas HB 2479 (2026) — AI-Altered Sexual Images Added to Blackmail (K.S.A. 21-5428)","short_title":"Kansas HB 2479 (AI images in blackmail law)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Kansas","state_abbr":"KS","topics":["ncii","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-04-09","enacted_date":"2026-04-09","last_verified_date":"2026-08-29","summary_plain":"Kansas's blackmail law now expressly covers threats to release a nude or sexual image, video, or recording of an identifiable person even when that depiction was made or altered by artificial intelligence. It applies whether or not the person was involved in producing any original image, so threatening someone with an AI-generated 'deepfake' of them can be prosecuted as blackmail. Existing criminal penalties for blackmail apply.","summary_technical":"HB 2479 amended K.S.A. 21-5428 so that blackmail by threatened dissemination reaches any image, video, or recording of a nude or sexually active identifiable person that 'has been created, in whole or in part, altered or modified by artificial intelligence or any digital means to appear to depict or purport to depict' that person.","who_is_protected":"Identifiable people targeted by threats to release real or AI-fabricated nude or sexual depictions of them.","who_must_comply":"Anyone who makes such threats (criminal prohibition applying to the general public).","citation":"2026 Kan. HB 2479, amending K.S.A. 21-5428 (blackmail)","source_url":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/bills/download/?apn=b2025_26/year2/ready_for_publication/hb_2479/hb2479_enrolled.pdf","source_title":"Kansas Legislature — HB 2479, Enrolled Bill (2025-2026 Session)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Kansas county/district attorneys and the Kansas Attorney General (criminal prosecution); Kansas courts.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Carries the existing criminal penalties for blackmail under Kansas law; no separate AI-specific penalty tier was created."},{"id":"ks-hb-2537-ai-sexual-extortion","title":"Kansas HB 2537 (2026) — 'Caleb's Law': AI Images Added to Sexual Extortion (K.S.A. 21-5515)","short_title":"Kansas HB 2537 'Caleb's Law' (AI sextortion)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Kansas","state_abbr":"KS","topics":["ncii","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-04-06","enacted_date":"2026-04-06","last_verified_date":"2026-08-29","summary_plain":"Kansas's sexual-extortion statute now defines the covered 'image, video, or other recording' to include any depiction created, altered, or modified by artificial intelligence to appear to show a person, whether or not that person was part of any original recording. This means demands or threats backed by AI-fabricated sexual imagery fall within the crime of sexual extortion. The same act, known as 'Caleb's Law,' also raises penalties when an adult offender targets a victim under 18 or a dependent adult and creates aggravated sexual-extortion offenses.","summary_technical":"HB 2537 amended K.S.A. 21-5515 so that 'image, video or other recording' includes any item 'created, in whole or in part, altered or modified by artificial intelligence or any digital means to appear to depict or purport to depict a person,' and added enhanced and aggravated sexual-extortion provisions.","who_is_protected":"Victims of sexual extortion, including those threatened with AI-generated sexual imagery; with heightened protection for minors and dependent adults.","who_must_comply":"Anyone who commits sexual extortion (criminal prohibition applying to the general public).","citation":"2026 Kan. HB 2537 ('Caleb's Law'), amending K.S.A. 21-5515 (sexual extortion)","source_url":"https://kslegislature.gov/li/b2025_26/measures/documents/hb2537_02_0000.pdf","source_title":"Kansas Legislature — HB 2537 (As Amended), Bill Text (2025-2026 Session)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Kansas county/district attorneys and the Kansas Attorney General; Kansas courts.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Existing sexual-extortion penalties apply to the AI-image expansion; the act separately increases penalties when an adult offender's victim is under 18 or a dependent adult and creates aggravated offenses for conduct causing great bodily harm or death."},{"id":"ky-hb-207-ai-csam","title":"Kentucky HB 207 (2024) — Computer-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Material","short_title":"Kentucky HB 207 (computer-generated CSAM)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Kentucky","state_abbr":"KY","topics":["children","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-15","enacted_date":"2024-03-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Kentucky expanded its child sexual abuse material laws to cover 'computer-generated' images, defined as any visual depiction that has been created, adapted, or modified by a computer to appear to be an identifiable person. Because the depiction only has to appear to be a minor, prosecutors do not have to prove the real identity or age of the child, or that the child actually exists, when the material is a computer-generated image. This squarely reaches AI-generated and deepfake child sexual abuse imagery.","summary_technical":"2024 Ky. Acts ch. 15 (HB 207) amended KRS 531.010 to define 'computer-generated image' as any visual depiction 'created, adapted, or modified by a computer to appear to be an identifiable person,' and created KRS 531.306 providing that in prosecutions involving a computer-generated image of a minor the Commonwealth need not prove the minor's actual identity, age, or existence.","who_is_protected":"Children depicted in or simulated by sexual abuse material, including those whose likeness is used to generate AI/computer-created imagery.","who_must_comply":"Anyone who creates, possesses, distributes, promotes, or advertises child sexual abuse material, including computer-generated images.","citation":"2024 Ky. Acts ch. 15 (HB 207); KRS 531.010, 531.306, eff. July 15, 2024","source_url":"https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/acts/24RS/documents/0015.pdf","source_title":"Kentucky Legislature — 2024 Acts Chapter 15 (HB 207)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Kentucky Commonwealth's/County Attorneys and the Kentucky Attorney General (criminal prosecution); Kentucky courts.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Existing criminal penalties for the underlying child sexual abuse material offenses (KRS 531.300-531.370) apply to computer-generated images; HB 207 also raised certain penalty tiers."},{"id":"la-rs-14-73-14-ai-intimate-image","title":"Louisiana Unlawful Dissemination or Sale of AI-Created Images of Another (La. R.S. 14:73.14)","short_title":"Louisiana AI Intimate-Image Law (R.S. 14:73.14)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Louisiana","state_abbr":"LA","topics":["ncii","ai-images","deepfakes"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-01","enacted_date":"2024-06-10","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Louisiana makes it a crime to distribute or sell AI-generated images or video that show a recognizable real person nude or in a state of undress, when the person doing so acts with intent to coerce, harass, intimidate, or otherwise maliciously and knows or should know they are not authorized to share or sell the material. Online services, email providers, and telecommunications carriers are generally not liable for content their users post. This is a separate offense from Louisiana's broader 'unlawful deepfakes' statute.","summary_technical":"La. R.S. 14:73.14 criminalizes the unlawful dissemination or sale of nude or intimate AI-generated images of an identifiable person, undertaken with intent to coerce, harass, intimidate, or maliciously and without authorization, with a carve-out for interactive computer services and telecommunications providers.","who_is_protected":"Identifiable individuals whose likeness is used to create AI-generated nude or intimate imagery.","who_must_comply":"Any person who disseminates or sells such AI-generated imagery; interactive computer services and telecom providers are largely exempted for user content.","citation":"La. R.S. 14:73.14 (2024 Reg. Sess. S.B. 6)","source_url":"https://legis.la.gov/Legis/LawPrint.aspx?d=1388452","source_title":"La. R.S. 14:73.14 — Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of another created by artificial intelligence","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Louisiana district attorneys / state criminal prosecution","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Imprisonment of up to six months, a fine of up to $750, or both."},{"id":"me-10-mrsa-1500-dd-ai-chatbot-disclosure","title":"Maine Required Disclosure of AI Chatbot Use in Trade and Commerce (10 M.R.S. ch. 239)","short_title":"Maine AI Chatbot Disclosure Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Maine","state_abbr":"ME","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-16","enacted_date":"2025-06-12","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Maine prohibits businesses from using an AI chatbot or other computer technology in commercial dealings with a consumer in a way that could mislead a reasonable person into thinking they are interacting with a human, unless the consumer is clearly and conspicuously told they are not. A violation is treated as a violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act.","summary_technical":"10 M.R.S. ch. 239 (enacted as Sec. 1500-Y, reallocated to Sec. 1500-DD) bars using an AI chatbot or other computer technology in trade and commerce in a manner that may mislead a reasonable consumer into believing they are interacting with a human unless clear and conspicuous notice is given; a violation is a violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act.","who_is_protected":"Consumers engaging in trade or commerce with businesses using AI chatbots.","who_must_comply":"Any person using an AI chatbot or similar computer technology to engage in trade or commerce with consumers in Maine.","citation":"10 M.R.S. ch. 239, Sec. 1500-Y (reallocated to Sec. 1500-DD); P.L. 2025, ch. 294 (L.D. 1727)","source_url":"https://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/10/title10ch239sec0-6.html","source_title":"Maine Title 10, Chapter 239 — Communications with Consumers via Artificial Intelligence","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Maine Attorney General (under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act)","penalties":"Treated as a violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, exposing violators to UTPA remedies and Attorney General enforcement."},{"id":"me-ai-therapy-psychotherapy-2026","title":"Maine Regulation of AI in Therapy and Psychotherapy Services (P.L. 2025, ch. 687 / L.D. 2082)","short_title":"Maine AI-in-Therapy Law (licensed pros only)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Maine","state_abbr":"ME","topics":["healthcare","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-29","enacted_date":"2026-04-13","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Maine bars anyone from providing, advertising, or offering therapy or psychotherapy to the public — including through internet-based AI — unless the services are delivered by a licensed professional. Licensed professionals may use AI only for administrative or supplementary support, and only if they retain full responsibility for its outputs; using AI for supplementary support requires written client notice and consent. AI may not make independent therapeutic decisions, engage in therapeutic communication with clients, or generate treatment plans without the licensee's review and approval.","summary_technical":"L.D. 2082 / H.P. 1397 (P.L. 2025, ch. 687; approved April 13, 2026; effective July 29, 2026) enacts 10 M.R.S. Sec. 1500-EE and parallel Title 32 licensing provisions, prohibiting unlicensed (including AI-based) provision of therapy, permitting AI only for administrative/supplementary support with written client notice and consent, and barring AI from independent therapeutic decisions, therapeutic communication, or unreviewed treatment plans.","who_is_protected":"Clients receiving therapy or psychotherapy / behavioral-health services in Maine.","who_must_comply":"Licensed psychotherapy and behavioral-health professionals and any person offering therapy services to the public, including via AI.","citation":"P.L. 2025, ch. 687 (L.D. 2082 / H.P. 1397, 132nd Legis.); 10 M.R.S. Sec. 1500-EE","source_url":"https://legislature.maine.gov/legis/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=HP1397&item=3&snum=132","source_title":"Maine L.D. 2082 / H.P. 1397 — AI in Certain Mental Health Services (P.L. 2026, ch. 687)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Maine professional licensing boards (disciplinary action); Maine Attorney General for the Unfair Trade Practices Act component.","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Offering therapy services without a license (including via AI) is a violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act; a licensee's improper use of AI is subject to board discipline. Client waivers are void, and clients retain the right to sue."},{"id":"ma-ch118-2024-digitized-intimate-images","title":"Massachusetts Criminalization of Digitized/AI-Altered Intimate Images (Acts 2024, ch. 118; G.L. c. 265, Sec. 43A)","short_title":"MA Digitized Intimate-Images Law (deepfake NCII)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Massachusetts","state_abbr":"MA","topics":["ncii","ai-images","deepfakes"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-09-18","enacted_date":"2024-06-20","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Massachusetts's 'An Act to Prevent Abuse and Exploitation' created a criminal offense for distributing nonconsensual intimate images and expressly extended it to 'visual material produced by digitization.' Digitization is defined to include creating or altering visual material — such as through computer-generated images — in a way that would falsely appear to a reasonable person to be an authentic depiction of the person shown. This brings AI-generated and digitally fabricated intimate images within the same prohibition that applies to real photos and videos.","summary_technical":"Acts of 2024, ch. 118 (H.4744) amended G.L. c. 265, Sec. 43A to reach nonconsensual distribution of intimate 'visual material produced by digitization,' defining digitization to include computer-generated or altered images that would falsely appear authentic to a reasonable person.","who_is_protected":"Identifiable individuals depicted in nonconsensually distributed intimate images, including AI-generated or digitally altered ones.","who_must_comply":"Any person who distributes such intimate visual material in Massachusetts.","citation":"Acts of 2024, ch. 118 (H.4744), amending G.L. c. 265, Sec. 43A","source_url":"https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2024/Chapter118","source_title":"Massachusetts Acts of 2024, Chapter 118 — An Act to Prevent Abuse and Exploitation (H.4744)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Massachusetts district attorneys / Attorney General (criminal prosecution)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Imprisonment for up to 2.5 years in a house of correction, a fine of up to $10,000, or both."},{"id":"md-crim-11-208-csam","title":"Maryland Criminal Law 11-208 — Child Sexual Abuse Material Including Computer-Generated Images","short_title":"Maryland CSAM Law (computer-generated images)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Maryland","state_abbr":"MD","topics":["children","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-10-01","enacted_date":"2023-05-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Maryland's child sexual abuse material statute reaches not only real photographs of children but also computer-generated images that an ordinary person could not tell apart from an actual, identifiable child under the age of 16. It is a crime to knowingly possess and intentionally retain, or to knowingly access and intentionally view, such material showing a child engaged in sexual conduct. Pure drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings are excluded.","summary_technical":"Md. Code, Crim. Law 11-208 defines an image 'indistinguishable from an actual and identifiable child' to include a computer-generated image created, adapted, or modified to appear as an actual, identifiable child under 16, and applies the existing possession/viewing offense to such images.","who_is_protected":"Children, specifically minors under the age of 16 depicted in or simulated by such material.","who_must_comply":"Any person in Maryland who could possess, retain, access, or view child sexual abuse material.","citation":"Md. Code, Crim. Law 11-208","source_url":"https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcr&section=11-208","source_title":"Maryland Annotated Code, Criminal Law 11-208","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Maryland state and local prosecutors (Office of the Attorney General and State's Attorneys); courts.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"A first violation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 5 years in prison, a fine up to $2,500, or both; a subsequent violation is a felony punishable by up to 10 years, a fine up to $10,000, or both."},{"id":"md-sb818-ai-governance-act-2024","title":"Maryland Artificial Intelligence Governance Act of 2024 (SB 818)","short_title":"Maryland AI Governance Act (2024)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Maryland","state_abbr":"MD","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-05-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This law sets up a governance framework for how Maryland state government builds, buys, deploys, and uses artificial intelligence. Each state government unit must inventory the systems it uses that employ high-risk AI and conduct regular impact assessments. The Department of Information Technology is directed to develop and adopt policies covering the development, procurement, deployment, use, and ongoing assessment of high-risk AI systems.","summary_technical":"2024 Md. Laws ch. 496 (SB 818), the Artificial Intelligence Governance Act of 2024, requires state government units to inventory high-risk AI systems and perform impact assessments and directs the Department of Information Technology to adopt governing policies and procedures.","who_is_protected":"Marylanders affected by state government use of high-risk automated systems.","who_must_comply":"Units of Maryland state government and the Department of Information Technology (DoIT).","citation":"2024 Md. Laws ch. 496 (SB 818)","source_url":"https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/SB0818?ys=2024rs","source_title":"Maryland General Assembly — SB 818 (2024), Chapter 496","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Maryland Department of Information Technology (DoIT) and the Governor's AI Subcabinet.","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"md-hb820-ai-utilization-review-2025","title":"Maryland Health Insurance — Utilization Review — Use of Artificial Intelligence (HB 820)","short_title":"Maryland HB 820 (AI in insurance utilization review)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Maryland","state_abbr":"MD","topics":["healthcare","insurance","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-10-01","enacted_date":"2025-05-20","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"When a Maryland carrier, pharmacy benefits manager, or private review agent uses artificial intelligence or an algorithm in utilization review, the tool's determinations must be based on the individual patient's clinical history, not solely on a group dataset. The AI may not replace the role of the reviewing provider, must not result in unfair discrimination, must remain open to audit, and may not deny, delay, or modify care in a way that harms enrollees. Carriers must report to the Insurance Commissioner quarterly on adverse decisions, including whether AI was used.","summary_technical":"2025 Md. Laws ch. 747 (HB 820) amends Md. Code, Ins. 15-10A-06 and 15-10B-05.1 to govern AI in utilization review (individualized clinical basis, no sole reliance on group data, no provider replacement, no unfair discrimination, audit access) and to require quarterly carrier reporting of adverse decisions and AI use.","who_is_protected":"Enrollees and patients of Maryland health plans subject to utilization review.","who_must_comply":"Health insurance carriers, pharmacy benefits managers, and private review agents conducting utilization review in Maryland.","citation":"2025 Md. Laws ch. 747 (HB 820); Md. Code, Ins. 15-10A-06, 15-10B-05.1","source_url":"https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/HB0820?ys=2025RS","source_title":"Maryland General Assembly — HB 820 (2025), Chapter 747","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Maryland Insurance Administration / Maryland Insurance Commissioner.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Enforced through the Maryland Insurance Commissioner's existing authority over carriers and private review agents; no new standalone penalty."},{"id":"md-hb1563-er-postacute-ai-reporting-2026","title":"Maryland Emergency Room Services and Post-Acute Care — Coverage and Facility Studies (HB 1563)","short_title":"Maryland HB 1563 (AI-denial reporting)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Maryland","state_abbr":"MD","topics":["healthcare","insurance","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-01","enacted_date":"2026-04-28","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"Among other emergency-room and post-acute care provisions, this law expands the quarterly report that carriers must submit to the Maryland Insurance Commissioner. The report must include the number of adverse decisions and whether an artificial intelligence, algorithm, or other software tool was used in making them. The Commissioner may use this information as a basis for examining the carrier.","summary_technical":"2026 Md. Laws ch. 165 (HB 1563) amends Md. Code, Ins. 15-10A-06 to require carriers' quarterly reports to identify adverse decisions and whether AI, an algorithm, or other software tool was used, usable as a basis for examination.","who_is_protected":"Enrollees subject to carrier adverse coverage decisions, including those involving automated tools.","who_must_comply":"Health insurance carriers operating in Maryland.","citation":"2026 Md. Laws ch. 165 (HB 1563); Md. Code, Ins. 15-10A-06","source_url":"https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/hb1563?ys=2026RS","source_title":"Maryland General Assembly — HB 1563 (2026), Chapter 165","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Maryland Insurance Administration / Maryland Insurance Commissioner.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No standalone fine; the reported information may be used as the basis for an examination of the carrier under the Insurance Article."},{"id":"md-sb141-election-deepfakes-2026","title":"Maryland Election Law — Election Misinformation, Disinformation, and Deepfakes (SB 141)","short_title":"Maryland SB 141 (election deepfakes)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Maryland","state_abbr":"MD","topics":["deepfakes","elections"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-01","enacted_date":"2026-05-12","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This law makes it a crime to knowingly or with reckless disregard create, use, or disseminate a deepfake to produce materially false information in the election context. It also directs the State Administrator of Elections to publicly issue correct information when there is a credible report of election misinformation, and lets the State Board of Elections file a civil action. The prohibition does not apply to satire or parody or to bona fide news broadcasting.","summary_technical":"2026 Md. Laws ch. 444 (SB 141) adds an Election Law prohibition on knowingly or recklessly creating, using, or disseminating a deepfake to produce materially false information, with satire/parody and bona fide news exemptions, and authorizes State Board of Elections civil action plus corrective public notices.","who_is_protected":"Maryland voters and the integrity of Maryland elections.","who_must_comply":"Any person who would create, use, or disseminate election-related deepfakes, subject to the satire/parody and news exemptions.","citation":"2026 Md. Laws ch. 444 (SB 141)","source_url":"https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/sb0141?ys=2026RS","source_title":"Maryland General Assembly — SB 141 (2026), Chapter 444","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"State Administrator of Elections and State Board of Elections; state prosecutors and courts for criminal penalties.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"A violation is a misdemeanor punishable on conviction by a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both."},{"id":"md-hb895-predatory-pricing-act-2026","title":"Maryland Protection From Predatory Pricing Act (HB 895)","short_title":"Maryland Predatory Pricing Act (surveillance pricing)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Maryland","state_abbr":"MD","topics":["automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-10-01","enacted_date":"2026-05-08","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This law bars food retailers and third-party delivery service providers from using a consumer's personal data or dynamic (surveillance) pricing to set a higher price for tax-exempt food for a specific consumer. It also prohibits using protected-class data to offer, advertise, or sell goods in a way that withholds an accommodation or advantage from the consumer the data pertains to. Violations are treated as unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.","summary_technical":"2026 Md. Laws ch. 154 (HB 895) prohibits food retailers and third-party delivery service providers from using personal data or dynamic pricing to set higher consumer-specific prices for tax-exempt food, and from using protected-class data to withhold an advantage, enforced as a Maryland Consumer Protection Act violation (excluding that Act's private-right-of-action provisions).","who_is_protected":"Consumers buying tax-exempt food from large food retailers and through third-party delivery services.","who_must_comply":"Food retailers (large establishments selling tax-exempt food) and third-party delivery service providers.","citation":"2026 Md. Laws ch. 154 (HB 895)","source_url":"https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/HB0895?ys=2026RS","source_title":"Maryland General Assembly — HB 895 (2026), Chapter 154","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Maryland Office of the Attorney General (Consumer Protection Division) under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"As a Maryland Consumer Protection Act violation: a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation and up to $25,000 for each repetition of the same violation."},{"id":"md-sb8-ai-deepfake-identity-fraud-2026","title":"Maryland Criminal Law — Identity Fraud — Artificial Intelligence and Deepfake Representations (SB 8)","short_title":"Maryland SB 8 (AI/deepfake impersonation)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Maryland","state_abbr":"MD","topics":["deepfakes","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-01","enacted_date":"2026-05-12","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This law makes it a crime to intentionally use artificial intelligence or a deepfake representation to impersonate, falsely depict, or claim to represent another person, or to create or distribute false records, with intent to cause harm, to induce someone to hand over personal identifying information, or to obtain a benefit, credit, good, service, or other thing of value. 'Deepfake representation' means synthetic media indistinguishable from an actual, identifiable human being, and a victim may bring a civil action.","summary_technical":"2026 Md. Laws ch. 445 (SB 8) extends Maryland's identity-fraud statute to AI and deepfake representations used to impersonate a person or create false records to cause harm or obtain value, with penalties scaled to the value involved and a private civil cause of action for victims.","who_is_protected":"Individuals impersonated or harmed by AI-generated or deepfake impersonation and false records, and people induced to give up personal information or value.","who_must_comply":"Any person in Maryland who would use AI or deepfake representations for the prohibited impersonation or false-records purposes.","citation":"2026 Md. Laws ch. 445 (SB 8)","source_url":"https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/sb0008?ys=2026RS","source_title":"Maryland General Assembly — SB 8 (2026), Chapter 445","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Maryland state and local prosecutors and courts; victims may also pursue civil claims.","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Penalties scale with the value involved: $1,500-$25,000 is a felony punishable by up to 5 years and/or a $10,000 fine; $25,000 or more is up to 10 years and/or a $15,000 fine; lower-value violations carry reduced penalties."},{"id":"mi-hb-5141-ai-political-ad-disclaimer","title":"Michigan House Bill 5141 (2023) — AI Disclaimer for Political Advertisements","short_title":"Michigan HB 5141 (AI political-ad disclaimer)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Michigan","state_abbr":"MI","topics":["elections","deepfakes","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-02-13","enacted_date":"2023-11-30","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Michigan amended its Campaign Finance Act so that a political advertisement created in whole or substantially through artificial intelligence must carry a clear statement disclosing that AI was used. The rule reaches print, audio, and video messages relating to candidates, elections, or ballot questions in the state. The Secretary of State sets the size and placement standards for the required disclaimer, with limited exemptions for items too small to label.","summary_technical":"2023 PA 263 (HB 5141) amends the Michigan Campaign Finance Act to require a disclosure on any 'qualified political advertisement' generated in whole or substantially by AI; violations are civil infractions, and a repeat violation within five years can be charged as a Class E felony.","who_is_protected":"Michigan voters and the integrity of the state's elections and campaign communications.","who_must_comply":"Persons who create, publish, or distribute political advertisements relating to Michigan candidates, elections, or ballot questions that are generated wholly or substantially by AI.","citation":"2023 Mich. Pub. Act 263 (HB 5141), amending the Michigan Campaign Finance Act","source_url":"https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2023-HB-5141","source_title":"Michigan Legislature — House Bill 5141 of 2023 (Public Act 263 of 2023)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Michigan Secretary of State (rules and disclaimer standards); state criminal/civil enforcement for violations.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Violations are civil infractions; a repeat violation within five years may be prosecuted as a Class E felony against the public trust, punishable by up to five years."},{"id":"mn-sf-4097-social-media-manipulation","title":"Minnesota Prohibiting Social Media Manipulation Act (SF 4097 / Laws 2024, ch. 114)","short_title":"Minnesota SF 4097 (social-media algorithm disclosure)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Minnesota","state_abbr":"MN","topics":["transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-05-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Minnesota requires large social media platforms to publicly explain how their algorithmic ranking systems decide what users see. Among other things, a platform must disclose how its own content-quality judgments and a user's stated content preferences are weighted against other ranking signals. The rules apply to platforms doing business in or targeting Minnesotans that have more than 10,000 monthly active users.","summary_technical":"Minn. Stat. 325M.30-325M.34 (added by Laws 2024, ch. 114, art. 3, sec. 63) compel covered social media platforms to publicly disclose the operation of their algorithmic ranking systems, including how quality assessments and users' expressed preferences are weighted relative to other signals; enforced by the Attorney General.","who_is_protected":"Minnesota users of large social media platforms.","who_must_comply":"Social media platforms doing business in Minnesota or targeting Minnesota residents with more than 10,000 monthly active users.","citation":"Minn. Stat. 325M.30-325M.34; Laws 2024, ch. 114, art. 3, sec. 63 (SF 4097)","source_url":"https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325M.30","source_title":"Minnesota Statutes 325M.30 — Prohibiting Social Media Manipulation Act","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Minnesota Attorney General.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Enforced by the Minnesota Attorney General; the statute does not set a fixed civil penalty amount for this disclosure obligation."},{"id":"mn-hf-2432-csam-generative-ai","title":"Minnesota HF 2432 (2025) — CSAM Definition Expanded to Generative-AI Images","short_title":"Minnesota HF 2432 (AI-generated CSAM)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Minnesota","state_abbr":"MN","topics":["children","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-01","enacted_date":"2025-06-14","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Minnesota expanded its child sexual abuse material law to cover images produced with generative AI. The definition now reaches a visual depiction of someone indistinguishable from an actual minor that is created by feeding prompts into generative AI or similar technology, shows the person engaged in sexual conduct, and is obscene. This closes a gap so that synthetic, AI-generated imagery can be prosecuted under the existing CSAM framework.","summary_technical":"Minn. Stat. 617.246 (amended by Laws 2025, ch. 35) extends the definition of child sexual abuse material to a depiction 'indistinguishable from an actual minor created by the use of generative artificial intelligence' from prompts, depicting sexual conduct and obscene; existing CSAM criminal penalties apply.","who_is_protected":"Children, including those depicted in AI-generated synthetic imagery.","who_must_comply":"Anyone subject to Minnesota's CSAM prohibitions (creation, possession, dissemination, etc.).","citation":"Minn. Stat. 617.246; Laws 2025, ch. 35 (HF 2432)","source_url":"https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/617.246","source_title":"Minnesota Statutes 617.246 — Possession of child sexual abuse material","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Minnesota prosecutors / state criminal justice system; Minnesota Attorney General.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Existing Minnesota criminal penalties for child sexual abuse material apply to the newly covered generative-AI depictions."},{"id":"ms-hb-1723-ai-definition","title":"Mississippi House Bill 1723 (2026) — Statutory Definition of Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"Mississippi HB 1723 (defines AI)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Mississippi","state_abbr":"MS","topics":["consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-03-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Mississippi adopted a single, uniform definition of 'artificial intelligence' to be used across state law. AI is defined as a machine-based system that, for a set of human-defined objectives, can make predictions, recommendations, or decisions that influence real or virtual environments. The measure is definitional and does not itself impose obligations or penalties.","summary_technical":"HB 1723 (2026 Reg. Sess.) establishes a statutory definition of 'artificial intelligence' as a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments; no penalties (definitional provision).","who_is_protected":"Not applicable — the law provides a baseline definition rather than protections.","who_must_comply":"Not applicable — definitional; it supplies a term for use elsewhere in Mississippi law.","citation":"Miss. HB 1723, 2026 Regular Session","source_url":"https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2026/html/HB/1700-1799/HB1723SG.htm","source_title":"Mississippi Legislature — House Bill 1723 (2026 Regular Session, as sent to Governor)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"None (definitional provision).","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"mo-rsmo-573-010-cg-child-pornography","title":"Missouri RSMo 573.010 — Child Pornography Includes Computer-Generated / Indistinguishable Images","short_title":"Missouri RSMo 573.010 (computer-generated CSAM)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Missouri","state_abbr":"MO","topics":["children","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2006-06-05","enacted_date":"2006-06-05","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Missouri's definition of child pornography reaches computer and computer-generated images, not just photographs. It covers a digital or computer-generated image that depicts an actual minor in sexually explicit conduct, as well as an image that is indistinguishable from such a depiction. 'Indistinguishable' means an ordinary person viewing it would conclude it shows an actual minor, so synthetic imagery falls within the definition.","summary_technical":"RSMo 573.010 defines 'child pornography' to include a 'digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from,' a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; the computer-generated language was added in 2006 and remains in the current statute. Existing criminal penalties apply.","who_is_protected":"Minors, including individuals depicted in computer-generated or indistinguishable imagery.","who_must_comply":"Anyone subject to Missouri's pornography and child-exploitation offenses in Chapter 573.","citation":"RSMo 573.010 (computer-generated image language added 2006 H.B. 1698)","source_url":"https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=573.010","source_title":"Missouri Revisor of Statutes — RSMo 573.010 Definitions","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Missouri prosecutors / state criminal justice system.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Existing Missouri criminal penalties for child pornography offenses apply to qualifying computer-generated and indistinguishable images."},{"id":"nh-hb-1688-state-agency-ai","title":"New Hampshire House Bill 1688 (2024) — Use of Artificial Intelligence by State Agencies","short_title":"New Hampshire HB 1688 (state-agency AI limits)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Hampshire","state_abbr":"NH","topics":["public-sector","facial-recognition","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-07-12","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"New Hampshire set rules for how state agencies may use artificial intelligence. Agencies may not use AI to classify people in ways that cause unlawful discrimination, and they may not use real-time or remote biometric identification such as facial recognition to surveil public spaces — except by law enforcement acting under a warrant. Agencies also may not use deepfakes for deceptive or malicious purposes. When an AI recommendation cannot be reversed once carried out, a qualified human must review it first, AI-generated content must be disclosed, and the public must be told when they are interacting with AI.","summary_technical":"HB 1688 (2024) creates a new RSA chapter governing state-agency AI use: it bars AI-driven unlawful discrimination, real-time/remote biometric identification for public-space surveillance (except law enforcement with a warrant), and deceptive/malicious deepfakes, and mandates human review of non-reversible AI decisions, disclosure of AI-generated content, and notice of AI interaction.","who_is_protected":"Members of the public interacting with or affected by New Hampshire state agencies' AI systems.","who_must_comply":"New Hampshire state agencies and their computer systems (with exceptions for higher-education research systems and common consumer devices).","citation":"N.H. HB 1688 (2024), effective July 1, 2024","source_url":"https://gencourt.org/bill/2024/HB1688","source_title":"New Hampshire General Court — House Bill 1688 (2024)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New Hampshire state government / agency oversight (no dedicated enforcement body specified)."},{"id":"nh-hb-143-responsive-generative-communication","title":"New Hampshire HB 143 (2025) — Responsive Generative Communication to a Child (RSA ch. 270)","short_title":"New Hampshire HB 143 (AI chatbot child-safety)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Hampshire","state_abbr":"NH","topics":["children","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2025-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"New Hampshire targets AI chatbots whose sole purpose is open-ended generative conversation. An owner or operator of such a program may not knowingly direct a communication to a child that is intended to facilitate, encourage, solicit, or recommend that the child imminently engage in sexually explicit conduct, illegal drug or alcohol use, self-harm or suicide, or violence. A harmed child — or the child's parent or next friend — may sue for damages, with a minimum of $1,000 in liquidated damages per violation. The Attorney General may also bring an enforcement action.","summary_technical":"RSA ch. 270 (HB 143, 2025) prohibits an owner/operator of a 'responsive generative communication' AI program from knowingly directing to a child a communication intended to facilitate imminent sexually explicit conduct, illegal drug/alcohol use, self-harm/suicide, or violence; RSA 270:2 creates a private right of action with liquidated damages of at least $1,000 per violation, plus Attorney General enforcement after notice.","who_is_protected":"Children who interact with open-ended generative AI chat programs.","who_must_comply":"Owners and operators of AI chat programs whose sole purpose is open-ended generative communication.","citation":"N.H. RSA ch. 270 (HB 143, 2025); RSA 270:1-270:2","source_url":"https://gencourt.org/bill/2025/HB143","source_title":"New Hampshire General Court — House Bill 143 (2025), RSA Chapter 270","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New Hampshire Attorney General (after notice/cure); plus private enforcement by the child, parent, or next friend.","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Liability for damages proximately caused, with liquidated damages of no less than $1,000 per violation; the Attorney General may also bring an action."},{"id":"mt-sb-413-explicit-synthetic-media","title":"Montana Disclosing Explicit Synthetic Media Crime (SB 413)","short_title":"Montana SB 413 (crime to share explicit deepfakes)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Montana","state_abbr":"MT","topics":["ncii","ai-images","deepfakes","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-05-12","enacted_date":"2025-05-12","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Montana created a new crime for sharing sexually explicit deepfakes (AI-generated or altered images and video) of a real, identifiable person. It is illegal to knowingly disclose such media when you know the person did not consent and that the disclosure would cause them serious emotional distress, to disclose it intending to harass or harm the person, or to possess it and threaten to release it to extort money or other things of value.","summary_technical":"SB 413 (2025) creates the offense of disclosing explicit synthetic media, codified at Title 45, ch. 5, part 6, MCA, covering nonconsensual disclosure, harassment-motivated disclosure, and extortionate threats to disclose sexually explicit 'synthetic media' (deepfakes) of an identifiable individual.","who_is_protected":"Identifiable individuals depicted in sexually explicit synthetic media; enhanced protection for minors under 18.","who_must_comply":"Any person who discloses, or threatens to disclose, explicit synthetic media; interactive computer services are not liable unless they intentionally aid or abet.","citation":"Mont. SB 413 (2025), Ch. 606; MCA Title 45, ch. 5, part 6","source_url":"https://archive.legmt.gov/bills/2025/billpdf/SB0413.pdf","source_title":"Montana SB 413 (2025) Enrolled Bill — Disclosing Explicit Synthetic Media","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Montana county/state criminal prosecutors (criminal offense).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"First offense: fine up to $1,000 and/or up to 1 year in county jail. Second or subsequent: fine up to $10,000 and/or up to 5 years in state prison. If the depicted person is under 18: fine up to $10,000 and/or up to 10 years."},{"id":"mt-hb-514-privacy-communications-deepfake","title":"Montana Privacy in Communications Amendment (HB 514)","short_title":"Montana HB 514 (sextortion deepfakes in privacy crime)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Montana","state_abbr":"MT","topics":["ncii","ai-images","deepfakes"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-10-01","enacted_date":"2025-05-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Montana expanded its existing 'privacy in communications' crime to cover real or AI-fabricated sexual images. It is now an offense to publish or distribute such images of an identifiable person without consent to harass or harm them or to obtain money, and separately to possess such images and threaten to release them to extort money or other valuables.","summary_technical":"HB 514 (2025) amends MCA 45-8-213 to add subsections criminalizing nonconsensual disclosure and extortionate possession/threat-to-disclose of real or 'digitally fabricated' sexual imagery of an identifiable person, and adds a definition of 'digitally fabricated.'","who_is_protected":"Identifiable individuals depicted in real or digitally fabricated sexual imagery.","who_must_comply":"Any person; interactive computer services are not liable for content provided by another person.","citation":"Mont. HB 514 (2025) (Ch. 686); MCA 45-8-213","source_url":"https://archive.legmt.gov/bills/2025/billpdf/HB0514.pdf","source_title":"Montana HB 514 (2025) Enrolled Bill — Privacy in Communications","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Montana county/state criminal prosecutors (criminal offense).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"A first offense under the new image provisions is a misdemeanor (up to $500 and/or 6 months). A second or subsequent conviction is a felony, up to 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine up to $25,000."},{"id":"mt-hb-178-government-ai-use","title":"Montana Government Use of Artificial Intelligence Law (HB 178)","short_title":"Montana HB 178 (limits on government AI use)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Montana","state_abbr":"MT","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","facial-recognition"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-10-01","enacted_date":"2025-05-08","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Montana restricts how state and local government use AI. A government entity or state officer may not use an AI system to manipulate a person or group, to classify people in ways that cause unlawful discrimination or disparate impact, for a malicious purpose, or to surveil public spaces (with narrow exceptions). Government must disclose AI-produced material that no qualified human reviewed and disclose public-facing AI interfaces. Any AI recommendation or decision that could affect a person's rights, duties, or privileges must be reviewed by a qualified human who can reject or change it.","summary_technical":"HB 178 (2025), codified in Title 2, MCA, prohibits enumerated government uses of AI systems, requires disclosure of unreviewed AI-generated material and AI public interfaces (with a peace-officer investigative exemption), and requires human review of AI recommendations/decisions affecting rights, duties, or privileges.","who_is_protected":"Members of the public interacting with or affected by Montana state and local government AI use.","who_must_comply":"Montana government entities and state officers.","citation":"Mont. HB 178 (2025) (Ch. 427); codified in Title 2, MCA","source_url":"https://archive.legmt.gov/content/Sessions/69th/Contractor_index/CH0427.pdf","source_title":"Montana HB 178 (2025) Enrolled Bill (Ch. 427) — Limit Government Use of AI Systems","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Not specified in the act; no dedicated enforcement agency or penalty provision is named."},{"id":"mt-hb-513-name-voice-likeness","title":"Montana Name, Voice, and Visual Likeness Property Right (HB 513)","short_title":"Montana HB 513 (property right in voice & likeness vs. deepfakes)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Montana","state_abbr":"MT","topics":["deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2025-05-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Montana gives individuals a property right in their name, voice, and visual likeness. A person may be sued for damages if, without consent, they intentionally publish, perform, distribute, or make available to the public a digital voice or visual depiction of an individual for commercial use, knowing it is an unauthorized depiction of that person. The same liability applies to distributing tools whose primary purpose is producing such unauthorized digital depictions. The right lasts 20 years after death, with exceptions for news, commentary, and parody.","summary_technical":"HB 513 (2025), codified in Title 30, ch. 14, MCA, establishes a property right in name, voice, and visual likeness and imposes civil liability for unauthorized commercial 'digital voice depictions' and 'digital visual depictions' and for distributing tools primarily designed to create them.","who_is_protected":"Montana residents (and individuals domiciled in Montana at death) and their heirs/assignees for 20 years after death.","who_must_comply":"Any person who makes unauthorized commercial digital depictions or distributes tools designed to create them; excludes broadband internet access service providers.","citation":"Mont. HB 513 (2025) (Ch. 685); codified in Title 30, ch. 14, MCA","source_url":"https://archive.legmt.gov/content/Sessions/69th/Contractor_index/CH0685.pdf","source_title":"Montana HB 513 (2025) Enrolled Bill (Ch. 685) — Name, Voice, and Visual Likeness Rights","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Civil courts (private enforcement).","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil liability to the injured person for actual damages suffered plus any profits attributable to the unauthorized use of the individual's name, voice, or visual likeness."},{"id":"nj-bot-disclosure-act","title":"New Jersey Bot Disclosure Act (N.J.S.A. 56:18-1 et seq.)","short_title":"NJ Bot Disclosure Act (bots must identify themselves)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Jersey","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency","elections"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-07-19","enacted_date":"2020-01-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"New Jersey makes it unlawful to use an online bot to communicate or interact with a person in the state in order to deceive them about the bot's artificial identity, when the goal is to sell or advertise merchandise or real estate, or to solicit support for a candidate, party, or ballot question in an election. The use of the bot is allowed if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed up front. The Attorney General enforces the law and can pursue civil penalties.","summary_technical":"P.L. 2019, c.486 (codified at N.J.S.A. 56:18-1 et seq.) prohibits undisclosed use of bots to deceive a New Jersey person about artificial identity in connection with commercial transactions or election solicitation, requiring clear and conspicuous disclosure at the outset of the interaction.","who_is_protected":"Persons in New Jersey interacting online with bots.","who_must_comply":"Any person who uses a bot to communicate or interact with a New Jersey person for the covered commercial or electoral purposes.","citation":"N.J.S.A. 56:18-1 et seq.; P.L. 2019, c.486","source_url":"https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2018/AL19/486_.HTM","source_title":"New Jersey P.L. 2019, c.486 (A4563) — Bot Disclosure Act","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New Jersey Attorney General / Division of Consumer Affairs.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalty up to $2,500 for a first violation, $5,000 for a second, and $10,000 for each subsequent violation; the Attorney General may also seek injunctive relief and recover investigation costs, costs of the action, and reasonable attorney fees."},{"id":"nj-automated-employment-disparate-impact","title":"New Jersey Disparate Impact Rules — Automated Employment Decision Tools (N.J.A.C. 13:16)","short_title":"NJ N.J.A.C. 13:16 (bias law covers AI hiring tools)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Jersey","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["employment","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-12-15","enacted_date":"2025-12-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights adopted rules confirming that the state's Law Against Discrimination reaches automated employment decision tools, including AI, that automate, aid, or replace human employment decision-making. The rules define such tools broadly and give concrete examples of how they can produce a disparate impact on applicants and employees in protected classes. Employers remain responsible even for vendor-supplied tools.","summary_technical":"N.J.A.C. 13:16 (R.2025 d.150, operative Dec. 15, 2025), adopted under the NJ Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq.), defines 'automated employment decision tools' and applies disparate-impact liability to their use in employment decisions, with illustrative examples.","who_is_protected":"Job applicants and employees in protected classes.","who_must_comply":"Employers, labor organizations, employment agencies, and other covered entities using automated employment decision tools (including vendor-supplied tools).","citation":"N.J.A.C. 13:16 (R.2025 d.150); N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq.","source_url":"https://www.njoag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/N.J.A.C.-13-16-Disparate-Impact-Discrimination.pdf","source_title":"New Jersey Division on Civil Rights — Rules Pertaining to Disparate Impact Discrimination, N.J.A.C. 13:16","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (Attorney General).","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Existing Law Against Discrimination enforcement mechanisms apply (administrative complaints or civil action; remedies under N.J.S.A. 10:5); the rules add no separate penalty."},{"id":"ne-lb-383-ai-csam","title":"Nebraska LB 383 — Child Sexual Abuse Material Prevention Act (computer-generated and AI-created images)","short_title":"Nebraska LB 383 (AI/computer-generated CSAM)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Nebraska","state_abbr":"NE","topics":["children","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-03","enacted_date":"2025-05-20","last_verified_date":"2026-07-24","summary_plain":"Nebraska renamed its child pornography statutes the Child Sexual Abuse Material Prevention Act and expanded the definition of illegal material to cover computer-generated and AI-created depictions. An obscene image that depicts a child, a computer-generated person who would appear to a reasonable person to be a child, or a person shown with the physical features of a child now qualifies as child sexual abuse material. The law defines 'computer-generated' to include visual depictions created or altered using a computer, a digital process, or artificial intelligence.","summary_technical":"LB 383 (2025) amended Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1463.05 to include within 'child sexual abuse material' an obscene depiction of a person or computer-generated person who is, appears to be, or has the physical features of a child, with 'computer-generated' expressly covering images made or modified using artificial intelligence.","who_is_protected":"Children and minors depicted, or appearing to be depicted, in sexual abuse material, including AI-generated or computer-altered depictions.","who_must_comply":"Any person who creates, possesses, receives, or distributes child sexual abuse material in Nebraska.","citation":"Neb. Laws 2025, LB 383 (amending Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1463.05)","source_url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/109/PDF/Slip/LB383.pdf","source_title":"Nebraska Legislative Bill 383, Slip Law (109th Legislature, 2025)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Nebraska county attorneys and the Nebraska Attorney General (criminal prosecution).","penalties":"Existing criminal penalties under the Child Sexual Abuse Material Prevention Act apply; possession or receipt offenses are charged as felonies, with the class depending on the offender's age and prior convictions."},{"id":"ne-lb-525-conversational-ai-safety-act","title":"Nebraska LB 525 — Conversational Artificial Intelligence Safety Act","short_title":"Nebraska LB 525 (AI chatbot disclosure & crisis protocol)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Nebraska","state_abbr":"NE","topics":["consumer-protection","healthcare","children"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2027-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-04-14","last_verified_date":"2026-08-29","summary_plain":"Nebraska's Conversational Artificial Intelligence Safety Act regulates publicly available AI chatbots that simulate human conversation. When a reasonable person would be misled into thinking they are talking to a human, the operator must clearly disclose that they are interacting with AI, and minors must always be told they are interacting with AI. Operators must adopt a protocol for responding to messages about suicidal thoughts or self-harm by referring users to crisis services, and must not program the service to claim it provides professional mental or behavioral health care.","summary_technical":"LB 525 (2026), Secs. 12-18, adopt the Conversational Artificial Intelligence Safety Act, requiring AI-interaction disclosure, a suicidal-ideation/self-harm response protocol, a bar on representing the service as professional mental/behavioral health care, and minor-specific protections, enforceable by the Attorney General.","who_is_protected":"Users of conversational AI services in Nebraska, with heightened protections for minor account holders.","who_must_comply":"Operators that make a conversational AI service available to the public (excluding developer/research tools, narrow-purpose tools, internal business tools, and basic customer-service bots).","citation":"Neb. Laws 2026, LB 525, Secs. 12-18 (Conversational Artificial Intelligence Safety Act)","source_url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/109/PDF/Slip/LB525.pdf","source_title":"Nebraska Legislative Bill 525, Slip Law (109th Legislature, 2026)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Nebraska Attorney General.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties of at least $1,000 per violation and no more than $500,000 per operator, plus available actual damages and equitable or declaratory relief in an Attorney General civil action."},{"id":"nv-ab-406-provider-ai-mental-health","title":"Nevada AB 406 — Restriction on AI Use by Mental and Behavioral Health Care Providers (NRS ch. 629)","short_title":"Nevada AB 406 (therapists barred from using AI in care)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Nevada","state_abbr":"NV","topics":["healthcare"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-01","enacted_date":"2025-06-05","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Nevada bars licensed mental and behavioral health care providers from using an artificial intelligence system when delivering professional mental or behavioral health care directly to a patient. Providers may still use AI for administrative support, such as scheduling, billing, managing records, and organizing session notes, but any such use must comply with patient-privacy and health-record security laws. A violation is treated as unprofessional conduct.","summary_technical":"AB 406 (2025), Sec. 8, added a new section to NRS Chapter 629 prohibiting a provider of mental and behavioral health care from using an AI system in connection with providing professional care directly to a patient, while permitting enumerated administrative uses; a violation constitutes unprofessional conduct subject to discipline.","who_is_protected":"Patients receiving professional mental and behavioral health care in Nevada.","who_must_comply":"Licensed or certified providers of mental and behavioral health care in Nevada.","citation":"2025 Nev. Stat., AB 406, Sec. 8 (new section of NRS ch. 629)","source_url":"https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/83rd2025/Bills/AB/AB406_EN.pdf","source_title":"Nevada Assembly Bill 406, Enrolled (83rd Session, 2025)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"The board, agency, or other entity that licenses or certifies the provider (professional licensing authority).","penalties":"A violation is unprofessional conduct and is subject to disciplinary action by the licensing or certifying board, agency, or entity."},{"id":"nv-ab-406-school-counseling-ai","title":"Nevada AB 406 — Limit on AI Performing School Counselor, Psychologist, and Social Worker Duties (NRS ch. 391)","short_title":"Nevada AB 406 (no AI replacing school counselors)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Nevada","state_abbr":"NV","topics":["education","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-01","enacted_date":"2025-06-05","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Nevada prohibits public schools, including charter schools, from using artificial intelligence to perform the mental-health-related functions and duties of a school counselor, school psychologist, or school social worker. The law directs the Nevada Department of Education to develop a policy governing how those school employees may use AI when providing therapy, counseling, or other mental or behavioral health services to students.","summary_technical":"AB 406 (2025), Sec. 2, amended NRS Chapter 391 to bar public schools from using AI to perform the mental-health functions and duties of school counselors, psychologists, and social workers and to require the Department of Education to adopt a governing policy.","who_is_protected":"Public school students receiving counseling and mental or behavioral health services.","who_must_comply":"Public schools in Nevada, including charter schools, and the Nevada Department of Education.","citation":"2025 Nev. Stat., AB 406, Sec. 2 (amending NRS ch. 391)","source_url":"https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/83rd2025/Bills/AB/AB406_EN.pdf","source_title":"Nevada Assembly Bill 406, Enrolled (83rd Session, 2025)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Nevada Department of Education (policy development and oversight)."},{"id":"nv-ab-406-ai-chatbot-mental-health","title":"Nevada AB 406 — Prohibition on AI Posing as a Professional Mental Health Provider (NRS ch. 433)","short_title":"Nevada AB 406 (AI can't pose as a therapist)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Nevada","state_abbr":"NV","topics":["healthcare","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-01","enacted_date":"2025-06-05","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Nevada prohibits an AI provider from making available in the state an AI system that is specifically programmed to provide a service that would amount to the practice of professional mental or behavioral health care if a person did it. AI providers also may not state or imply that their AI system can provide such care or that it is a therapist, counselor, psychiatrist, or doctor. The state must publish educational materials directing people to licensed care. Genuine self-help materials and AI used by licensed providers for administrative tasks are not prohibited.","summary_technical":"AB 406 (2025), Sec. 7, added a new section to NRS Chapter 433 barring AI providers from offering AI systems programmed to deliver what would be professional mental/behavioral health care, and from representing such systems (or themselves) as qualified providers, with a civil penalty of up to $15,000 per violation.","who_is_protected":"Nevada consumers who might be misled into receiving purported mental or behavioral health care from an AI system.","who_must_comply":"Artificial intelligence providers making AI systems available for use in Nevada, and natural persons representing themselves as qualified mental/behavioral health providers.","citation":"2025 Nev. Stat., AB 406, Sec. 7 (new section of NRS ch. 433)","source_url":"https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/83rd2025/Bills/AB/AB406_EN.pdf","source_title":"Nevada Assembly Bill 406, Enrolled (83rd Session, 2025)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Division of Public and Behavioral Health, Nevada Department of Health and Human Services.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"A civil penalty of up to $15,000 per violation for violating the prohibitions; recovered penalties are deposited in the State General Fund."},{"id":"nc-hb-591-ai-csam-ncii-sextortion","title":"North Carolina HB 591 (Modernize Sex Crimes / Session Law 2024-37)","short_title":"NC HB 591 (AI CSAM, deepfake intimate images & sextortion)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"North Carolina","state_abbr":"NC","topics":["children","ai-images","ncii"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-12-01","enacted_date":"2024-07-08","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"North Carolina updated its sex-crime laws so that sexually exploitative images of children count even when they are digital or computer-generated, including depictions built, altered, or modified with technology such as algorithms or artificial intelligence. The law also makes it a crime to use someone's private sexual image, including an AI-generated one, as leverage: threatening to release such an image, or refusing to delete one already released, in order to pressure a person is treated as sexual extortion. It likewise extends the ban on sharing intimate images without consent to AI-generated intimate images.","summary_technical":"S.L. 2024-37 (H591) amended G.S. 14-190.13 and the sexual-exploitation offenses to include material created, adapted, or modified by technological means (including AI) so an identifiable minor appears engaged in sexual activity, created sexual-extortion offenses at G.S. 14-202.7, and expanded the disclosure-of-private-images offense (G.S. 14-190.5A) to cover AI-generated depictions.","who_is_protected":"Minors depicted in sexual exploitation material (including AI-generated/identifiable-minor depictions) and any individual targeted by sexual extortion or non-consensual disclosure of a private sexual image, including AI-generated images.","who_must_comply":"Any person in North Carolina; the prohibitions apply to anyone who produces, distributes, or possesses covered material or who engages in sexual extortion or non-consensual image disclosure.","citation":"N.C. Sess. Law 2024-37 (H.B. 591); N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-190.13, 14-202.7, 14-190.5A","source_url":"https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2023-2024/SL2024-37.html","source_title":"North Carolina Session Law 2024-37 (House Bill 591)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"North Carolina law enforcement and district attorneys (criminal prosecution); North Carolina courts.","penalties":"Criminal penalties matching the relevant existing offenses: sexual exploitation of a minor offenses carry felony penalties; sexual extortion is generally a Class F felony and aggravated sexual extortion a Class E felony; non-consensual disclosure of a private image is generally a Class H felony for adults."},{"id":"nd-hb-1613-uav-robot-law","title":"North Dakota Unmanned Aerial Vehicle and Robot Law (HB 1613)","short_title":"ND HB 1613 (drone evidence limits extended to robots; no armed police robots)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"North Dakota","state_abbr":"ND","topics":["law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-01","enacted_date":"2025-04-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"North Dakota expanded its surveillance-by-drone chapter so the same rules now apply to 'robots' — powered, AI-driven machines or systems that can operate on their own. Information that law enforcement gathers using a robot is subject to the same evidentiary limits that already apply to information gathered by a drone. The law also bars law enforcement from using a robot or a drone to deploy a weapon or otherwise use force.","summary_technical":"HB 1613 amended N.D. Cent. Code ch. 29-29.4 (sections 29-29.4-01 through -06) to add 'robot' alongside unmanned aerial vehicles, extending the chapter's warrant/evidentiary restrictions to robot-gathered information and limiting law-enforcement weaponization via robot or drone.","who_is_protected":"Individuals subject to North Dakota criminal investigations and the general public who could be surveilled by, or have force deployed against them by, a law-enforcement robot or drone.","who_must_comply":"North Dakota law enforcement agencies and officers.","citation":"N.D. Cent. Code ch. 29-29.4; 2025 N.D. Laws (HB 1613)","source_url":"https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t29c29-4.html","source_title":"North Dakota Century Code Chapter 29-29.4 (Surveillance by UAV; Robots) / HB 1613","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"North Dakota courts (via suppression of improperly obtained evidence); no dedicated administrative enforcement agency.","penalties":"None specified; the chapter operates primarily through evidentiary exclusion and operational limits."},{"id":"nd-hb-1429-harassment-by-robot","title":"North Dakota Harassment by Robot (HB 1429, 12.1-17-07)","short_title":"ND 12.1-17-07 (using a robot/AI to harass is a crime)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"North Dakota","state_abbr":"ND","topics":["privacy","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-01","enacted_date":"2025-04-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"North Dakota updated its harassment law so that using a 'robot' to harass someone is itself a crime. A robot here means an artificial object or system that senses, processes, and acts using technology, including artificial intelligence. A person commits harassment if they use such a robot to engage in offensive conduct that serves no legitimate purpose.","summary_technical":"HB 1429 amended N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-17-07 to define 'robot' (an artificial object/system that senses, processes, and acts using technology, including AI) and to make it harassment to use a robot to engage in offensive conduct with no legitimate purpose.","who_is_protected":"Any person targeted by harassing conduct carried out through a robot or AI system.","who_must_comply":"Any person in North Dakota.","citation":"N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-17-07; 2025 N.D. Laws (HB 1429)","source_url":"https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t12-1c17.html","source_title":"North Dakota Century Code 12.1-17-07 (Harassment) / HB 1429","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"North Dakota law enforcement and prosecutors; North Dakota courts.","penalties":"Misdemeanor. Harassment is generally a class B misdemeanor, rising to a class A misdemeanor where the conduct involves certain threats."},{"id":"nd-hb-1429-stalking-by-robot","title":"North Dakota Stalking by Robot (HB 1429, 12.1-17-07.1)","short_title":"ND 12.1-17-07.1 (stalking via robot/AI, e.g. tracking, is a crime)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"North Dakota","state_abbr":"ND","topics":["privacy","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-01","enacted_date":"2025-04-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"North Dakota extended its stalking law to cover stalking carried out with a 'robot,' including artificial intelligence systems. This reaches conduct such as using a robot to track a person without authorization. The change makes clear that automated or AI-driven tools cannot be used as a workaround to stalk someone.","summary_technical":"HB 1429 amended N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-17-07.1 to apply the stalking offense to conduct carried out by a 'robot' (including AI), such as unauthorized tracking of an individual.","who_is_protected":"Any person targeted by stalking conduct, including unauthorized tracking, carried out through a robot or AI system.","who_must_comply":"Any person in North Dakota.","citation":"N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-17-07.1; 2025 N.D. Laws (HB 1429)","source_url":"https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t12-1c17.html","source_title":"North Dakota Century Code 12.1-17-07.1 (Stalking) / HB 1429","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"North Dakota law enforcement and prosecutors; North Dakota courts.","penalties":"Misdemeanor or felony depending on the circumstances; stalking is generally a class A misdemeanor, and a class C felony for repeat offenses or where aggravating factors apply."},{"id":"nd-hb-1167-ai-political-ad-disclaimer","title":"North Dakota AI Political Advertising Disclaimer Law (HB 1167)","short_title":"ND HB 1167 (political ads using AI to impersonate must say so)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"North Dakota","state_abbr":"ND","topics":["deepfakes","elections","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-01","enacted_date":"2025-04-14","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"North Dakota now requires a clear disclaimer on political advertising or communications that use artificial intelligence to visually or audibly impersonate a real person. Covered content must display the statement 'THIS CONTENT GENERATED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.' The requirement targets AI impersonations in political video, audio, and images, and does not apply to ordinary tools like spell-check, grammar correction, or stylistic editing.","summary_technical":"HB 1167 added a new section to N.D. Cent. Code ch. 16.1-10 (corrupt practices) requiring a 'THIS CONTENT GENERATED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE' disclaimer when AI is used to visually or audibly impersonate a human in political advertising or communications.","who_is_protected":"North Dakota voters and the individuals who could be impersonated by AI in political communications.","who_must_comply":"Persons, candidates, political committees, and political parties that create or distribute covered political advertising or communications using AI to impersonate a human.","citation":"N.D. Cent. Code ch. 16.1-10; 2025 N.D. Laws (HB 1167)","source_url":"https://ndlegis.gov/assembly/69-2025/regular/documents/25-0529-02000.pdf","source_title":"North Dakota HB 1167 (Artificial Intelligence Disclosure Statements; ch. 16.1-10)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"North Dakota election/corrupt-practices enforcement (Secretary of State and state prosecutors); North Dakota courts.","penalties":"Not specified in the disclaimer requirement itself; violations of the corrupt-practices chapter are generally treated as a class A misdemeanor under North Dakota law."},{"id":"nd-hb-1386-ai-csam-amendments","title":"North Dakota AI CSAM Amendments (HB 1386, 12.1-27.2)","short_title":"ND HB 1386 (CSAM laws cover computer-generated/AI images of minors)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"North Dakota","state_abbr":"ND","topics":["children","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-01","enacted_date":"2025-04-23","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"North Dakota expanded its child sexual abuse material laws to apply to computer-generated images depicting a minor engaged in sexual conduct. It revised the definition of 'minor' so that it includes a computer-generated image that appears to depict a person under 18. This closes a gap for AI-generated or synthetic imagery, so possessing such material is prohibited even when no real child was depicted.","summary_technical":"HB 1386 amended N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-27.2-01 and 12.1-27.2-04.1 to add a 'computer-generated image' concept and to define 'minor' to include a computer-generated visual representation appearing to depict an individual under 18.","who_is_protected":"Children, and the broader public interest in preventing sexual exploitation material, including AI-generated depictions that appear to show minors.","who_must_comply":"Any person in North Dakota.","citation":"N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-27.2-01, 12.1-27.2-04.1; 2025 N.D. Laws (HB 1386)","source_url":"https://ndlegis.gov/assembly/69-2025/regular/documents/25-0817-04000.pdf","source_title":"North Dakota HB 1386 (Possessing Certain Computer-Generated Images; ch. 12.1-27.2)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"North Dakota law enforcement and prosecutors; North Dakota courts.","penalties":"Felony. Possessing a computer-generated image of child sexual abuse material is generally a class C felony, increasing to a class B felony in aggravated cases."},{"id":"ok-hb-3642-ai-csam","title":"Oklahoma House Bill 3642 (Computer-Generated and AI Child Sexual Abuse Material)","short_title":"Oklahoma HB 3642 (AI-generated CSAM is a crime)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Oklahoma","state_abbr":"OK","topics":["children","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-11-01","enacted_date":"2024-04-23","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Oklahoma broadened its child pornography offenses so that they cover sexually explicit images of minors that were generated or altered by a computer, including with artificial intelligence. A depiction can be illegal even if no real child was photographed, as long as it appears to show a minor. The same criminal penalties that apply to traditional child sexual abuse material apply to these synthetic depictions.","summary_technical":"HB 3642 amends Oklahoma's Law on Obscenity and Child Pornography (21 O.S.) to extend the definition of prohibited child pornography to computer-generated, computer-altered, and artificially produced depictions that appear to show a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.","who_is_protected":"Minors depicted in real or synthetic sexual abuse material; the public.","who_must_comply":"Any person who creates, possesses, distributes, or views child sexual abuse material in Oklahoma.","citation":"2024 Okla. Sess. Laws, HB 3642 (amending 21 O.S. on obscenity and child pornography)","source_url":"http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB3642&Session=2400","source_title":"Oklahoma Legislature - HB 3642 (2024) Bill Information","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Oklahoma district attorneys and the Oklahoma Attorney General (criminal prosecution).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"The existing criminal penalties for child pornography offenses apply, including substantial prison terms and fines."},{"id":"ok-sb-546-data-privacy-profiling","title":"Oklahoma Consumer Data Privacy Act (SB 546) - Profiling Opt-Out","short_title":"Oklahoma SB 546 (opt out of profiling for significant decisions)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Oklahoma","state_abbr":"OK","topics":["privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-03-20","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Oklahoma's comprehensive consumer privacy law gives residents the right to tell a business to stop using their personal data for profiling that drives decisions carrying legal or similarly significant effects, such as those affecting credit, employment, or housing. Businesses must also run and document data protection assessments before high-risk processing, including risky profiling. The law is enforced only by the Attorney General; there is no consumer lawsuit right.","summary_technical":"SB 546 enacts the Oklahoma Consumer Data Privacy Act, granting a right to opt out of profiling in furtherance of decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects and requiring controllers to conduct data protection assessments for heightened-risk processing.","who_is_protected":"Oklahoma consumers (residents acting in an individual/household capacity).","who_must_comply":"Controllers doing business in Oklahoma that meet the Act's processing thresholds.","citation":"Oklahoma Consumer Data Privacy Act, SB 546 (2026), eff. Jan. 1, 2027","source_url":"https://www.okhouse.gov/posts/news-20260323_2","source_title":"Oklahoma House of Representatives - Major Data Privacy Bill Signed into Law (SB 546)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Oklahoma Attorney General (exclusive enforcement).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties of up to $7,500 per violation after a cure opportunity; no private right of action."},{"id":"or-sb-1571-campaign-synthetic-media","title":"Oregon SB 1571 (Synthetic Media Disclosure in Campaign Communications)","short_title":"Oregon SB 1571 (campaign ads must disclose AI/synthetic media)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Oregon","state_abbr":"OR","topics":["deepfakes","elections","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-03-27","enacted_date":"2024-03-27","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Oregon requires campaign communications that use synthetic media (an AI-generated or AI-manipulated image, audio, or video depicting a person's voice or likeness) to carry a disclosure telling viewers the content was altered or created with artificial intelligence. The Secretary of State (or the Attorney General when the Secretary of State race is involved) can go to court to stop a non-compliant communication. Violators can face a civil penalty.","summary_technical":"SB 1571 (2024 Or. Laws ch. 62) requires a disclosure on campaign communications containing synthetic media and authorizes injunctive relief plus a civil penalty for noncompliance.","who_is_protected":"Voters and candidates depicted in manipulated campaign media.","who_must_comply":"Candidates, campaigns, and others who produce or distribute campaign communications containing synthetic media in Oregon.","citation":"2024 Or. Laws ch. 62 (SB 1571)","source_url":"https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2024R1/Measures/Overview/SB1571","source_title":"Oregon Legislature OLIS - SB 1571 (2024 Regular Session) Overview","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Oregon Secretary of State (Elections Division); Oregon Attorney General for communications involving the Secretary of State office.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"A court may enjoin distribution, and violators may be assessed a civil penalty of up to $10,000."},{"id":"or-sb-619-consumer-privacy-profiling","title":"Oregon Consumer Privacy Act (SB 619) - Profiling, Children's Data, Assessments","short_title":"Oregon SB 619 (opt out of profiling; child-data & assessment rules)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Oregon","state_abbr":"OR","topics":["privacy","automated-decisions","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2023-07-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Oregon's consumer privacy law lets residents opt out of having their personal data used for profiling that supports decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. It adds stronger protections for data about people the business knows are under 16, and requires businesses to complete and document data protection assessments for processing that poses a heightened risk, including risky profiling. The Attorney General enforces it; there is no private lawsuit right.","summary_technical":"SB 619 enacts the Oregon Consumer Privacy Act, providing an opt-out from profiling in furtherance of decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, heightened protections for consumers under 16, and mandatory data protection assessments for heightened-risk processing.","who_is_protected":"Oregon consumers, with added protections for those under 16.","who_must_comply":"Controllers and processors doing business in Oregon that meet the Act's thresholds.","citation":"Oregon Consumer Privacy Act, 2023 Or. Laws (SB 619), ORS 646A.570-646A.589, eff. July 1, 2024","source_url":"https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB619/Enrolled","source_title":"Oregon Legislature - Enrolled Senate Bill 619 (2023)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Oregon Department of Justice / Attorney General.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties of up to $7,500 per violation; no private right of action."},{"id":"ri-17-30-election-synthetic-media","title":"Rhode Island Deceptive and Fraudulent Synthetic Media in Election Communications (Title 17, ch. 30)","short_title":"Rhode Island 17-30 (ban on undisclosed election deepfakes near an election)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Rhode Island","state_abbr":"RI","topics":["deepfakes","elections"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-02","enacted_date":"2025-07-02","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Rhode Island bars distributing synthetic media that the distributor knows is a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of a candidate within 90 days of an election. The ban does not apply if the image, audio, or video carries a clear disclosure that it was manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence. A candidate depicted in violating media can sue to block its distribution and may also recover damages.","summary_technical":"R.I. Gen. Laws ch. 17-30 prohibits distributing deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media depicting a candidate within 90 days of an election absent a manipulation/AI disclosure, and 17-30-2 grants the depicted candidate a private right of action for injunctive or other equitable relief plus damages.","who_is_protected":"Candidates depicted in election-related synthetic media, and voters.","who_must_comply":"Candidates, campaign committees, political action committees, party committees, and persons or entities making independent expenditures.","citation":"R.I. Gen. Laws 17-30-1 to 17-30-4; P.L. 2025, ch. 409 & 410, eff. July 2, 2025","source_url":"https://webserver.rilegislature.gov/Statutes/TITLE17/17-30/INDEX.htm","source_title":"Rhode Island General Laws - Title 17, Chapter 30 (Deceptive and Fraudulent Synthetic Media in Election Communications)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Enforced through private civil actions in the Rhode Island courts (depicted candidate); no designated administrative enforcer.","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"A court may grant injunctive or other equitable relief; a prevailing candidate may also recover general or special damages plus reasonable attorney's fees and costs."},{"id":"sc-40-57-820-real-estate-ai","title":"South Carolina Real Estate Licensee Responsibility for AI Work Product (S.C. Code 40-57-820)","short_title":"South Carolina 40-57-820 (realtors accountable for AI-assisted work)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"South Carolina","state_abbr":"SC","topics":["consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-05-21","enacted_date":"2024-05-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"South Carolina makes licensed real estate professionals fully responsible for any work product they create with the help of artificial intelligence, machine learning, or similar tools. If a violation of the real estate licensing law is committed using such tools, it is treated as though the licensee committed it directly. Licensees must double-check AI-assisted work for compliance with advertising, intellectual property, confidentiality, and related rules.","summary_technical":"S.C. Code Ann. 40-57-820 provides that a real estate licensee is responsible for all work product produced with the assistance of AI, machine learning, or similar programs, and treats violations committed through such tools as committed directly by the licensee.","who_is_protected":"Consumers in real estate transactions; the public.","who_must_comply":"Licensed South Carolina real estate brokers, salespersons, property managers, and associated licensees.","citation":"S.C. Code Ann. 40-57-820, enacted by 2024 Act No. 204 (H.4754), approved May 21, 2024","source_url":"https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess125_2023-2024/bills/4754.htm","source_title":"South Carolina Legislature - H.4754 (2024 Act No. 204)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"South Carolina Real Estate Commission (Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Standard disciplinary actions and penalties under the real estate licensing law, including administrative citations and fines (up to $10,000 for repeat violations)."},{"id":"tn-hb-2163-ai-csam","title":"Tennessee HB 2163 — Inclusion of AI-Generated Material in Child Sexual Exploitation Offenses","short_title":"Tennessee HB 2163 (AI-generated child abuse images are illegal 'material')","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Tennessee","state_abbr":"TN","topics":["children","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-05-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Tennessee amended its child sexual exploitation statutes so that the definition of unlawful 'material' explicitly covers computer-generated images that were created, adapted, or modified using artificial intelligence. This closes a gap by making clear that AI-generated or digitally altered depictions of child sexual abuse are treated the same as other prohibited material. The law adds statutory definitions of 'artificial intelligence' and 'generative artificial intelligence' for this purpose.","summary_technical":"Public Chapter 911 (HB 2163, 113th G.A.) amends TCA Titles 39 and 40 so that 'material' in the sexual exploitation of children offenses includes computer-generated images created, adapted, or modified by artificial intelligence, and defines AI and generative AI.","who_is_protected":"Children depicted in sexual abuse material, including in AI-generated or digitally altered imagery.","who_must_comply":"Individuals subject to Tennessee's criminal child sexual exploitation statutes.","citation":"2024 Tenn. Pub. Ch. 911 (HB 2163); amends Tenn. Code Ann. Titles 39 & 40","source_url":"https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB2163&GA=113","source_title":"Tennessee General Assembly — HB 2163 Bill Information (Public Chapter 911)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Tennessee district attorneys / state criminal prosecution.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No new penalty is created; existing criminal penalties for sexual exploitation of children offenses under Tennessee law apply to AI-generated or altered material."},{"id":"tn-tipa-47-18-3301","title":"Tennessee Information Protection Act (TIPA)","short_title":"Tennessee Information Protection Act (opt out of automated profiling decisions)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Tennessee","state_abbr":"TN","topics":["privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-01","enacted_date":"2023-05-11","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Tennessee's consumer privacy law gives state residents rights over how businesses handle their personal information, including the right to opt out of profiling that is carried out solely through automated processing and used to make decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. Businesses that act as controllers must also conduct and document data protection assessments for higher-risk processing activities, including certain profiling. The Tennessee Attorney General has exclusive enforcement authority, and there is no private right of action.","summary_technical":"TIPA (Tenn. Code Ann. 47-18-3301 et seq.; Title 47, Ch. 18, Part 33) grants a profiling opt-out under 47-18-3304 for solely-automated decisions producing legal or similarly significant effects and requires data protection assessments; the AG may seek civil penalties up to $7,500 per violation.","who_is_protected":"Tennessee residents acting in an individual or household context (consumers).","who_must_comply":"Controllers and processors meeting TIPA's revenue and data-volume thresholds that conduct business in Tennessee or target Tennessee residents.","citation":"Tenn. Code Ann. 47-18-3301 et seq. (TIPA); profiling opt-out at 47-18-3304","source_url":"https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/news/2025/4/30/pr25-25.html","source_title":"Tennessee Attorney General — Guidance on the Tennessee Information Protection Act","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Tennessee Attorney General and Reporter (exclusive enforcement).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties of up to $7,500 per violation, enforced solely by the Attorney General; willful or knowing violations may be subject to treble penalties. A 60-day cure period applies after written notice."},{"id":"tn-sb-837-ai-personhood","title":"Tennessee SB 837 — Exclusion of Artificial Intelligence from Statutory Personhood","short_title":"Tennessee SB 837 (AI is not a 'person' under TN law)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Tennessee","state_abbr":"TN","topics":["consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-04-23","enacted_date":"2026-04-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Tennessee amended its rules of statutory construction to make clear that artificial intelligence and related technology are not legal persons. The law specifies that the terms 'person,' 'life,' and 'natural person' do not include artificial intelligence, computer algorithms, software programs, computer hardware, or any type of machine. It also adds definitions of 'human being' and 'natural person' as living members of homo sapiens. The change is purely definitional and creates no penalty.","summary_technical":"Public Chapter 781 (SB 837, 114th G.A.) amends TCA Title 1 to define 'human being,' 'life,' and 'natural person' and to exclude AI, computer algorithms, software, hardware, and machines from 'person,' 'life,' and 'natural person.'","who_is_protected":"Not protective in nature; clarifies that legal personhood and related statutory rights do not extend to AI systems or machines.","who_must_comply":"Applies generally as a rule of statutory construction across Tennessee Code; no specific regulated party.","citation":"2026 Tenn. Pub. Ch. 781 (SB 837); amends Tenn. Code Ann. Title 1","source_url":"https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB0837&GA=114","source_title":"Tennessee General Assembly — SB 837 Bill Information (Public Chapter 781)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Not applicable (definitional provision; no standalone enforcement mechanism)."},{"id":"tn-sb-1580-mental-health-ai","title":"Tennessee SB 1580 — Prohibition on AI Posing as a Qualified Mental Health Professional","short_title":"Tennessee SB 1580 (AI can't claim to be a mental health professional)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Tennessee","state_abbr":"TN","topics":["healthcare","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-04-06","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Tennessee makes it unlawful for anyone who develops or deploys an artificial intelligence system to advertise or represent to the public that the system is, or can act as, a qualified mental health professional. Violations are treated as unfair or deceptive acts under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The law authorizes a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation, along with injunctive relief and damages, and includes a private right of action for affected individuals.","summary_technical":"Public Chapter 647 (SB 1580, 114th G.A.) bars developers and deployers from advertising or representing an AI system as able to act as a qualified mental health professional, enforced as a violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act with civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation.","who_is_protected":"Tennessee consumers who might be misled into believing an AI system is a licensed mental health professional.","who_must_comply":"Persons who develop or deploy AI systems and market or represent them to the public in Tennessee.","citation":"2026 Tenn. Pub. Ch. 647 (SB 1580); enforced under Tenn. Code Ann. 47-18-101 et seq. (TCPA)","source_url":"https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1580&GA=114","source_title":"Tennessee General Assembly — SB 1580 Bill Information (Public Chapter 647)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Tennessee Attorney General / enforcement under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act; private individuals via private right of action.","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation; treated as an unfair or deceptive practice under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, with remedies including injunctions and damages."},{"id":"ut-hb-148-ai-csam-intimate-images","title":"Utah H.B. 148 — Artificial Pornographic Images Amendments","short_title":"Utah H.B. 148 (computer-generated CSAM & intimate images count as illegal)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["children","ncii","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-05-01","enacted_date":"2024-03-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Utah updated its Sexual Exploitation Act so that sexual-abuse and intimate-image offenses clearly cover synthetic or computer-generated imagery, not just camera-captured photos and video. The definitions of child sexual abuse material, 'intimate image,' and 'counterfeit intimate image' were each broadened to include computer or computer-generated images, pictures, and videos. As a result, AI-generated or otherwise fabricated explicit depictions can be prosecuted the same way as real images.","summary_technical":"H.B. 148 (2024) amends Utah Code 76-5b-103, 76-5b-203, and 76-5b-205 to insert 'computer or computer-generated image, picture, or video' into the definitions of child sexual abuse material, intimate image, and counterfeit intimate image; it adds no new penalty and relies on existing offense penalties.","who_is_protected":"Minors, vulnerable adults, and individuals depicted in non-consensual or counterfeit intimate imagery, including computer-generated depictions.","who_must_comply":"Individuals subject to Utah's criminal sexual exploitation and intimate-image distribution laws.","citation":"Utah Laws 2024, H.B. 148; Utah Code 76-5b-103, 76-5b-203, 76-5b-205","source_url":"https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/hbillenr/HB0148.pdf","source_title":"H.B. 148, Artificial Pornographic Images Amendments (Enrolled), Utah Legislature 2024","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Utah prosecutors and law enforcement (criminal enforcement).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No new penalty is created; the existing criminal penalties for sexual exploitation and intimate-image offenses apply under Title 76, Chapter 5b."},{"id":"ut-hb-238-ai-csam-minor","title":"Utah H.B. 238 — Sexual Exploitation of a Minor Amendments","short_title":"Utah H.B. 238 (AI-generated child sexual abuse material is illegal)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["children","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-05-01","enacted_date":"2024-03-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Utah expanded its definition of child sexual abuse material to capture AI-generated content. The definition now reaches material that is artificially generated and depicts an individual with the substantial characteristics of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This closes a gap where fully synthetic imagery might otherwise escape the statute.","summary_technical":"H.B. 238 (2024) amends Utah Code 76-5b-103 to add subsection (1)(b)(iii), defining child sexual abuse material to include material 'artificially generated and depicts an individual with substantial characteristics of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct'; relies on existing Chapter 5b penalties.","who_is_protected":"Minors and individuals who appear to be minors, including in artificially generated depictions.","who_must_comply":"Individuals subject to Utah's criminal child sexual abuse material laws.","citation":"Utah Laws 2024, H.B. 238; Utah Code 76-5b-103(1)(b)(iii)","source_url":"https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/hbillint/HB0238.pdf","source_title":"H.B. 238, Sexual Exploitation of a Minor Amendments, Utah Legislature 2024","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Utah prosecutors and law enforcement (criminal enforcement).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No new penalty is created; existing criminal penalties for child sexual abuse material offenses apply (including the second-degree felony level for possession or viewing)."},{"id":"ut-sb-131-ai-election-synthetic-media","title":"Utah S.B. 131 — Information Technology Act Amendments (Synthetic Media in Political Ads)","short_title":"Utah S.B. 131 (AI-generated political ads must say 'generated by AI')","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["deepfakes","elections","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-05-01","enacted_date":"2024-03-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Utah requires political audio and video communications that contain AI-generated 'synthetic media' to carry a clear disclosure that the content was made with AI. The rule covers paid communications meant to influence voting for or against a candidate or ballot proposition, and specifies the exact disclosure wording for audio, image, and video. A person can sue the creator or sponsor, and a court may impose a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.","summary_technical":"S.B. 131 (2024) enacts Utah Code 20A-11-1104, requiring disclosures on paid audio/visual election communications that contain generative-AI 'synthetic media,' enforceable through a private civil action with a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation; a companion section (76-3-203.18) makes AI use a sentencing aggravator.","who_is_protected":"Utah voters and the public viewing election-related communications.","who_must_comply":"Creators and sponsors of paid audio or visual election communications containing AI-generated synthetic media.","citation":"Utah Laws 2024, S.B. 131; Utah Code 20A-11-1104, 76-3-203.18","source_url":"https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/sbillenr/SB0131.pdf","source_title":"S.B. 131, Information Technology Act Amendments (Enrolled), Utah Legislature 2024","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Enforced through private civil actions; courts impose the penalty.","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"A court may impose a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation in a civil action against the creator or sponsor."},{"id":"ut-sb-226-ai-consumer-protection","title":"Utah S.B. 226 — Artificial Intelligence Consumer Protection Amendments","short_title":"Utah S.B. 226 (must disclose you're talking to AI on request; AI use no excuse)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency","healthcare"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-05-07","enacted_date":"2025-03-27","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"S.B. 226 (2025) enacts Utah Code 13-75-101 to 13-75-106: disclosure on a consumer's request, prominent up-front disclosure by regulated-occupation licensees in 'high-risk' interactions, a self-identification safe harbor, a bar on an 'AI made me do it' defense, and Division of Consumer Protection fines up to $2,500 per violation and $5,000 per order violation.","who_is_protected":"Utah consumers interacting with generative AI and recipients of services from regulated occupations.","who_must_comply":"Suppliers that use generative AI in consumer transactions and individuals in state-regulated occupations.","citation":"Utah Laws 2025, S.B. 226; Utah Code 13-75-101 to 13-75-106","source_url":"https://le.utah.gov/Session/2025/bills/enrolled/SB0226.pdf","source_title":"S.B. 226, Artificial Intelligence Consumer Protection Amendments (Enrolled), Utah Legislature 2025","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Utah Division of Consumer Protection.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Administrative or court fines up to $2,500 per violation, and up to $5,000 per violation of an order."},{"id":"ut-sb-180-le-ai-usage","title":"Utah S.B. 180 — Law Enforcement Usage of Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"Utah S.B. 180 (AI-written police reports need a disclaimer + officer sign-off)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["law-enforcement","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-05-07","enacted_date":"2025-03-25","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"S.B. 180 (2025) enacts Utah Code 53-25-601 and 53-25-602, requiring each law enforcement agency to maintain a generative-AI use policy and requiring AI-assisted police reports/records to carry an AI-content disclaimer plus the author's accuracy certification; no statutory penalty is specified.","who_is_protected":"The public, criminal defendants, and others affected by AI-assisted law enforcement records.","who_must_comply":"Utah law enforcement agencies and the authors of police reports and records.","citation":"Utah Laws 2025, S.B. 180; Utah Code 53-25-601, 53-25-602","source_url":"https://le.utah.gov/Session/2025/bills/enrolled/SB0180.pdf","source_title":"S.B. 180, Law Enforcement Usage of Artificial Intelligence (Enrolled), Utah Legislature 2025","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Internal to each law enforcement agency (administrative discipline for policy violations).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None specified; a policy violation may result in administrative disciplinary action by the agency head."},{"id":"ut-sb-271-ai-impersonation","title":"Utah S.B. 271 — Unauthorized Artificial Intelligence Impersonation Amendments","short_title":"Utah S.B. 271 (no AI deepfakes of your identity for commercial use without consent)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-05-07","enacted_date":"2025-03-25","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Utah broadened its abuse-of-personal-identity law to cover AI-generated and other artificial recreations of a person's identity. 'Personal identity' now includes a person's video likeness, voice, and audiovisual appearance, plus any simulation or artificial recreation made through generative AI, computer animation, or digital manipulation. It is unlawful to use someone's personal identity this way for commercial purposes without consent, and to knowingly distribute, sell, or license technology whose primary purpose is unauthorized identity-content creation. Exemptions cover news, art, and parody.","summary_technical":"S.B. 271 (2025) amends Utah Code 45-3-2 to expand 'personal identity' to include video likeness, voice, and audiovisual appearance plus AI/computer simulations, amends 45-3-3 to treat unauthorized commercial use and distribution of identity-faking technology as abuse, adds exemptions at 45-3-7, and preserves a private right of action (45-3-4, 45-3-5) for injunctive relief, damages, exemplary damages, and attorney fees.","who_is_protected":"Individuals whose name, likeness, voice, or audiovisual appearance (including AI-simulated versions) is used without consent.","who_must_comply":"Persons who publish or cause publication of content using another's personal identity for commercial purposes, and those who distribute identity-faking technology.","citation":"Utah Laws 2025, S.B. 271; Utah Code 45-3-2 to 45-3-7","source_url":"https://le.utah.gov/Session/2025/bills/enrolled/SB0271.pdf","source_title":"S.B. 271, Unauthorized Artificial Intelligence Impersonation Amendments (Enrolled), Utah Legislature 2025","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Private civil actions (no designated administrative agency).","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Private right of action: injunctive relief, damages, exemplary damages, and reasonable attorney fees and costs."},{"id":"ut-sb-256-ai-defamation","title":"Utah Senate Bill 256 — Identity Protection Modifications","short_title":"Utah SB 256 (AI is no defense to defamation; notice-and-removal)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["deepfakes","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-05-06","enacted_date":"2026-03-25","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Utah's defamation law now expressly states it is not a defense to a libel or slander claim that the content was made with generative AI, computer animation, digital manipulation, or simulated/recreated content. Before suing over digitally created content, the person must send the publisher written notice; if the publisher removes it within 10 days, the plaintiff can recover only actual damages.","summary_technical":"Enacts Utah Code 45-2-3.5 (generative-AI/digital manipulation is not a defense to libel or slander) and 45-2-14 (pre-suit written notice; recovery limited to actual damages if removed within 10 days; no liability on 47 U.S.C. 230 services). Also amends the Abuse of Personal Identity Act (45-3-2 to 45-3-7) to give each individual the exclusive right to consent to use of their personal identity, define consent, and extend abuse of personal identity to unauthorized distribution and trafficking in identity-replication tools, with exemptions. Sponsors Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore / Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher. Effective May 6, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Individuals who are subjects of allegedly defamatory AI-generated or digitally manipulated content.","who_must_comply":"Plaintiffs bringing libel/slander actions over digitally created content (notice obligation); publishers, who get the 10-day removal option.","citation":"Utah Code 45-2-3.5, 45-2-14; amends 45-3-2 through 45-3-7 (S.B. 256, 2026 Gen. Sess.)","source_url":"https://le.utah.gov/Session/2026/bills/enrolled/SB0256.pdf","source_title":"Enrolled Copy S.B. 256, Identity Protection Modifications (2026 General Session)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"None (private civil litigation in Utah courts).","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Pre-existing libel and slander remedies; if the publisher removes content within 10 days of notice, recovery is limited to actual damages."},{"id":"ut-hb-273-classroom-ai","title":"Utah House Bill 273 — Classroom Technology Amendments","short_title":"Utah HB 273 (AI in school core standards + required LEA AI policies)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["education","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-03-25","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Utah requires the State Board of Education to add AI to its core computer science standards and publish a model policy on classroom AI use, and every local education agency must adopt an AI-use policy based on that model. The model policy bars AI from independently grading work or making high-stakes student decisions, requires written notice to parents when instruction uses generative AI, and prohibits uses like biometric surveillance. An LEA that fails to adopt the required policies risks losing certain state funding.","summary_technical":"Amends Utah Code 53E-4-202 (AI in core CS standards) and enacts 53G-7-228, -229, and 53G-7-1401 to -1403, requiring a State Board model AI-use policy and conforming LEA policies, with authority to withhold 53F-2-510 funds from noncompliant LEAs.","who_is_protected":"Public school students (and parents) in Utah LEAs.","who_must_comply":"The Utah State Board of Education and local education agencies (districts, charters, Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind).","citation":"Utah Code 53E-4-202, 53G-7-228 to -229, 53G-7-1401 to -1403 (H.B. 273, 2026)","source_url":"https://le.utah.gov/Session/2026/bills/enrolled/HB0273.pdf","source_title":"Enrolled Copy H.B. 273, Classroom Technology Amendments (2026 General Session)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Utah State Board of Education.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"The State Board may withhold or delay digital-literacy, computer-science, and educational-technology program funds (Section 53F-2-510) from a noncompliant LEA until it complies."},{"id":"ut-hb-276-provenance","title":"Utah House Bill 276 — Artificial Intelligence Modifications (Digital Content Provenance Standards Act)","short_title":"Utah HB 276 Provenance Act (AI-content labels + platform provenance duties)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["transparency","ai-images","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-03-24","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"Enacts Utah Code Title 13 Chapter 72c (Digital Content Provenance Standards Act): 13-72c-201 (platform detection/disclosure/anti-stripping), 13-72c-202 (capture-device latent disclosure from 2028), 13-72c-203 (covered-provider latent disclosure; 1,000,000+ monthly users), and 63A-16-215 (state CIO webpage provenance); enforced by the Division of Consumer Protection under 13-72c-301.","who_is_protected":"Utah residents interacting with online content and state-agency websites.","who_must_comply":"Covered generative-AI providers, large online platforms, capture-device manufacturers (from 2028), and the state CIO / agencies.","citation":"Utah Code 13-72c-101 to -301, 63A-16-215 (H.B. 276, 2026)","source_url":"https://le.utah.gov/Session/2026/bills/enrolled/HB0276.pdf","source_title":"Enrolled Copy H.B. 276, Artificial Intelligence Modifications (2026 General Session)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Utah Division of Consumer Protection; Attorney General for civil penalty actions.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Administrative fines up to $2,500 per violation, injunctive relief and disgorgement, and up to $5,000 per violation of an administrative or court order."},{"id":"ut-hb-276-voyeurism","title":"Utah House Bill 276 — Artificial Intelligence Modifications (Digital Voyeurism Prevention Act)","short_title":"Utah HB 276 Voyeurism Act (AI counterfeit intimate images / NCII)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["ncii","ai-images"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-03-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This part of Utah's AI Modifications law targets AI-generated counterfeit intimate images. An online 'generation service' that lets users create images and then distributes a counterfeit intimate image of an identifiable person without consent violates that person's privacy. Generation services must warn users and get a safe harbor with a written policy and safeguards. Platforms that host content may not knowingly allow distribution of nonconsensual counterfeit intimate images and must run notice-and-takedown procedures aligned with the federal Take It Down Act (48-hour removal). Victims can sue for injunctions, actual and punitive damages, and attorney fees.","summary_technical":"Enacts Utah Code Title 13 Chapter 72b (Digital Voyeurism Prevention Act): 13-72b-201 (generation-service consent duty), 13-72b-202 (private action; actual + emotional-distress + punitive damages, fees), 13-72b-203 (safe harbor), 13-72b-301 to -304 (covered-platform duty, 48-hour Take It Down Act-aligned takedown, liability, safe harbor).","who_is_protected":"Identifiable individuals depicted in nonconsensual AI-generated counterfeit intimate images.","who_must_comply":"Generation services and covered platforms that distribute or host such content.","citation":"Utah Code 13-72b-101 to -401 (H.B. 276, 2026)","source_url":"https://le.utah.gov/Session/2026/bills/enrolled/HB0276.pdf","source_title":"Enrolled Copy H.B. 276, Artificial Intelligence Modifications (2026 General Session)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Private civil litigation in Utah courts.","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Private right of action with injunctive relief and image destruction; actual damages (including emotional distress), punitive damages for willful violations, and attorney fees; each distribution or post-notice failure is a separate violation."},{"id":"ut-sb-319-prior-auth-ai-disclosure","title":"Utah Senate Bill 319 — Health Insurance Preauthorization Amendments","short_title":"Utah SB 319 (insurers must disclose AI use in prior authorization)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["healthcare","insurance","transparency"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-03-19","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Utah requires health insurers that use AI in reviewing prior-authorization requests to be transparent about it. If applicable, an insurer must post a conspicuous notice on its public website that it uses AI in authorization review, and disclose that AI use to the state Insurance Department, each in-network provider, and each enrollee. The rules sit within a broader prior-authorization overhaul.","summary_technical":"Amends Utah Code 31A-22-650 to require an insurer that uses AI (including generative AI) in reviewing authorization requests to post a website notice (31A-22-650(2)(d)) and disclose AI use to the Department, network providers, and enrollees (31A-22-650(3)).","who_is_protected":"Enrollees and in-network providers subject to AI-assisted prior-authorization review.","who_must_comply":"Health insurers operating in Utah that use AI in prior-authorization review.","citation":"Utah Code 31A-22-650(2)(d), (3) (S.B. 319, 2026)","source_url":"https://le.utah.gov/Session/2026/bills/enrolled/SB0319.pdf","source_title":"Enrolled Copy S.B. 319, Health Insurance Preauthorization Amendments (2026 General Session)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Utah Insurance Department.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Enforced through the Department's existing authority over prior-authorization requirements; no new standalone penalty for the AI-disclosure provision."},{"id":"ut-sb-298-programmable-money-ai","title":"Utah Senate Bill 298 — Programmable Money Amendments","short_title":"Utah SB 298 (bars AI/algorithmic transaction denials by protected traits)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2027-05-05","enacted_date":"2026-03-26","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Utah bars issuers of 'programmable money' from blocking or failing transactions based on a person's protected traits and lawful conduct — including political opinions or speech, religious beliefs, sex, skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, medical history, location, purchase or browsing history, residence, business sector, or any social-credit-style score. The prohibition explicitly reaches denials carried out through automation, computer code, algorithms, or AI. A harmed person can sue for statutory and declaratory relief plus actual and punitive damages, and a court can revoke the issuer's authorization to do business in Utah.","summary_technical":"Enacts Utah Code 70A-9a-902 (programmable-money issuers may not deny transactions based on enumerated protected traits/lawful conduct or social-credit scoring; 70A-9a-902(2)(b) extends this to denials caused by computer code, algorithms, or AI) and 70A-9a-903 (remedies: statutory/declaratory relief, actual and punitive damages, attorney fees, and possible revocation of authorization).","who_is_protected":"Persons whose programmable-money transactions could be denied based on protected characteristics or lawful conduct.","who_must_comply":"Issuers of programmable money.","citation":"Utah Code 70A-9a-902, 70A-9a-903 (S.B. 298, 2026)","source_url":"https://le.utah.gov/Session/2026/bills/enrolled/SB0298.pdf","source_title":"Enrolled Copy S.B. 298, Programmable Money Amendments (2026 General Session)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Private civil litigation in Utah courts (a court may revoke business authorization).","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Statutory and declaratory relief plus actual and punitive damages (the greater of 3x actual damages or 3x attorney fees) and reasonable attorney fees; for intentional/repeated violations a court may revoke the issuer's authorization to do business in Utah."},{"id":"va-hb-2678-deepfake-ncii","title":"Virginia HB 2678 (2019) — Unlawful Dissemination or Sale of Images of Another, Amended to Cover Deepfakes","short_title":"Virginia HB 2678 (deepfake nude/explicit images become a crime)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["ncii","ai-images","deepfakes"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2019-07-01","enacted_date":"2019-03-18","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Virginia made it a crime to share or sell a fabricated nude or sexually explicit image of a real, identifiable person without their consent. The 2019 amendment covered 'deepfakes' and other doctored media: it no longer matters that the explicit image was synthesized or altered, only that it depicts an actual person who is recognizable. Doing so with intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate is a Class 1 misdemeanor.","summary_technical":"HB 2678 (2019, Va. Acts cc. 490, 515) amended Va. Code 18.2-386.2 so that 'another person' includes a person whose image was used to create, adapt, or modify a videographic or still image intended to depict, and recognizable as, an actual person; the offense remains a Class 1 misdemeanor.","who_is_protected":"Identifiable real individuals depicted in fabricated, adapted, or altered nude or sexually explicit images, including AI-generated deepfakes.","who_must_comply":"Any person who distributes or sells such images of another with intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate.","citation":"Va. Code 18.2-386.2; HB 2678 (2019), Va. Acts ch. 490 (identical SB 1736 enacted as ch. 515)","source_url":"https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter8/section18.2-386.2/","source_title":"Code of Virginia 18.2-386.2 — Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of another; penalty","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Commonwealth's Attorneys / local prosecutors (criminal enforcement); Virginia courts.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Class 1 misdemeanor (up to 12 months in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,500)."},{"id":"va-32-1-127-patient-intelligent-personal-assistant","title":"Virginia HB 2154 (2021 Sp. Sess. I) — Patient Access to Intelligent Personal Assistants in Hospitals and Nursing Homes","short_title":"Va. Code 32.1-127 (rules for patient voice assistants in care facilities)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["healthcare","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2021-07-01","enacted_date":"2021-03-18","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Virginia directed its Board of Health to write regulations requiring hospitals, nursing homes, and certified nursing facilities to adopt policies on when and how a patient may use their own voice-driven 'intelligent personal assistant' (such as a smart speaker or AI digital assistant) during inpatient care, consistent with HIPAA. The statute defines an intelligent personal assistant as a device-and-software combination that uses natural language processing and AI.","summary_technical":"Va. Code 32.1-127, as amended by HB 2154 (2021 Sp. Sess. I, cc. 219, 233, 525), requires the Board of Health to adopt regulations mandating that hospitals, nursing homes, and certified nursing facilities establish policies on permissible patient access to and use of a patient-provided 'intelligent personal assistant' during inpatient services.","who_is_protected":"Patients receiving inpatient services who use their own voice/AI assistant devices, and whose health information must be safeguarded.","who_must_comply":"Hospitals, nursing homes, and certified nursing facilities licensed in Virginia.","citation":"Va. Code 32.1-127; HB 2154 (2021 Sp. Sess. I), Va. Acts cc. 219, 233, 525","source_url":"https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title32.1/chapter5/section32.1-127/","source_title":"Code of Virginia 32.1-127 — Regulations governing hospitals, nursing homes, etc.","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Virginia Board of Health / Virginia Department of Health (facility licensure).","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"va-vcdpa-profiling-opt-out","title":"Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (HB 2307 / SB 1392, 2021) — Profiling Opt-Out and Data Protection Assessments","short_title":"Virginia VCDPA (opt out of profiling, $7,500/violation)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["privacy","automated-decisions","consumer-protection","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-01-01","enacted_date":"2021-03-02","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Virginia's comprehensive privacy law gives consumers the right to opt out of 'profiling' used to make decisions producing legal or similarly significant effects, such as automated decisions affecting credit, housing, employment, or essential services. Businesses must obtain heightened consent before processing the data of a known child (via federal COPPA) and must conduct documented data protection assessments for higher-risk processing, including certain profiling. The Attorney General enforces the law and may seek up to $7,500 per violation; there is no private right of action.","summary_technical":"The Consumer Data Protection Act, Va. Code 59.1-575 et seq. (HB 2307 / SB 1392, 2021), grants a right to opt out of profiling in furtherance of decisions producing legal or similarly significant effects (59.1-577), requires COPPA-compliant handling of known children's data, requires data protection assessments (59.1-580), and authorizes exclusive AG enforcement with civil penalties up to $7,500 per violation (59.1-584).","who_is_protected":"Virginia residents acting in an individual/household context, including known children (via COPPA), whose personal data is processed by covered controllers.","who_must_comply":"Controllers and processors that conduct business in Virginia or target Virginia residents and meet the Act's data-volume thresholds.","citation":"Va. Code 59.1-575 to 59.1-585 (esp. 59.1-577, 59.1-580, 59.1-584); HB 2307 / SB 1392 (2021)","source_url":"https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title59.1/chapter53/section59.1-577/","source_title":"Code of Virginia 59.1-577 — Personal data rights; consumers (Consumer Data Protection Act)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Virginia Office of the Attorney General (exclusive enforcement).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties of up to $7,500 per violation, after a 30-day cure period."},{"id":"va-sb-731-2024-computer-generated-csam","title":"Virginia SB 731 (2024) — Child Pornography Definition Clarified to Cover Computer-Generated Images of Minors","short_title":"Virginia SB 731 (AI/computer-generated CSAM covered)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["children","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-03-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Virginia clarified that its definition of child pornography reaches computer-generated and synthetic depictions of minors. For the prong covering a minor shown in a state of nudity or engaged in sexual conduct, the minor depicted 'does not have to actually exist,' ensuring AI-generated or fabricated child sexual abuse material falls within existing criminal prohibitions. The existing felony penalties apply.","summary_technical":"SB 731 (2024, Va. Acts c. 262) amended Va. Code 18.2-374.1 so that, for material depicting a minor in a state of nudity or engaged in sexual conduct, 'the minor depicted does not have to actually exist,' bringing computer-generated/synthetic depictions within the child-pornography definition.","who_is_protected":"Minors and the public interest in preventing child sexual abuse material, including wholly synthetic or AI-generated depictions.","who_must_comply":"Any person who produces, distributes, finances, possesses, or otherwise deals in child pornography as defined.","citation":"Va. Code 18.2-374.1; SB 731 (2024), Va. Acts c. 262","source_url":"https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter5/section18.2-374.1/","source_title":"Code of Virginia 18.2-374.1 — Production, publication, sale, financing, etc., of child pornography","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Commonwealth's Attorneys / local prosecutors; Virginia courts.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No new penalty created; existing felony penalties under Va. Code 18.2-374.1 and 18.2-374.1:1 apply."},{"id":"va-19-2-11-14-ai-tools-criminal-justice","title":"Virginia HB 1642 (2025) — Human Decision-Maker Required When AI Tools Are Used in Criminal Justice Decisions","short_title":"Va. Code 19.2-11.14 (humans, not AI, must decide bail/sentencing/parole)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["law-enforcement","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-01","enacted_date":"2025-04-02","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Virginia requires that key criminal-justice decisions be made by a human being, even when an AI tool produces a recommendation or prediction. The rule covers pretrial detention or release, prosecution, adjudication, sentencing, probation, parole, correctional supervision, and rehabilitation. No such decision may be made without a human decision-maker, and any AI-generated recommendation is subject to any challenge or objection allowed by law.","summary_technical":"Va. Code 19.2-11.14 (HB 1642 (2025), Va. Acts c. 637) provides that covered criminal-justice decisions shall not be made without the involvement of a human decision-maker even where an AI-based tool generates a recommendation or prediction, and that such output remains subject to challenge.","who_is_protected":"Criminal defendants and offenders subject to detention, prosecution, sentencing, supervision, or release decisions informed by AI tools.","who_must_comply":"Courts, prosecutors, and corrections/criminal-justice decision-makers using AI-based tools in covered decisions.","citation":"Va. Code 19.2-11.14; HB 1642 (2025), Va. Acts c. 637","source_url":"https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title19.2/chapter1.3/section19.2-11.14/","source_title":"Code of Virginia 19.2-11.14 — Use of artificial intelligence-based tool","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Virginia courts (ordinary criminal procedure and the statutory right to challenge AI output)."},{"id":"va-sb-394-2026-ai-instructional-settings","title":"Virginia SB 394 (2026) — AI Use and Safety in Instructional Settings; DOE Guidance and Education Pilot Program","short_title":"Virginia SB 394 (AI-in-schools guidance, board policies, pilot)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["education","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-04-13","last_verified_date":"2026-07-22","summary_plain":"Virginia directed its Department of Education to study how AI is currently used in public-school instruction and publish guidance for safe, ethical, and equitable AI use in the classroom, addressing student data privacy, teacher training, transparency, and bias. Each local school board must adopt aligned policies. The law also creates an 'AIS Innovation in Education' pilot program, prioritizing high-poverty, rural, and under-resourced divisions, sunsetting July 1, 2030.","summary_technical":"SB 394 (2026) creates Va. Code 22.1-20.2:1, requiring the Department of Education to compile information on instructional AI use and publish guidance, requiring each school board to adopt aligned policies, and establishing the AIS Innovation in Education Pilot Program (expiring July 1, 2030).","who_is_protected":"Public-school students and educators affected by AI use in instruction, with emphasis on under-resourced divisions.","who_must_comply":"The Virginia Department of Education and local school boards/divisions.","citation":"Va. Code 22.1-20.2:1 (new); SB 394 (2026)","source_url":"https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/SB394","source_title":"Virginia LIS — SB 394 (2026): Artificial intelligence use and safety in instructional settings","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Virginia Department of Education (guidance and oversight); local school boards (policy adoption).","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"vt-h-410-government-ai","title":"Vermont Act 132 (H.410) — Use and Oversight of Artificial Intelligence in State Government","short_title":"Vermont H.410 / Act 132 (inventory of state AI / automated decision systems)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Vermont","state_abbr":"VT","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2022-07-01","enacted_date":"2022-05-24","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Vermont directed its Agency of Digital Services to review and catalog every automated decision system the state is building, using, or buying. The inventory must document each system's name, vendor, capabilities, data inputs, whether it was tested for bias, its intended purpose, and its costs, covering both systems that decide on their own and those that assist a human. The law also created state AI governance bodies, including a Division of Artificial Intelligence and an AI Advisory Council.","summary_technical":"Act 132 of 2022 (H.410), codified at 3 V.S.A. 3305, requires the Agency of Digital Services to inventory all automated decision systems developed, employed, or procured by Vermont state government and creates related AI governance and reporting functions.","who_is_protected":"Vermont residents affected by automated decision-making used in state government programs and services.","who_must_comply":"Vermont state government agencies and the Agency of Digital Services.","citation":"2022 Vt. Acts & Resolves No. 132 (H.410); 3 V.S.A. 3305","source_url":"https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/03/056/03305","source_title":"3 V.S.A. 3305 — Automated decision system; State procurement; inventory","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Vermont Agency of Digital Services (Division of Artificial Intelligence); legislative oversight.","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"wa-hb-1999-fabricated-images","title":"Washington Substitute House Bill 1999 — Fabricated Intimate or Sexually Explicit Images and Depictions","short_title":"Washington HB 1999 (criminalizes AI/fabricated CSAM and nonconsensual fake intimate images)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Washington","state_abbr":"WA","topics":["children","ncii","ai-images","deepfakes"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-06-06","enacted_date":"2024-03-14","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Washington expanded its child sexual abuse material laws to cover fabricated depictions of an identifiable minor, including AI-created images, and created a separate crime for knowingly disclosing a fabricated intimate image of another person when the discloser knows or should know the person did not consent and that disclosure would cause harm. A first disclosure offense is a gross misdemeanor and repeats are a class C felony. Victims may also sue for damages.","summary_technical":"Substitute HB 1999 (Chapter 88, Laws of 2024) amends Washington's CSAM and disclosure-of-intimate-images statutes to reach fabricated (including AI-generated) depictions, imposes gross misdemeanor/class C felony liability for knowing nonconsensual disclosure, and provides a civil remedy with statutory damages up to $10,000 per defendant.","who_is_protected":"Identifiable minors depicted in fabricated CSAM and any person depicted in a nonconsensual fabricated intimate image.","who_must_comply":"Any person who creates, distributes, possesses, or discloses covered fabricated images.","citation":"Substitute H.B. 1999, Ch. 88, Laws of 2024 (Wash.)","source_url":"https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/1999-S.SL.pdf","source_title":"Substitute House Bill 1999, Chapter 88, Laws of 2024 (Session Law)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Washington county prosecutors and law enforcement (criminal); affected individuals via civil action.","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Disclosure of a fabricated intimate image is a gross misdemeanor (first offense) and a class C felony (repeat); CSAM offenses carry existing child-pornography penalties. Civil liability includes the greater of actual or up to $10,000 statutory damages per defendant, plus possible punitive damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief."},{"id":"wa-sb-5395-prior-authorization-ai","title":"Washington Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5395 — Transparency and Accountability in Prior Authorization Determinations","short_title":"Washington SB 5395 (limits AI in health-insurance prior-auth denials)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Washington","state_abbr":"WA","topics":["healthcare","insurance","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-11","enacted_date":"2026-03-23","last_verified_date":"2026-10-07","summary_plain":"Washington bars health carriers from using AI to deny, delay, or modify health care services on its own; a denial based on medical necessity must be made by a licensed health professional. Where AI is used in prior authorization, it must be applied fairly, comply with anti-discrimination law, and base determinations on the individual enrollee's medical history, clinical circumstances, and relevant demographic data rather than broad group data. AI tools must be reviewed for accuracy, AI policies are subject to audit by the Insurance Commissioner, and carriers must report the share of denials aided by AI.","summary_technical":"Engrossed Second Substitute SB 5395 (2025-26) amends Washington's insurance prior-authorization statutes to prohibit AI from being the sole basis for denying/delaying/modifying covered services, to require licensed-professional review of medical-necessity denials, and to impose equity, individualized-basis, accuracy-review, audit, and reporting requirements.","who_is_protected":"Enrollees and patients covered by Washington-regulated health carriers and benefit managers.","who_must_comply":"Health carriers and health care benefit managers operating in Washington.","citation":"Engrossed Second Substitute S.B. 5395, 2025-26 Reg. Sess. (Wash.)","source_url":"https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5395-S2.E%20SBR%20FBR%2026.pdf","source_title":"Final Bill Report, Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5395 (Washington Legislature)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner.","penalties":"Subject to the existing enforcement and penalty provisions of Washington's insurance code as amended; no new standalone penalty."},{"id":"wv-sb-198-ai-csam","title":"West Virginia Senate Bill 198 — Prohibiting Artificially Generated Child Pornography","short_title":"West Virginia SB 198 (criminalizes AI/computer-generated child pornography)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"West Virginia","state_abbr":"WV","topics":["children","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-09","enacted_date":"2025-04-24","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"West Virginia made it a crime to create, produce, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute computer-generated or AI-generated child pornography, even when no real child was used. The law specifies that it is not a defense that an actual minor does not exist, and treats a depiction that appears to be a person under 18 as covered. Violations carry one to ten years of imprisonment and a fine of up to $20,000.","summary_technical":"SB 198 (2025 Reg. Sess.) adds W. Va. Code 61-8C-12, criminalizing the creation, production, distribution, or possession with intent to distribute of AI- or computer-generated child pornography and providing that the nonexistence of an actual minor is not an element of the offense.","who_is_protected":"Children generally, as a class, against AI-generated and computer-generated sexual exploitation material.","who_must_comply":"Any person.","citation":"S.B. 198, 2025 Reg. Sess. (W. Va.); W. Va. Code 61-8C-12","source_url":"https://www.wvlegislature.gov/bill_status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb198+intr.htm&yr=2025&sesstype=RS&i=198","source_title":"West Virginia Senate Bill 198 (2025 Regular Session) — bill text and status","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"West Virginia prosecuting attorneys and law enforcement.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Imprisonment for one to ten years, a fine of up to $20,000, or both."},{"id":"wi-452-136-ai-advertising-disclosure","title":"Wisconsin Act 69 — Real Estate Advertising Enhanced by Technology (Wis. Stat. 452.136(1m))","short_title":"Wisconsin 452.136(1m) (real estate ads must disclose AI-altered property images)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Wisconsin","state_abbr":"WI","topics":["consumer-protection","ai-images","transparency"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2027-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Wisconsin will require licensed real estate professionals to disclose in their advertising whenever an ad has been altered or modified using technology, including AI, to add, remove, or change elements of a property in a way that creates a false or misleading impression. The rule targets AI-edited listing photos that could mislead buyers or renters. It takes effect January 1, 2027.","summary_technical":"Wis. Stat. 452.136(1m), created by 2025 Wisconsin Act 69, requires real estate licensees to disclose in advertising any technology- or AI-based alteration that adds, removes, or changes property elements so as to create a false or misleading impression, effective January 1, 2027.","who_is_protected":"Prospective buyers, renters, and other consumers relying on real estate advertising in Wisconsin.","who_must_comply":"Licensed real estate brokers and salespersons in Wisconsin.","citation":"Wis. Stat. 452.136(1m); 2025 Wis. Act 69","source_url":"https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/452/136","source_title":"Wisconsin Statutes 452.136 — Advertising enhanced by technology","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Wisconsin Real Estate Examining Board / Department of Safety and Professional Services.","penalties":"Forfeiture of up to the greater of $5,000 per violation or 1% of the transaction price/value (Wis. Stat. 452.137(5)), plus possible license limitation, suspension, or revocation (452.14)."},{"id":"wy-6-4-303-cg-csam","title":"Wyoming Sexual Exploitation of Children Statute (computer-generated images included)","short_title":"Wyo. Stat. 6-4-303 (child-porn definition covers computer-generated images)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Wyoming","state_abbr":"WY","topics":["children","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2005-07-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Wyoming's child sexual exploitation crime defines prohibited material to include not just photos and video but also any 'computer or computer-generated image or picture' of a child engaged in explicit sexual conduct. Because the definition reaches images that depict a child or someone virtually indistinguishable from a child, it can cover synthetic or computer-generated depictions even where no specific real child was photographed.","summary_technical":"Wyo. Stat. 6-4-303(a)(ii) defines 'child pornography' to include any 'computer or computer-generated image or picture' of explicit sexual conduct involving a child or an individual virtually indistinguishable from a child; the definition was reworked by Laws 2005, ch. 70 on the 1999 original act.","who_is_protected":"Children and individuals virtually indistinguishable from a child depicted in sexually explicit material.","who_must_comply":"Any person who knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses covered child sexual abuse material, including computer-generated depictions.","citation":"Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-4-303(a)(ii), (b)-(e)","source_url":"https://wyoleg.gov/InterimCommittee/2023/01-20230918Memo-Judiciary-CGIInSexualExploitation.pdf","source_title":"Wyoming Legislative Service Office Memorandum — Computer-Generated Images in Sexual Exploitation (W.S. 6-4-303)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Wyoming county/district attorneys and the Division of Criminal Investigation (criminal prosecution).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Felony. Production-type offenses carry 5 to 12 years and/or a fine up to $10,000; possession up to 10 years and/or $10,000; repeat offenses carry enhanced terms."},{"id":"wy-6-4-306-cg-intimate-image","title":"Wyoming Unlawful Dissemination of Intimate Images Law (computer-generated images included)","short_title":"Wyo. Stat. 6-4-306 (revenge-porn law covers computer-generated images)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Wyoming","state_abbr":"WY","topics":["ncii","ai-images","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2021-07-01","enacted_date":"2021-04-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This 2021 Wyoming law makes it a crime for an adult to share someone's intimate image without consent when the person had a reasonable expectation it would stay private. The definition of a covered 'image' expressly includes a 'computer generated image' that purports to represent an identifiable person, so fabricated or digitally generated intimate depictions fall within its scope. The offense is a misdemeanor.","summary_technical":"Wyo. Stat. 6-4-306, created by 2021 HB0085 effective July 1, 2021, defines 'image' to include 'a computer generated image that purports to represent an identifiable person' and criminalizes nonconsensual dissemination of intimate images by persons 18 or older.","who_is_protected":"Identifiable adults whose intimate images are disseminated without consent contrary to a reasonable expectation of privacy.","who_must_comply":"Persons 18 or older who disseminate intimate images; interactive computer services are exempted for third-party content.","citation":"Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-4-306(a)(iii); 2021 Wyo. Sess. Laws (HB0085)","source_url":"https://www.wyoleg.gov/2021/Introduced/HB0085.pdf","source_title":"Wyoming House Bill HB0085 (2021) — Unlawful dissemination of an intimate image","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Wyoming county/district attorneys (criminal prosecution).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Misdemeanor. As originally enacted in 2021, punishable by up to 6 months imprisonment and/or a fine up to $1,000."},{"id":"wy-1-1-143-ai-developer-immunity","title":"Wyoming AI Developer Civil Liability Limitation","short_title":"Wyo. Stat. 1-1-143 (AI developers shielded from civil liability for others' misuse)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Wyoming","state_abbr":"WY","topics":["consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-03-06","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This Wyoming provision shields the developer of an AI system from civil damages when a different person uses that system to commit illegal acts or cause harm. The protection does not apply if the system was built knowing or intending that its primary purpose would be illegal or illicit activity.","summary_technical":"Wyo. Stat. 1-1-143, created by 2026 HB0102 (House Enrolled Act No. 32), provides AI-system developers immunity from damages arising from another person's misuse, with an exception where the system was developed with knowledge or intent that its primary purpose would be illegal/illicit.","who_is_protected":"Developers of artificial intelligence systems (as defined in W.S. 6-1-104).","who_must_comply":"A civil liability rule governing courts and litigants in damages actions.","citation":"Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-1-143; 2026 Wyo. Sess. Laws (HB0102 / HEA 32)","source_url":"https://wyoleg.gov/2026/Enroll/HB0102.pdf","source_title":"Wyoming House Bill HB0102 (2026), House Enrolled Act No. 32","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Wyoming courts (civil litigation)."},{"id":"wy-6-1-206-ai-criminal-liability","title":"Wyoming AI Criminal Liability / No-Defense Rule","short_title":"Wyo. Stat. 6-1-206 (using AI to commit a crime is no defense)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Wyoming","state_abbr":"WY","topics":["consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-03-06","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This Wyoming rule confirms that the criminal code applies to conduct carried out with the help of an AI system, and makes clear that using an AI system to commit a crime is not a defense to a criminal charge. A defendant cannot escape liability by arguing the AI, rather than the person, did the act.","summary_technical":"Wyo. Stat. 6-1-206, created by 2026 HB0102 (HEA 32), provides that the Wyoming Criminal Code is not construed to bar application against AI-facilitated activity and that using an AI system to commit an offense is not a defense.","who_is_protected":"The public generally (rule of criminal construction); ensures accountability for AI-assisted crimes.","who_must_comply":"Persons who commit criminal offenses facilitated by AI systems; a code-construction rule applied by courts.","citation":"Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-1-206; 2026 Wyo. Sess. Laws (HB0102 / HEA 32)","source_url":"https://wyoleg.gov/2026/Enroll/HB0102.pdf","source_title":"Wyoming House Bill HB0102 (2026), House Enrolled Act No. 32","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Wyoming prosecutors and courts.","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"wy-6-4-308-ai-csam-system","title":"Wyoming Ban on AI Systems Designed to Produce Child Pornography","short_title":"Wyo. Stat. 6-4-308 (felony to build/distribute AI systems made to create child porn)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Wyoming","state_abbr":"WY","topics":["children","ai-images","deepfakes"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-03-06","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This new Wyoming crime targets AI systems built specifically to generate child sexual abuse material. It is a felony to knowingly develop or distribute an AI system designed to create, distribute, or promote child pornography or synthetic sexual material, when done with intent or knowledge that others will use it that way. General-purpose tools that produce such content only from user prompts, and bona fide educational, library, law enforcement, and platform activity, are exempted. A companion amendment to 6-4-303 also makes using AI to generate child pornography, or possessing AI-generated child pornography, a felony.","summary_technical":"Wyo. Stat. 6-4-308, created by 2026 HB0102 (HEA 32), criminalizes knowingly developing or distributing an AI system specifically designed to create, distribute, or promote child pornography or synthetic sexual material; the same act amends 6-4-303(b) to add AI-generation and AI-possession offenses.","who_is_protected":"Children depicted (or virtually indistinguishable from children) in AI-generated sexual abuse material.","who_must_comply":"Developers and distributors of AI systems (with exemptions for prompt-only output, bona fide education/employment, law enforcement, and interactive computer services).","citation":"Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-4-308; see also 6-4-303(b); 2026 Wyo. Sess. Laws (HB0102 / HEA 32)","source_url":"https://wyoleg.gov/2026/Enroll/HB0102.pdf","source_title":"Wyoming House Bill HB0102 (2026), House Enrolled Act No. 32 — Protecting kids from deepfakes and exploitative images","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Wyoming county/district attorneys and the Division of Criminal Investigation.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Felony punishable by imprisonment up to 10 years and/or a fine up to $10,000 (related 6-4-303 AI-generation offenses carry 5 to 12 years; AI-generated possession up to 10 years)."},{"id":"wy-6-4-701-ai-self-harm-system","title":"Wyoming Ban on AI Systems Intended to Promote Self-Harm","short_title":"Wyo. Stat. 6-4-701 (felony to build/distribute AI systems meant to promote self-harm)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Wyoming","state_abbr":"WY","topics":["consumer-protection","healthcare","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-03-06","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This new Wyoming crime targets AI systems built to encourage people to hurt themselves. It is a felony to knowingly develop or distribute an AI system specifically designed to promote self-harm, when done with intent or knowledge that others will use it that way. 'Self-harm' covers self-directed behavior causing or risking bodily injury, serious bodily injury, or death. Prompt-only systems, bona fide education, law enforcement, licensed health care, and platform hosting are exempted.","summary_technical":"Wyo. Stat. 6-4-701 (new Article 7, Artificial Intelligence Offenses), created by 2026 HB0102 (HEA 32), criminalizes knowingly developing or distributing an AI system specifically designed to promote self-harm with intent or knowledge of such use; 'self-harm' is self-directed behavior causing or risking bodily injury, serious bodily injury, or death.","who_is_protected":"Individuals at risk of self-harm, including minors and vulnerable users.","who_must_comply":"Developers and distributors of AI systems (with exemptions for prompt-only output, bona fide education/employment, law enforcement, licensed health care, and interactive computer services).","citation":"Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-4-701; 2026 Wyo. Sess. Laws (HB0102 / HEA 32)","source_url":"https://wyoleg.gov/2026/Enroll/HB0102.pdf","source_title":"Wyoming House Bill HB0102 (2026), House Enrolled Act No. 32 — Protecting kids from deepfakes and exploitative images","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Wyoming county/district attorneys (criminal prosecution).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Felony punishable by imprisonment up to 10 years and/or a fine up to $10,000."},{"id":"ca-sb-1001-bot-act","title":"California Bot Disclosure Act (SB 1001)","short_title":"California Bot Disclosure Act (bots must self-identify in sales/election messaging)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency","elections"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2019-07-01","enacted_date":"2018-09-28","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"California makes it unlawful to use a bot to communicate with someone in the state while concealing that it is a bot, when the goal is to deceive the person in order to push a commercial sale or influence their vote. There is a safe harbor: there is no liability as long as the operator clearly and conspicuously discloses that a bot is in use. In practice it is a disclosure mandate rather than a ban on automated accounts.","summary_technical":"SB 1001 added Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17940-17943, making it unlawful (17941) to use a bot to interact online with a person in California with intent to mislead about its artificial identity to incentivize a commercial transaction or influence an election vote, absent a clear and conspicuous disclosure that a bot is in use.","who_is_protected":"People in California who are contacted online by automated accounts.","who_must_comply":"Any person who deploys a bot to communicate with people in California online for the covered commercial or electoral purposes.","citation":"Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17940-17943 (SB 1001, Stats. 2018, ch. 892)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=17941.","source_title":"California Business and Professions Code Section 17941 (Bots: disclosure)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Attorney General and public prosecutors; commonly pursued under the Unfair Competition Law (BPC 17200 et seq.).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"The Bot Act sections set no standalone penalty; conduct is typically addressed under the Unfair Competition Law (civil penalties commonly cited up to $2,500 per violation)."},{"id":"ca-ab-302-adt-inventory","title":"California Government Automated Decision System Inventory (AB 302)","short_title":"California AB 302 (state must inventory its high-risk automated decision systems)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-01","enacted_date":"2023-10-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"California directs its Department of Technology to compile a comprehensive inventory of the high-risk automated decision systems that state agencies use, develop, or buy. A high-risk system is one that helps make or replaces consequential decisions affecting things like housing, jobs, credit, health care, education, and criminal justice. The Department must report the inventory to the Legislature annually, with the obligation winding down at the start of 2029.","summary_technical":"AB 302 added Cal. Gov. Code 11546.45.5, requiring the Department of Technology to inventory all high-risk automated decision systems used, developed, or procured by state agencies and to submit annual reports beginning Jan. 1, 2025, with the reporting provision inoperative Jan. 1, 2029.","who_is_protected":"Indirectly, members of the public affected by state-agency automated decisions; the law creates a transparency mechanism rather than individual rights.","who_must_comply":"The California Department of Technology and state agencies that use, develop, or procure high-risk automated decision systems.","citation":"Cal. Gov. Code 11546.45.5 (AB 302, Stats. 2023)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=11546.45.5.","source_title":"California Government Code Section 11546.45.5 (high-risk automated decision systems: inventory)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Department of Technology (reporting to the Legislature); no dedicated enforcement body.","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-sb-981-sexually-explicit-digital-images","title":"California Sexually Explicit Digital Images Reporting Law (SB 981, Digital Identity Theft Act)","short_title":"California SB 981 (platforms must let users report & remove deepfake nudes)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["ncii","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-09-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Social media platforms must give California users a clear way to report sexually explicit images or videos of themselves that were created or altered through digitization without their consent. Once reported, the platform must temporarily block the material while it investigates, and remove it if it finds a reasonable basis to believe it is this kind of nonconsensual digital fake. The framing covers synthetic and AI-altered intimate imagery, not just real photos.","summary_technical":"SB 981 added Chapter 22.7 to the Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, requiring social media platforms to provide California residents a reasonably accessible mechanism to report sexually explicit digital identity theft, temporarily block reported material pending review, make a reasonable-basis determination (generally within 30 days, extendable to 60), and remove qualifying content.","who_is_protected":"California residents depicted, without consent, in digitally created or altered sexually explicit images or videos posted on social media platforms.","who_must_comply":"Social media platforms operating in California as defined by the statute.","citation":"Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Ch. 22.7 (SB 981, Stats. 2024)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB981","source_title":"California SB 981 (2023-2024): Sexually explicit digital images","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Not specified as a dedicated agency; obligations run to platforms with no enumerated penalty provision.","penalties":"The statute does not specify a penalty for noncompliance."},{"id":"ca-sb-926-deepfake-intimate-images","title":"California Criminalization of Distributing Deepfake Intimate Images (SB 926)","short_title":"California SB 926 (crime to create & share realistic fake nudes of real people)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["ncii","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-09-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"California extends its criminal ban on distributing private intimate images to cover digitally fabricated ones. It is now a crime for an adult to intentionally create and distribute a sexually explicit image of an identifiable person made to look authentic, when the distributor knows or should know it will cause that person serious emotional distress and the person in fact suffers that distress. This closes a gap that left realistic AI-generated fakes outside the existing intimate-image law.","summary_technical":"SB 926 amended Cal. Penal Code 647 (disorderly conduct / intimate-image distribution) to criminalize intentionally creating and distributing a photorealistic, computer-generated, or otherwise digitally created sexually explicit image of an identifiable person, made to appear authentic, where the distributor knows or should know it will cause serious emotional distress and the depicted person suffers that distress.","who_is_protected":"Identifiable persons depicted in realistic, digitally created sexually explicit images distributed without consent.","who_must_comply":"Persons 18 or older (the conduct is prohibited generally).","citation":"Cal. Penal Code 647 (SB 926, Stats. 2024)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB926","source_title":"California SB 926 (2023-2024): Crimes: distribution of intimate images","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Local district attorneys and California prosecutors (criminal enforcement).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Carries the existing criminal misdemeanor penalties applicable to the underlying intimate-image distribution offense."},{"id":"ca-ab-1831-csam-ai","title":"California Expansion of Child Pornography Laws to AI-Generated Matter (AB 1831)","short_title":"California AB 1831 (CSAM laws now cover AI-generated/altered material)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["children","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-09-29","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"California broadens its child pornography statutes so they explicitly cover material that is digitally altered or generated by artificial intelligence. Previously the laws were aimed at depictions made with real children, leaving questions about synthetic imagery. Now matter whose production involves a person under 18, including AI-generated or digitally altered content, falls within the prohibited categories and existing felony exposure.","summary_technical":"AB 1831 amended Cal. Penal Code 311, 311.2, 311.11, and 311.12 to bring within prohibited matter any digitally altered or artificial-intelligence-generated matter, the production of which involves the use of a person under 18, extending California's child-pornography offenses to synthetic and altered imagery.","who_is_protected":"Minors (persons under 18), including against synthetic and AI-generated sexual abuse material.","who_must_comply":"All persons; the statutes prohibit possession, production, and distribution of the covered matter.","citation":"Cal. Penal Code 311, 311.2, 311.11, 311.12 (AB 1831, Stats. 2024)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1831","source_title":"California AB 1831 (2023-2024): Crimes: child pornography","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Local district attorneys and California prosecutors (criminal enforcement).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Subject to the existing criminal penalties under the amended child-pornography statutes, including felony exposure."},{"id":"ca-ab-2885-ai-definition","title":"California Uniform Definition of Artificial Intelligence (AB 2885)","short_title":"California AB 2885 (one statewide statutory definition of 'AI')","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-09-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This is a definitional clean-up bill rather than a regulatory one. It establishes a single, consistent statutory meaning of artificial intelligence and applies that uniform definition across several parts of California law, so different statutes stop using inconsistent definitions. On its own it imposes no obligations or penalties.","summary_technical":"AB 2885 harmonizes the statutory definition of 'artificial intelligence' across multiple California codes, anchoring it to Cal. Gov. Code 11546.45.5: an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from its input how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments.","who_is_protected":"Not applicable; the measure is definitional.","who_must_comply":"Not applicable; no compliance obligations are imposed by the definition itself.","citation":"AB 2885, Stats. 2024 (definition codified at Cal. Gov. Code 11546.45.5)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2885","source_title":"California AB 2885 (2023-2024): Artificial intelligence","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"None (definitional statute).","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-ab-2905-ai-voice-call-disclosure","title":"California AI Artificial Voice Robocall Disclosure (AB 2905)","short_title":"California AB 2905 (robocalls must disclose an AI-generated voice)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-09-20","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"When a caller uses an automatic dialing-announcing device to play a prerecorded message, California already requires a live-voice introduction. This law adds that the introduction must also tell the person if the prerecorded message uses an artificial voice, meaning a voice generated or significantly altered using AI. The point is to keep people from being deceived by synthetic voices in automated calls.","summary_technical":"AB 2905 amended Cal. Pub. Util. Code 2874 to require that the natural-voice announcement preceding an automatic dialing-announcing device's prerecorded message disclose whether the message uses an 'artificial voice,' defined as a voice generated or significantly altered using AI.","who_is_protected":"People in California who receive automated prerecorded telephone calls.","who_must_comply":"Callers operating automatic dialing-announcing devices that deliver prerecorded messages to California recipients.","citation":"Cal. Pub. Util. Code 2874 (AB 2905, Stats. 2024)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2905","source_title":"California AB 2905 (2023-2024): automatic dialing-announcing devices: artificial voices","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC); violations enforced under the Public Utilities Code.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No standalone dollar fine is set; violations of CPUC requirements are enforceable under the Public Utilities Code (where a violation of a Commission requirement can constitute a criminal offense)."},{"id":"ca-ab3030-genai-patient-communications-disclaimer","title":"California AB 3030 (2024) — Health Care Services: Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"California AB 3030 (GenAI patient messages must carry an AI disclaimer)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["healthcare","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-09-28","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"If a hospital, clinic, or doctor's office uses generative AI to write or speak messages to patients about their clinical care, those messages must clearly tell the patient that AI generated the content and explain how to reach a human health care provider. The rule does not apply when a licensed provider reads and reviews the AI-generated message before it goes out.","summary_technical":"Adds Cal. Health & Safety Code 1339.75. A health facility, clinic, physician's office, or group-practice office that uses generative AI to produce written or verbal patient communications about clinical information must include a disclaimer disclosing the AI use and instructions for contacting a human provider; the requirement does not apply when the communication is read and reviewed by a licensed/certified provider.","who_is_protected":"Patients of California health facilities, clinics, and physician/group-practice offices.","who_must_comply":"Health facilities, clinics, physician's offices, and group-practice offices that use generative AI to generate patient clinical communications.","citation":"Cal. Health & Safety Code 1339.75 (AB 3030, Stats. 2024)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB3030","source_title":"Bill Text — AB-3030 Health care services: artificial intelligence","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Applicable licensing/regulatory authorities (e.g., California Department of Public Health, Medical Board of California).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Enforced through existing facility/provider licensing authority; no new standalone penalty."},{"id":"ca-sb896-genai-accountability-act","title":"California SB 896 (2024) — Generative Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act","short_title":"California SB 896 (state AI risk analysis + AI disclaimers on gov communications)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-09-29","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This law directs California's Office of Emergency Services to study the threats that generative AI could pose to the state's critical infrastructure, including mass-casualty risks, and report a summary to the Legislature each year. It also requires any state agency that uses generative AI to communicate with people about government services to add a disclaimer that AI generated the message and explain how to reach a human state employee.","summary_technical":"Enacts the Generative Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act, requiring the Office of Emergency Services to perform a risk analysis of GenAI threats to California's critical infrastructure (annual summary to the Legislature) and requiring a state agency that uses GenAI to communicate about government services to include an AI-generated disclaimer and instructions to reach a human employee.","who_is_protected":"Members of the public who receive GenAI communications from California state agencies.","who_must_comply":"California state agencies and departments using generative AI to communicate about government services; the Office of Emergency Services.","citation":"SB 896, Stats. 2024 (Generative Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB896","source_title":"Bill Text — SB-896 Generative Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California state government / Legislature (oversight); no dedicated enforcement body.","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-ab2355-political-ad-ai-disclosure","title":"California AB 2355 (2024) — Political Reform Act: AI in Political Advertisements","short_title":"California AB 2355 (AI-generated political ads must disclose the AI use)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["deepfakes","elections","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-09-17","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"A political committee that creates, publishes, or distributes a campaign ad whose images, audio, or video were generated or substantially altered using AI must include a clear disclosure stating that AI was used. The disclosure follows specific formatting rules depending on whether the ad is print, audio, or video. The state campaign-finance regulator can enforce it, with penalties up to $5,000 per violation.","summary_technical":"Amends the Political Reform Act of 1974 to define a 'qualified political advertisement' to include one containing AI-generated or substantially-AI-altered media, and requires the committee that creates, publishes, or distributes it to include a specified AI disclosure with medium-specific formatting; the Fair Political Practices Commission may enforce via injunctive relief and other remedies.","who_is_protected":"California voters and the electorate.","who_must_comply":"Committees (under the Political Reform Act) that create, publish, or distribute qualified political advertisements using AI-generated or altered media.","citation":"AB 2355, Stats. 2024 (amending the Political Reform Act of 1974)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2355","source_title":"Bill Text — AB-2355 Political Reform Act: political advertisements: artificial intelligence","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil/administrative remedies under the Political Reform Act, including injunctive relief; monetary penalties up to $5,000 per violation."},{"id":"ca-ab1836-digital-replica-deceased-personality","title":"California AB 1836 (2024) — Use of Likeness: Digital Replica (Deceased Personalities)","short_title":"California AB 1836 (bans unauthorized AI digital replicas of dead performers)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-09-17","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"It is unlawful to produce, distribute, or make available a digital replica of a deceased celebrity's or performer's voice or likeness in a film, video, or sound recording without consent from whoever controls that person's rights (such as their estate). Anyone who does so is liable to the rights holder for the greater of $10,000 or the actual damages caused.","summary_technical":"Amends Cal. Civ. Code 3344.1 (deceased personality rights) to make a person who produces, distributes, or makes available the digital replica of a deceased personality's voice or likeness in an expressive audiovisual work or sound recording, without prior consent, liable for the greater of $10,000 or actual damages, subject to enumerated exceptions.","who_is_protected":"Deceased personalities (via their estates/successors) and the rights holders controlling their voice and likeness.","who_must_comply":"Any person who produces, distributes, or makes available digital replicas of a deceased personality's voice or likeness in expressive works.","citation":"Cal. Civ. Code § 3344.1 (AB 1836, Stats. 2024, ch. 258)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1836","source_title":"Bill Text — AB-1836 Use of likeness: digital replica","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"None (enforced through private civil litigation by rights holders).","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil liability of the greater of $10,000 or actual damages, subject to statutory exceptions."},{"id":"ca-ab2602-digital-replica-voice-likeness","title":"California AB 2602 (2024) — Contracts Authorizing Digital Replicas of Voice or Likeness","short_title":"California AB 2602 (vague AI voice/likeness contract clauses unenforceable)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["deepfakes","employment"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-09-17","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This law protects performers and others from signing away the rights to an AI-generated digital replica of their voice or likeness without understanding what they are agreeing to. If a contract lets someone create or use a digital replica of you for a new performance, that clause cannot be enforced when it fails to reasonably describe how the replica will be used and you did not have a lawyer or union representing you when you signed.","summary_technical":"Cal. Civ. Code 1745.5 renders unenforceable a contract provision permitting creation or use of a digital replica of an individual's voice or visual likeness for a new performance if it lacks a reasonably specific description of intended uses and the individual was neither represented by legal counsel nor by a labor union.","who_is_protected":"Individuals (including performers and recording artists) whose voice or visual likeness could be digitally replicated under a services contract.","who_must_comply":"Parties (studios, employers, producers) who seek to enforce contract provisions authorizing digital replicas.","citation":"Cal. Civ. Code 1745.5 (AB 2602, Stats. 2024)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2602","source_title":"AB-2602 Contracts against public policy: personal or professional services: digital replicas","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California courts (raised as a defense in private contract disputes).","penalties":"No fine or administrative penalty; the noncompliant contract provision is unenforceable."},{"id":"ca-crc-ads-employment-regulations","title":"California Civil Rights Council Employment Regulations on Automated-Decision Systems","short_title":"California CRC rules (FEHA anti-bias law applied to AI hiring/employment tools)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["employment","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2025-10-01","enacted_date":"2025-03-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"These regulations make clear that California's existing anti-discrimination employment law applies to automated-decision systems, including AI tools used in hiring, promotion, and other job decisions. Employers cannot use AI or algorithmic tools that discriminate against people based on protected characteristics such as race, sex, age, or disability, and must keep records related to these systems for at least four years.","summary_technical":"Adopted by the California Civil Rights Council under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Cal. Gov. Code 12940 et seq.), the regulations confirm FEHA's discrimination prohibition extends to automated-decision systems (including AI) and impose a four-year retention requirement for ADS-related employment records.","who_is_protected":"Job applicants and employees in California within FEHA's protected classes.","who_must_comply":"Employers, employment agencies, and often the third-party vendors that supply or operate automated-decision systems used in employment decisions.","citation":"Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 (Civil Rights Council ADS regulations); Cal. Gov. Code 12940 et seq. (FEHA)","source_url":"https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/civilrightscouncil/","source_title":"California Civil Rights Council — Automated-Decision Systems Employment Regulations","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Civil Rights Department (CRD), with oversight by the Civil Rights Council.","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Enforced through ordinary FEHA mechanisms — administrative complaints, investigations, and civil liability (back pay, damages, injunctive relief)."},{"id":"ca-ab316-ai-liability-civil-actions","title":"California AB 316 (2025) — No 'Autonomous AI' Defense in Civil Liability Actions","short_title":"California AB 316 (defendants can't blame the AI for acting on its own)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2025-10-11","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This law closes a potential loophole in lawsuits involving artificial intelligence. If someone develops, modifies, or uses an AI system that causes harm, they cannot escape liability by arguing that the AI acted autonomously or on its own.","summary_technical":"AB 316 adds Cal. Civ. Code 1714.46, providing that in a civil action against a defendant who developed, modified, or used AI that allegedly caused harm, the defendant may not assert as a defense that the AI autonomously caused the harm.","who_is_protected":"Plaintiffs in California civil actions who allege harm caused by an AI system.","who_must_comply":"Defendants who developed, modified, or used the AI at issue (developers, deployers, users).","citation":"Cal. Civ. Code 1714.46 (AB 316, 2025)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB316","source_title":"AB-316 Artificial intelligence: defenses","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California courts (the rule applies within private civil litigation).","penalties":"No standalone penalty; it is a liability rule removing a specific defense."},{"id":"ca-sb243-companion-chatbot","title":"California SB 243 (2025) — Companion Chatbot Safety and Disclosure Requirements","short_title":"California SB 243 (companion chatbots: AI disclosure + suicide-safety protocol)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["children","healthcare","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2025-10-13","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This law sets safety rules for companion chatbots — AI systems designed to hold human-like, ongoing conversations that meet a user's social needs. Operators must tell users they are interacting with AI whenever a reasonable person might be fooled into thinking it is human, and must maintain a protocol for detecting and responding to signs of suicidal thoughts or self-harm, including pointing users to crisis resources. It adds extra protections for minors, such as disclosure, periodic break reminders, and measures to prevent sexually explicit content. Users harmed by violations can sue.","summary_technical":"SB 243 adds Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 22601 et seq., requiring operators of companion chatbot platforms to disclose AI status where a reasonable person could be misled, maintain protocols to detect and respond to suicidal ideation/self-harm with crisis referrals, and implement minor-specific safeguards (disclosure, periodic break reminders, measures against sexually explicit content).","who_is_protected":"Users of companion chatbot platforms, including minors and individuals at risk of self-harm.","who_must_comply":"Operators of companion chatbot platforms made available to California users.","citation":"Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 22601 et seq. (SB 243, 2025)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB243","source_title":"SB-243 Companion chatbots","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Enforced primarily through a private right of action in California courts.","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"A person injured by a violation may recover the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation, plus injunctive relief and reasonable attorney's fees and costs."},{"id":"ca-sb524-law-enforcement-ai-reports","title":"California SB 524 (2025) — Law Enforcement Use of Artificial Intelligence in Reports","short_title":"California SB 524 (AI-written police reports must be disclosed + audited)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["law-enforcement","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2025-10-10","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"SB 524 adds Cal. Penal Code 13663, requiring AI-generated law enforcement reports to include a per-page disclosure identifying the AI program and the officer's signature/verification, agency retention of the first draft and an audit trail, and a bar on contracted vendors sharing, selling, or repurposing agency information except for the agency's purposes.","who_is_protected":"The public and individuals who are the subject of, or affected by, AI-produced law enforcement reports.","who_must_comply":"California law enforcement agencies using AI to generate reports and the third-party vendors that supply such tools.","citation":"Cal. Penal Code 13663 (SB 524, 2025)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB524","source_title":"SB-524 Law enforcement agencies: artificial intelligence","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California law enforcement agencies via mandatory internal policies (no dedicated enforcement agency or penalty specified).","penalties":"No specific penalty; compliance is imposed through mandatory agency policies and recordkeeping."},{"id":"ca-sb361-data-broker-genai-disclosure","title":"California SB 361 (2025) — Data Broker Disclosure of Sharing With Generative AI Developers","short_title":"California SB 361 (data brokers must report sharing data with GenAI developers)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2025-10-08","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This law expands what data brokers must reveal when they register each year with the California Privacy Protection Agency. Among the new disclosures, brokers must state whether, during the prior year, they sold or shared consumers' personal information with developers of generative AI systems. The aim is to give the public and regulators visibility into how personal data flows into AI training and development.","summary_technical":"SB 361 amends Cal. Civ. Code 1798.99.82 to expand mandatory data broker registration disclosures to the CPPA, including whether the broker sold or shared consumers' personal information with developers of generative AI systems in the preceding year.","who_is_protected":"California consumers whose personal information is collected and traded by data brokers.","who_must_comply":"Data brokers required to register with the California Privacy Protection Agency.","citation":"Cal. Civ. Code 1798.99.82 (SB 361, 2025)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB361","source_title":"SB-361 Data brokers: data collection and deletion","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Failure to register can result in an administrative fine of up to $200 per day of noncompliance, plus fees due and the CPPA's enforcement costs."},{"id":"ca-ab723-real-estate-altered-images","title":"California AB 723 (2025) — Disclosure of Digitally Altered Images in Real Estate Advertising","short_title":"California AB 723 (real estate ads must disclose AI-altered images)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["consumer-protection","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2025-10-10","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This law targets misleading property listings that use AI or other digital editing to alter images. A real estate licensee who uses a digitally altered image (including AI-altered images) in advertising to sell real property must disclose that the image was altered and provide a link, URL, or QR code to the original unaltered image. Routine adjustments like lighting, cropping, and color correction are excluded.","summary_technical":"AB 723 adds Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 10140.8, requiring a real estate licensee who includes a digitally altered image (including AI-altered) in advertising for the sale of real property to disclose the alteration and provide a link/URL/QR code to the original unaltered image; routine lighting/cropping/color correction is excluded.","who_is_protected":"Prospective buyers and consumers viewing real estate sale advertising in California.","who_must_comply":"Licensed California real estate licensees who use digitally altered images in sale advertising.","citation":"Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 10140.8 (AB 723, 2025)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB723","source_title":"AB-723 Real estate: advertising: digitally altered images","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Department of Real Estate (DRE).","penalties":"Subject to disciplinary action under the Real Estate Law, including possible suspension or revocation of the license."},{"id":"ca-ab325-cartwright-pricing-algorithm","title":"California AB 325 (2025) — Cartwright Act Amendment on Common Pricing Algorithms","short_title":"California AB 325 (bans anticompetitive use of shared pricing algorithms)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2025-10-08","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This law amends California's main antitrust statute, the Cartwright Act, to address algorithmic price-fixing. It makes it unlawful to use or distribute a common pricing algorithm — a methodology that uses competitor data to recommend, align, stabilize, set, or influence a price or term — as part of an agreement or conspiracy to restrain trade, or to coerce another party into adopting a recommended price. It also makes it easier to bring antitrust conspiracy claims.","summary_technical":"AB 325 amends the Cartwright Act to prohibit using or distributing a common pricing algorithm (a methodology using competitor data to recommend/align/stabilize/set/influence a price or term) as part of a contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade, or coercing another to adopt a recommended price, and lowers the antitrust-conspiracy pleading standard.","who_is_protected":"Consumers and competitors in California markets harmed by algorithmic price coordination.","who_must_comply":"Businesses and individuals that use or distribute pricing algorithms in California commerce, including vendors of such tools.","citation":"AB 325 (2025), amending the Cartwright Act (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 16700 et seq.)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB325","source_title":"AB-325 Cartwright Act: pricing algorithms","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Attorney General and district attorneys (Cartwright Act enforcement), plus private litigants.","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Cartwright Act penalties — corporate criminal fines up to $6 million per violation (ceiling raised by companion bill SB 763) or twice the gross gain or loss, plus civil remedies."},{"id":"ny-s1042a-deepfake-intimate-images","title":"New York Unlawful Dissemination of Intimate Images Created by Digitization (S1042A)","short_title":"New York S1042A (bans sharing deepfake intimate images)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["ncii","ai-images","deepfakes"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-11-28","enacted_date":"2023-09-29","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"New York made it a crime to share or post fake nude or sexual images of a person without their consent, even when the image was generated or altered by computer (a deepfake), as long as the person shown can be reasonably identified. This brought AI-made intimate images under the state's existing revenge-porn crime.","summary_technical":"Chapter 513 of the Laws of 2023 amended N.Y. Penal Law 245.15 (unlawful dissemination or publication of an intimate image) so the offense covers still or video images created or altered by digitization that depict a reasonably identifiable person; the conduct remains a class A misdemeanor.","who_is_protected":"Identifiable individuals depicted in non-consensual intimate or sexually explicit images, including AI-generated or digitized deepfakes.","who_must_comply":"Any person who intentionally disseminates or publishes such images.","citation":"N.Y. Penal Law 245.15; L. 2023, ch. 513 (S1042A)","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S1042/amendment/A","source_title":"NY State Senate Bill 2023-S1042A","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Local district attorneys and New York State criminal courts.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Class A misdemeanor under Penal Law 245.15."},{"id":"ny-aidpa-election-law-14-106-deceptive-media","title":"New York Artificial Intelligence Deceptive Practices Act — Disclosure for Deceptive Political Media (Election Law 14-106)","short_title":"New York AIDPA (AI deepfake political media must be disclosed)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["deepfakes","elections"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-20","enacted_date":"2024-04-20","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"If someone knowingly puts out a political ad or message that contains AI-generated or otherwise materially deceptive media (such as a deepfake of a candidate), they must include a clear disclaimer saying the content has been manipulated. A candidate harmed by an undisclosed deepfake can ask a court to stop it.","summary_technical":"Enacted as the Artificial Intelligence Deceptive Practices Act via Part MM of Chapter 58 of the Laws of 2024. Amends N.Y. Election Law 14-106 to require any person who, with actual knowledge, distributes or publishes a political communication containing materially deceptive media to include a conspicuous disclosure that the media has been manipulated, with carve-outs for satire, parody, and bona fide news.","who_is_protected":"Candidates depicted in materially deceptive media and the voting public.","who_must_comply":"Any person, campaign, committee, or organization that distributes or publishes political communications containing materially deceptive media with actual knowledge of its deceptive nature.","citation":"N.Y. Election Law 14-106; L. 2024, ch. 58, pt. MM","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/14-106","source_title":"New York Election Law 14-106 — Political communication","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New York courts (via private suit by a depicted candidate).","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Injunctive relief; a depicted candidate may seek to enjoin distribution and recover reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees."},{"id":"ny-aidpa-civil-rights-law-digitization-privacy","title":"New York Artificial Intelligence Deceptive Practices Act — Right of Privacy Extended to Digitization (Civil Rights Law 50-51)","short_title":"New York AIDPA (privacy right covers AI-made likeness & voice)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-20","enacted_date":"2024-04-20","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"New York's long-standing right-of-privacy law bars using a person's name, picture, likeness, or voice for ads or trade without written consent. This amendment made clear that protection also covers a picture, likeness, or voice that was created or altered by AI or other digitization, so AI-generated deepfakes of a person fall under the same rule.","summary_technical":"Enacted via Part MM of Chapter 58 of the Laws of 2024. Amends N.Y. Civil Rights Law 50 so the protected attributes for advertising or trade purposes include a portrait, picture, likeness, or voice created or altered by digitization (software, machine learning, AI, or other computer-generated means); the private remedy is in Civil Rights Law 51.","who_is_protected":"Living individuals whose name, portrait, picture, likeness, or voice (including AI-generated versions) is used for advertising or trade without written consent.","who_must_comply":"Any person, firm, or corporation that uses such attributes within New York for advertising or trade purposes without consent.","citation":"N.Y. Civil Rights Law 50, 51; L. 2024, ch. 58, pt. MM","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVR/50","source_title":"New York Civil Rights Law 50 — Right of Privacy","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New York courts (private civil action under Civil Rights Law 51).","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Under Civil Rights Law 51, an aggrieved person may obtain injunctive relief and compensatory damages, plus exemplary damages for a knowing use; a Section 50 violation is also a misdemeanor."},{"id":"ny-s7543b-loading-act","title":"New York Legislative Oversight of Automated Decision-making in Government (LOADinG) Act (S7543B)","short_title":"New York LOADinG Act (oversight of state-agency automated decisions)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-12-21","enacted_date":"2024-12-21","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"New York's LOADinG Act, signed in December 2024, originally required state agencies to run and publish impact assessments on automated decision-making tools and to keep meaningful human review for tools affecting benefits or rights. Before those rules took effect, a February 2025 chapter amendment (A433, Chapter 96 of 2025) repealed the impact-assessment and human-review requirements. As amended, agencies must publicly list the automated tools they use in employment decisions, the state IT office must keep a public inventory of state-agency AI systems, and AI may not be used to lay off or displace state workers or undercut their union contracts.","summary_technical":"Chapter 674 of the Laws of 2024 (S7543-B/A9430-B, signed Dec. 21, 2024) enacted the LOADinG Act as State Technology Law article 4: § 401 definitions; § 402 barred agency use of automated decision-making systems in public benefits or decisions affecting rights unless subject to continued meaningful human review; § 403 required pre-deployment and at-least-biennial impact assessments (accuracy, fairness, bias, cybersecurity, privacy); § 404 required submission to the Governor and Legislature and publication; bill section 3 required disclosure of existing systems. Article 4 was to take effect one year after enactment. Chapter 96 of the Laws of 2025 (A433/S822, signed Feb. 14, 2025) repealed bill sections 1 and 3 and §§ 403-404, retitled article 4 'Automated Employment Decision-Making in State Government', and rewrote §§ 401-402 to require agencies to publish (annually) lists of automated employment decision-making tools; it added § 103-e (ITS statewide AI inventory posted annually) and Civil Service Law § 80(10) (AI may not affect CBA rights or cause discharge, displacement or loss of position; expires July 1, 2028), effective July 1, 2025.","who_is_protected":"New York residents subject to state-agency decisions (especially public-benefit recipients and those whose rights, safety, or welfare are affected) and state-agency employees.","who_must_comply":"New York State agencies that use or procure automated decision-making systems.","citation":"N.Y. State Technology Law art. 4 (LOADinG Act); L. 2024, ch. 674 (S7543B), as amended by L. 2025, ch. 96 (A433)","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S7543/amendment/B","source_title":"NY State Senate Bill 2023-S7543B","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Governor and State Legislature (oversight via mandated reporting); agencies implement compliance.","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ny-s7676b-digital-replica-contracts","title":"New York Contracts for the Creation and Use of Digital Replicas (Gen. Oblig. Law 5-302) (S7676B)","short_title":"New York S7676B (voids vague AI voice/likeness contract clauses)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["deepfakes","employment"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-12-02","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"A contract clause that lets a company create or use an AI digital replica of a person's voice or likeness is unenforceable if it does not reasonably specifically describe how the replica will be used, unless the person had a lawyer or a union representing them when they signed. It is aimed at protecting performers from signing away their digital likeness in broad, vague terms.","summary_technical":"Chapter 569 of the Laws of 2024 adds N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law 5-302. A provision permitting the creation/use of a digital replica of an individual's voice or likeness in place of work they would otherwise perform is against public policy and unenforceable if it lacks a reasonably specific description of intended uses, unless the individual was represented by legal counsel or by a labor union whose CBA expressly addresses digital-replica uses.","who_is_protected":"Individuals (particularly performers) whose voice or likeness is the subject of a digital-replica contract provision.","who_must_comply":"Parties drafting or enforcing contracts that authorize creating or using an individual's digital replica.","citation":"N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law 5-302; L. 2024, ch. 569 (S7676B)","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S7676/amendment/B","source_title":"NY State Senate Bill 2023-S7676B","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New York courts (enforceability determined in contract disputes).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Unenforceability: the offending contract provision is void and against public policy."},{"id":"ny-s9832-fashion-workers-act","title":"New York State Fashion Workers Act (S9832)","short_title":"New York Fashion Workers Act (models must consent to AI digital replicas)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["deepfakes","employment","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-06-19","enacted_date":"2024-12-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Before a modeling agency or a client can create or use an AI digital replica of a model (such as a computer-generated version of their face, body, or voice), they must get the model's clear written consent, separate from the regular representation contract, that spells out the scope, purpose, pay, and how long the replica will be used.","summary_technical":"Chapter 683 of the Laws of 2024 enacts the Fashion Workers Act under the Labor Law and General Business Law: model management companies and clients must obtain a model's clear written consent — separate from any management agreement — before creating or using the model's digital replica (a significant computer-generated or AI representation of the model's likeness), detailing scope, purpose, rate of pay, and duration.","who_is_protected":"Fashion models providing services in New York.","who_must_comply":"Model management companies and clients (those who receive modeling services) operating in or soliciting in New York.","citation":"New York State Fashion Workers Act; L. 2024, ch. 683 (S9832)","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S9832","source_title":"NY State Senate Bill 2023-S9832","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New York State Department of Labor / Commissioner of Labor; the Attorney General may act against repeated illegal conduct.","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil penalties of up to $3,000 for a first violation and up to $5,000 for each subsequent violation; models also have a private right of action and may file complaints with the Commissioner within six years."},{"id":"ny-a433-automated-employment-state-government","title":"New York Automated Employment Decision-Making in State Government and AI Inventory (A433)","short_title":"New York A433 (state agencies must list AI employment tools)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["public-sector","employment","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-01","enacted_date":"2025-02-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Any New York State agency that uses an automated tool to help make employment decisions must publicly list those tools, and the state's IT office must keep a public inventory of state-agency AI systems that affect the public. The law also protects state workers' existing collective-bargaining rights and bars using AI to displace them.","summary_technical":"Chapter 96 of the Laws of 2025 amends the State Technology Law and Civil Service Law: agencies using automated employment decision-making tools must annually publish a list of them; the Office of Information Technology Services must maintain and annually post a statewide inventory of public-impacting AI systems; and AI use may not affect employees' CBA rights or be used to discharge, displace, or transfer current employees' duties.","who_is_protected":"The public subject to state-agency AI systems and state-agency employees.","who_must_comply":"New York State agencies using automated employment decision-making tools and the Office of Information Technology Services.","citation":"N.Y. State Technology Law / Civil Service Law; L. 2025, ch. 96 (A433)","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/A433","source_title":"NY State Assembly Bill 2025-A433","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of Information Technology Services (inventory administration); individual state agencies for disclosures.","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ny-gbl349a-algorithmic-pricing-disclosure","title":"New York Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act (Gen. Bus. Law 349-A)","short_title":"New York Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act (personalized prices need a label)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["automated-decisions","consumer-protection","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-11-10","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"If a business sets the price of a product or service using an algorithm that draws on your personal data, and then shows that personalized price to you as a New York consumer, it has to tell you so with the notice: 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA.' The goal is to make personalized 'surveillance pricing' visible rather than hidden. The Attorney General enforces the rule and can seek up to $1,000 per violation after a cease-and-desist notice.","summary_technical":"N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 349-A (art. 22-A) requires any person who sets a price via personalized algorithmic pricing based on a consumer's personal data, and advertises/displays that price to a New York consumer, to include a clear and conspicuous disclosure stating 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA,' enforceable by the Attorney General with penalties up to $1,000 per violation following a preliminary cease-and-desist notice.","who_is_protected":"Consumers in New York shown personalized algorithmic prices based on their personal data.","who_must_comply":"Businesses that set prices using personalized algorithmic pricing based on a consumer's personal data and display such a price to a New York consumer.","citation":"N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 349-A (art. 22-A)","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/GBS/349-A","source_title":"N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 349-A — The Laws of New York","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New York State Attorney General.","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation, assessed only after a preliminary cease-and-desist notice."},{"id":"ny-s8391-deceased-performer-digital-replica","title":"New York Deceased Performer Digital Replica Protection (S8391)","short_title":"New York S8391 (bans unauthorized AI digital replicas of deceased performers)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["deepfakes","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-12-11","enacted_date":"2025-12-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"This law makes it illegal to use a digital replica of a deceased performer in an audiovisual work, a sound recording, or a live performance of a musical work without consent from the appropriate rights holder. It applies when the user knows the replica is unauthorized. A deceased performer's estate or rights holder can sue, recovering the greater of $2,000 or their actual damages, plus any profits the violator made from the unauthorized use.","summary_technical":"N.Y. S8391 (2025) prohibits the knowing use of an unauthorized digital replica of a deceased performer in an audiovisual work, sound recording, or live performance of a musical work without rights-holder consent, and provides a private right of action for the greater of $2,000 or compensatory damages plus disgorgement of profits.","who_is_protected":"Deceased performers, through their estates and the rights holders who control their digital-replica rights.","who_must_comply":"Any person who uses a digital replica of a deceased performer in a covered work and knows the use is unauthorized.","citation":"N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50-f; L. 2025, ch. 616 (S8391/A8882)","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8391","source_title":"NY State Senate Bill 2025-S8391","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Enforced privately through the courts (no designated administrative agency).","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil liability for the greater of $2,000 or compensatory damages, plus profits attributable to the unauthorized use; punitive damages may also be awarded."},{"id":"ny-s7882-landlord-algorithmic-rent-coordination","title":"New York Landlord Algorithmic Pricing Law (Gen. Bus. Law 340-b; S7882)","short_title":"New York S7882 (felony to use algorithms to coordinate residential rents)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["automated-decisions","housing-credit","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-12-15","enacted_date":"2025-10-16","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"This law makes it a crime to help residential landlords coordinate the rents they charge instead of competing with one another, including by operating or licensing software, a data-analytics service, or an algorithmic tool that performs a rent-setting coordination function across two or more landlords. The conduct must be done knowingly or recklessly. Violations are a Class E felony, with fines up to $1 million for a corporation and up to $100,000 or up to four years in prison for an individual.","summary_technical":"N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 340-b (enacted via S7882, signed Oct 16, 2025 by Gov. Hochul, effective Dec 15, 2025) makes it unlawful to knowingly or recklessly facilitate an agreement among two or more residential rental property owners/managers not to compete on rents, including by operating or licensing software, a data-analytics service, or an algorithmic device performing a rent-setting coordinating function; a violation is a Class E felony. RealPage filed a First Amendment lawsuit to enjoin enforcement (Nov 2025); NY AG motion to dismiss filed Feb 27, 2026; the state put the law on hold while the court considered the case (Reuters). On Sept. 29, 2026 Judge Valerie Caproni granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Section 3 and denied the motion to dismiss, finding RealPage 'marginally' likely to succeed on its First Amendment claim (see litig-realpage-v-james-ny-algorithmic-rent-2026). Enforcement of the core provision is currently enjoined.","who_is_protected":"Residential rental tenants in New York and the competitive residential rental market.","who_must_comply":"Residential rental property owners and managers, and any person or company that operates or licenses software, data-analytics services, or algorithmic rent-setting tools used to coordinate rents.","citation":"N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 340-b (S7882, 2025)","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S7882","source_title":"NY State Senate Bill 2025-S7882","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New York State Attorney General and criminal prosecutors (Class E felony).","penalties":"Class E felony: corporations may be fined up to $1,000,000; individuals up to $100,000 and/or imprisonment up to four years."},{"id":"ny-s8831-public-employee-ai-protections","title":"New York Public Employee Artificial Intelligence Protections (S8831)","short_title":"New York S8831 (shields public employees from AI displacement)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["employment","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-02-13","enacted_date":"2026-02-13","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"This law amends New York's education, state technology, and civil service laws to protect public employees from harms caused by artificial intelligence systems. It guards against AI being used in ways that would impair workers' collective-bargaining rights, lead to their discharge or displacement, transfer their job duties to an AI system, or cut their hours, wages, or benefits.","summary_technical":"N.Y. S8831 (L.2026, ch. 86; Sen. Gonzalez), signed Feb. 13, 2026, is a chapter amendment to L.2025, ch. 711 (S7599-C). It amends the state technology law, education law and civil service law on the use of automated employment decision-making tools and AI systems by covered entities (counties, cities, towns, villages, school districts, BOCES, SUNY, CUNY, community colleges and others), narrowing ch. 711's disclosure duty to automated employment decision-making tools (disclosed to the extent feasible), and prohibits using AI systems in ways that impair collective-bargaining rights, cause discharge or displacement (including reduced non-overtime hours, wages or benefits), or transfer employees' existing duties to an AI system. Takes effect immediately, with most sections effective on the same date as ch. 711; the underlying chapter expires July 1, 2028 per the Senate summary.","who_is_protected":"New York public-sector employees covered by the amended education, state technology, and civil service laws.","who_must_comply":"New York State and public employers/agencies governed by the amended laws.","citation":"N.Y. L.2026, ch. 86 (S8831), chapter amendment to L.2025, ch. 711 (S7599-C)","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8831","source_title":"NY State Senate Bill 2025-S8831","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Applicable New York State public employers and oversight bodies under the amended civil service, education, and state technology laws."},{"id":"ny-s8420a-synthetic-performer-disclosure","title":"New York Synthetic Performer Disclosures Law (Gen. Bus. Law 396-b; S8420A)","short_title":"New York S8420A (ads must disclose AI 'synthetic performers')","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["deepfakes","ai-images","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"When a business creates an advertisement for property or services for a commercial purpose, this law requires it to clearly disclose if the ad uses a 'synthetic performer' — a digitally created asset (made with generative AI or a software algorithm) meant to look like an audiovisual or visual performance by a human, where the figure is not recognizable as any identifiable real person. Penalties are $1,000 for a first violation and $5,000 for each subsequent violation.","summary_technical":"N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 396-b (S8420A, 2025) requires any person who, for a commercial purpose, produces an advertisement for property or services to conspicuously disclose use of a 'synthetic performer' — a generative-AI or algorithmically created digital asset intended to give the impression of an audiovisual/visual performance by a human not recognizable as any identifiable natural person — subject to civil penalties of $1,000 for a first violation and $5,000 for subsequent violations.","who_is_protected":"Consumers and the public viewing commercial advertisements for property or services in New York.","who_must_comply":"Any person who, for a commercial purpose, produces an advertisement for property or services using a synthetic performer.","citation":"N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 396-b (S8420A, 2025)","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8420/amendment/A","source_title":"NY State Senate Bill 2025-S8420A","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New York State Attorney General (civil penalties).","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalty of $1,000 for a first violation and $5,000 for any subsequent violation."},{"id":"tx-sb-441-ai-intimate-media","title":"Texas Senate Bill 441 (89R, 2025) — Criminal and Civil Liability for Sexually Explicit and Artificial Intimate Visual Material","short_title":"Texas SB 441 (deepfake NCII crime + website/AI-app/payment-processor liability)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["ncii","ai-images","deepfakes","children","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-01","enacted_date":"2025-06-20","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"This Texas law makes it a crime to knowingly create or share, without consent, AI-generated or otherwise manipulated deepfake images that falsely depict a real person with computer-generated intimate parts or engaged in sexual conduct they never performed, and bans threatening to do so. It also lets victims sue the people who made or spread such artificial intimate visual material, and extends that liability to owners of websites, social platforms, AI 'nudification' apps, or payment systems that knowingly or recklessly facilitate the content. Covered websites and apps must offer an easy removal-request tool and can be liable if they fail to take material down within 72 hours of a depicted person's request. Victims may sue using a confidential identity and have up to 10 years to file.","summary_technical":"S.B. 441 (89R, 2025) amends Tex. Penal Code 21.165 (renamed 'Unlawful Production or Distribution of Certain Sexually Explicit Media'), adding offense subsections and penalty/defense provisions, and amends Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 98B (adding 98B.0021, 98B.0022 website/AI-app/payment-processor liability and 72-hour takedown, 98B.008 confidential identity, 98B.009 10-year limitations), effective Sept. 1, 2025.","who_is_protected":"Real, identifiable people depicted without effective consent in deepfake or AI-generated intimate/sexually explicit visual material, with heightened protection where the depicted person is younger than 18.","who_must_comply":"Anyone who produces, distributes, solicits, discloses, or promotes such material; owners of internet websites, applications, and social media platforms (including 'nudification' AI apps); AI application developers/providers; and payment processors that facilitate payment for the material.","citation":"Tex. S.B. 441, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025); amending Tex. Penal Code 21.165 and Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 98B (adding 98B.0021, 98B.0022, 98B.008, 98B.009); eff. Sept. 1, 2025","source_url":"https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB441","source_title":"Texas Legislature Online — S.B. 441, 89th Legislature, Regular Session (2025): bill history, enrolled text, and Senate Research Center analysis","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Texas county/district prosecutors (criminal); private civil claimants via Chapter 98B; the Texas Attorney General may investigate and seek injunctive relief against repeat violators of the takedown/removal/notice duties (actionable as deceptive trade practices under the DTPA).","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Criminal: producing or distributing nonconsensual deepfake intimate media is a Class A misdemeanor, rising to a third-degree felony for a prior conviction or where the person depicted is under 18; threatening to produce/distribute such media is a Class B misdemeanor, rising to Class A for a prior conviction or a depiction of a person under 18; restitution is required. Civil: depicted persons may recover damages from producers/distributors and from facilitating website, AI-app, and payment-processor owners; failure to remove within 72 hours, failure to provide the removal system, or failure to give required notice is an actionable deceptive trade practice with possible AG injunction, costs, and fees."},{"id":"ca-ccpa-cpra-admt","title":"California Consumer Privacy Act (CPRA) and CPPA Automated Decision-Making Technology Regulations","short_title":"CCPA/CPRA + ADMT Regulations","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["privacy","automated-decisions","transparency","consumer-protection","employment","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2018-06-28","last_verified_date":"2026-08-10","summary_plain":"California's main privacy law gives consumers rights to know, delete, correct, and opt out of the sale or sharing of their personal information. New regulations finalized in 2025 add rights around automated decision-making technology (ADMT): businesses using ADMT for significant decisions (jobs, housing, credit, healthcare) must give pre-use notice, let people opt out, and provide access to how decisions were made.","summary_technical":"Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. as amended by Prop 24 (CPRA); CPPA regulations on ADMT, risk assessments, and cybersecurity audits approved Sept. 22, 2025, effective Jan. 1, 2026, with ADMT significant-decision compliance required by Jan. 1, 2027 and risk-assessment documentation by Dec. 31, 2027.","who_is_protected":"California residents (consumers, including employees and job applicants)","who_must_comply":"For-profit businesses meeting CCPA thresholds ($25M+ revenue, data on 100k+ consumers, or 50%+ revenue from selling/sharing data)","citation":"Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, div. 6","source_url":"https://cppa.ca.gov/regulations/ccpa_updates.html","source_title":"CPPA: CCPA Updates, Cybersecurity Audits, Risk Assessments, and ADMT Regulations","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Privacy Protection Agency; California Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Up to $2,500 per violation, $7,500 per intentional violation or violations involving minors"},{"id":"ca-ab-2013","title":"Generative AI: Training Data Transparency Act (AB 2013)","short_title":"AB 2013 (Training Data Transparency)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["transparency","copyright","privacy","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-09-28","last_verified_date":"2026-08-10","summary_plain":"Developers of generative AI systems made available to Californians must publicly post documentation about the datasets used to train their models, including sources, whether they contain personal information or copyrighted material, and time periods of collection. Applies to systems released or substantially modified since January 1, 2022.","summary_technical":"Adds Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3110–3111, requiring GenAI developers to post high-level training-dataset documentation (12 enumerated categories) before making a system publicly available in California, effective Jan. 1, 2026.","who_is_protected":"California public, creators, and data subjects","who_must_comply":"Developers of generative AI systems made available to Californians (including substantial modifiers)","citation":"Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3110–3111 (AB 2013, Stats. 2024)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2013","source_title":"California Legislative Information: AB 2013 (2023–2024)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Not specified in statute (no express enforcement mechanism)"},{"id":"ca-sb-942","title":"California AI Transparency Act (SB 942, as amended by AB 853)","short_title":"SB 942 (AI Transparency Act)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["transparency","ai-images","deepfakes","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-02","enacted_date":"2024-09-19","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Large generative AI providers (over 1 million monthly users) must offer a free AI-detection tool and embed disclosures in AI-generated images, video, and audio, including hidden watermark-style disclosures. A 2025 amendment (AB 853) delayed the start to August 2, 2026 and extended duties to large online platforms (from January 1, 2027) and camera and other capture-device makers (from January 1, 2028).","summary_technical":"Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757 et seq. (Stats. 2024, ch. 291); AB 853 (Stats. 2025, ch. 674, approved Oct. 13, 2025) delayed the operative date for covered GenAI providers from Jan. 1, 2026 to Aug. 2, 2026, with large-online-platform and GenAI-hosting-platform obligations operative Jan. 1, 2027 and capture-device manufacturer obligations operative Jan. 1, 2028.","who_is_protected":"California consumers and the public exposed to synthetic media","who_must_comply":"Covered GenAI providers with 1M+ monthly users accessible in California; from 2027, large online platforms, hosting platforms, and capture-device manufacturers","citation":"Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757 et seq. (SB 942, as amended by AB 853)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB942","source_title":"California Legislative Information: SB 942 (2023–2024)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Attorney General, city attorneys, county counsels","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"$5,000 per violation per day, plus attorney's fees and costs"},{"id":"ca-sb-53","title":"Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (SB 53)","short_title":"SB 53 (Frontier AI Safety)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["transparency","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2025-09-29","last_verified_date":"2026-08-10","summary_plain":"The first US frontier-AI safety law in effect: the largest AI model developers must publish safety frameworks and transparency reports, report critical safety incidents to the state, and protect whistleblowers who raise catastrophic-risk concerns.","summary_technical":"TFAIA requires 'frontier developers' (training runs above 10^26 FLOPs; large developers with $500M+ revenue face fuller duties) to publish safety frameworks, report critical safety incidents to Cal OES within 15 days (24 hours for imminent threats), and maintain whistleblower channels.","who_is_protected":"The public; employees and contractors of frontier AI developers (whistleblower protections)","who_must_comply":"Frontier AI developers meeting compute thresholds; enhanced obligations for large frontier developers ($500M+ annual revenue)","citation":"SB 53 (Stats. 2025)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB53","source_title":"California Legislative Information: SB 53 (2025–2026)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Attorney General; incident reporting to California Office of Emergency Services","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties up to $1,000,000 per violation"},{"id":"ca-ab-602-deepfake-porn","title":"California Civil Action for Sexually Explicit Digital Depictions (AB 602)","short_title":"AB 602 (Deepfake Intimate Images)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","ai-images","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-01-01","enacted_date":"2019-10-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"Californians depicted in sexually explicit deepfakes made or shared without their consent can sue the people responsible for damages, including statutory damages and attorney's fees. Criminal liability also exists under separate provisions (SB 926, 2024).","summary_technical":"Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.86 creates a private right of action against persons who create or intentionally disclose sexually explicit material the person knows or should know was unconsented digitization; Penal Code § 647(j)(4) as amended by SB 926 (2024) criminalizes AI-generated intimate imagery distribution.","who_is_protected":"Individuals depicted in nonconsensual sexually explicit digitized/deepfake material","who_must_comply":"Creators and intentional disclosers of such material","citation":"Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.86 (AB 602, 2019); Cal. Penal Code § 647(j)(4)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1708.86","source_title":"Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.86 (California Legislative Information)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Courts (civil actions); district attorneys (criminal provisions)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Economic/noneconomic damages or statutory damages ($1,500–$30,000; up to $150,000 for malice), punitive damages, attorney's fees; criminal misdemeanor penalties under Penal Code"},{"id":"co-sb-24-205","title":"Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (SB 24-205) — REPEALED/REPLACED BEFORE TAKING EFFECT","short_title":"Colorado AI Act (repealed)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Colorado","state_abbr":"CO","topics":["automated-decisions","employment","housing-credit","insurance","healthcare","education","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"repealed","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2024-05-17","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"The first comprehensive US state AI law would have required developers and deployers of 'high-risk' AI systems to use reasonable care to prevent algorithmic discrimination in decisions about jobs, housing, lending, insurance, education, and healthcare. After repeated delays, it was repealed and replaced in May 2026 by a narrower transparency-focused law (SB 26-189) before it ever took effect.","summary_technical":"SB 24-205 (Ch. 198, Sess. Laws 2024; signed May 17, 2024), Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1701 et seq. — imposed duties of reasonable care on developers and deployers of 'high-risk AI systems' to prevent algorithmic discrimination, with risk-management programs, impact assessments, public transparency statements and consumer adverse-decision rights. Operative requirements were originally set for Feb. 1, 2026; SB 25B-004 (2025 Extraordinary Session, signed Aug. 28, 2025) extended them to June 30, 2026; SB 26-189 (signed May 14, 2026) then repealed and reenacted the part before those duties ever took effect. Enforcement had also been stayed Apr. 27, 2026 in xAI v. Weiser (D. Colo. No. 1:26-cv-01515).","who_is_protected":"Colorado consumers (under the now-repealed framework)","who_must_comply":"Developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems (under the now-repealed framework)","citation":"SB 24-205, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1701 et seq. (repealed/replaced 2026)","source_url":"https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-205","source_title":"Colorado General Assembly: SB24-205 Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Colorado Attorney General (exclusive)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Would have been enforced as unfair trade practices under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act"},{"id":"co-sb-26-189","title":"Colorado Automated Decision-Making Technology Law (SB 26-189, replacing the Colorado AI Act)","short_title":"SB 26-189 (Colorado ADMT Law)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Colorado","state_abbr":"CO","topics":["automated-decisions","employment","housing-credit","insurance","healthcare","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-05-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Colorado's replacement AI law focuses on transparency rather than broad anti-discrimination duties. Starting January 1, 2027, companies using automated decision-making technology to materially influence consequential decisions (employment, housing, lending, insurance, healthcare) must notify consumers before use and provide post-decision disclosures; developers must give deployers technical documentation.","summary_technical":"SB 26-189 (Ch. 131, 2026; Sen. Rodriguez & Coleman, Reps. Duran & Bacon) repeals and reenacts the SB 24-205 provisions as an Automated Decision-Making Technology (ADMT) framework. The act took effect on signature (May 14, 2026); substantive duties apply from Jan. 1, 2027: developers give deployers technical documentation (intended uses, training-data categories, known limitations, usage instructions) and notice of material updates; deployers give clear and conspicuous notice at the point of interaction and, within 30 days of an adverse outcome, a plain-language description of the ADMT's role; consumers may request their personal data, correction of factually incorrect data, and meaningful human review/reconsideration after an adverse decision; developers and deployers keep records 3 years. AG enforces via the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (deceptive trade practice), with a 60-day notice-and-cure requirement before Jan. 1, 2030; no new private right of action; allocates fault between developers and deployers in discrimination suits. AG must adopt post-adverse-outcome disclosure rules by Jan. 1, 2027. Votes: Senate 34-1 (May 7, 2026; repassed 34-1 May 12); House 57-6-2 (May 9, 2026).","who_is_protected":"Colorado consumers subject to consequential decisions made or materially influenced by ADMT","who_must_comply":"Developers and deployers of covered automated decision-making technology","citation":"SB 26-189 (Colo. 2026)","source_url":"https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb26-189","source_title":"Colorado General Assembly: SB26-189 Automated Decision-Making Technology","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Colorado Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Enforced under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (civil penalties)"},{"id":"il-bipa","title":"Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act","short_title":"BIPA","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Illinois","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["biometrics","privacy","facial-recognition","data-retention","employment"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2008-10-03","enacted_date":"2008-10-03","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"The strongest US biometric privacy law: companies must get written consent before collecting fingerprints, face scans, voiceprints, or other biometrics, publish retention/destruction policies, and cannot sell biometric data. Individuals can sue directly and recover $1,000–$5,000 per violation, which has produced major settlements against facial recognition and AI companies.","summary_technical":"740 ILCS 14 requires informed written consent (now including electronic signatures) before collection of biometric identifiers, retention schedules, and destruction within 3 years of last interaction; 2024 amendment (P.A. 103-0769) limits claims to a single accrual per person per collection method.","who_is_protected":"Individuals in Illinois (including employees)","who_must_comply":"Private entities collecting, storing, or using biometric identifiers or information","citation":"740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.","source_url":"https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/ILCS/Articles?ActID=3004&ChapterID=57","source_title":"Illinois General Assembly: 740 ILCS 14 Biometric Information Privacy Act","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Courts (private enforcement); no dedicated agency","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"$1,000 per negligent violation, $5,000 per intentional/reckless violation, plus fees and injunctive relief"},{"id":"il-ai-video-interview-act","title":"Illinois Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act","short_title":"AI Video Interview Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Illinois","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["employment","automated-decisions","transparency","facial-recognition"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-01-01","enacted_date":"2019-08-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"Employers using AI to analyze video interviews of Illinois job applicants must tell applicants beforehand, explain how the AI works, get consent, limit video sharing, and delete videos on request within 30 days. Employers relying solely on AI screening must report applicant demographic data to the state.","summary_technical":"820 ILCS 42 imposes notice, explanation, consent, sharing-limitation, and deletion duties for AI-analyzed video interviews; 2021 amendment requires race/ethnicity reporting when AI analysis is the sole basis for in-person interview selection.","who_is_protected":"Job applicants for Illinois-based positions","who_must_comply":"Employers using AI analysis of applicant-submitted video interviews","citation":"820 ILCS 42/1 et seq.","source_url":"https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/ILCS/Articles?ActID=4015&ChapterID=68","source_title":"Illinois General Assembly: 820 ILCS 42 Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Not specified in statute (no express enforcement mechanism)"},{"id":"il-hb-3773","title":"Illinois Human Rights Act Amendment on AI in Employment (HB 3773)","short_title":"HB 3773 (AI Employment Discrimination)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Illinois","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["employment","automated-decisions","transparency","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-08-09","last_verified_date":"2026-09-29","summary_plain":"Illinois employers may not use AI in ways that discriminate against protected classes in recruitment, hiring, promotion, discipline, discharge, or other employment terms, and may not use zip codes as a proxy for protected characteristics. Employers must notify workers and applicants when AI is used in employment decisions.","summary_technical":"P.A. 103-0804 amends the Illinois Human Rights Act (775 ILCS 5) effective Jan. 1, 2026 to prohibit discriminatory use of AI (including generative AI) in enumerated employment decisions and require notice; violations carry full IHRA remedies. A 2026 amendment (P.A. 104-0425/SB 2487, also eff. Jan. 1, 2026) added escalating civil penalties assessed by the Human Rights Commission.","who_is_protected":"Employees and job applicants in Illinois","who_must_comply":"Employers covered by the Illinois Human Rights Act","citation":"P.A. 103-0804, amending 775 ILCS 5; P.A. 104-0425 (SB 2487, 2026 civil penalty amendment)","source_url":"https://www.ilga.gov/ftp/legislation/103/BillStatus/HTML/10300HB3773.html","source_title":"Illinois General Assembly: Public Act 103-0804 (HB 3773)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Illinois Department of Human Rights; Illinois Human Rights Commission","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Actual damages, civil penalties (up to $16,000 first violation; up to $42,500 with one prior violation within 5 years; up to $70,000 with two+ prior violations within 7 years — separate penalty per violation and per aggrieved party), attorney's fees, and make-whole relief under the IHRA"},{"id":"ny-raise-act","title":"New York Responsible AI Safety and Education (RAISE) Act","short_title":"RAISE Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["transparency","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2025-12-19","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"New York's frontier AI safety law requires the largest AI developers to publish safety protocols and report serious safety incidents to the state within 72 hours. It creates a new AI oversight office and carries penalties up to $3 million for repeat violations, starting January 1, 2027.","summary_technical":"RAISE Act (S6953-B/A6453-B), signed Dec. 19, 2025 as Chapter 699, with chapter amendment S8828/A9449 signed Mar. 27, 2026 as Chapter 96; applies to frontier models (>10^26 training operations) and large frontier developers (>$500M annual revenue), requires published frontier AI frameworks, 72-hour critical safety incident reporting, and an oversight office within DFS; AG civil penalties up to $1M first / $3M subsequent violations; effective Jan. 1, 2027.","who_is_protected":"The public in New York","who_must_comply":"Large frontier AI model developers","citation":"RAISE Act, L. 2025, ch. 699 (S6953-B/A6453-B), as amended by L. 2026, ch. 96 (S8828/A9449); N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Art. 44-B","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S6953/amendment/B","source_title":"NY RAISE Act — official record (www.nysenate.gov)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New York Attorney General; NY Department of Financial Services, Office of Digital Innovation, Governance, Integrity and Trust (DIGIT)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Up to $1,000,000 for a first violation; up to $3,000,000 for subsequent violations"},{"id":"ny-ai-companion-safeguards","title":"New York AI Companion Models Safeguards Law (GBL Article 47)","short_title":"AI Companion Safeguards Law","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["consumer-protection","children","healthcare","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-11-05","enacted_date":"2025-05-09","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"The first state law regulating emotionally responsive 'AI companion' chatbots. Operators must clearly tell users they are talking to an AI (with reminders at least every three hours in ongoing sessions) and must detect signs of suicidal ideation or self-harm and refer users to crisis services.","summary_technical":"N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Art. 47 (§§ 1700–1704), enacted in the FY2026 budget and effective Nov. 5, 2025, imposes AI-disclosure and self-harm safety-protocol requirements on operators of AI companions available in New York.","who_is_protected":"New York users of AI companion chatbots, including vulnerable users and minors","who_must_comply":"Any person or entity operating an AI companion model in New York","citation":"N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 1700–1704","source_url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/GBS/1700","source_title":"NY Consolidated Laws, General Business Law Article 47 (Section 1700)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"New York Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties enforceable by the Attorney General (proceeds support suicide-prevention programs)"},{"id":"tx-hb-149-traiga","title":"Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA, HB 149)","short_title":"TRAIGA","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions","biometrics","public-sector","law-enforcement","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-01","enacted_date":"2025-06-22","last_verified_date":"2026-09-29","summary_plain":"Texas's AI law bans specific harmful uses of AI — intentional discrimination, behavioral manipulation encouraging self-harm or crime, social scoring by government, and certain biometric identification without consent — and requires government agencies to disclose AI interactions to consumers. It includes a regulatory sandbox and preempts local AI ordinances.","summary_technical":"HB 149 (89th Leg., signed June 22, 2025, effective Jan. 1, 2026) adopts an intent-based prohibition framework for AI developers/deployers in Texas, with AG-exclusive enforcement, a 60-day cure period, a DIR-run sandbox, and an AI advisory council.","who_is_protected":"Texas residents and consumers interacting with AI systems","who_must_comply":"Developers and deployers of AI systems operating in Texas; state agencies (disclosure duties)","citation":"Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ch. 552; Tex. HB 149 (89th Leg., R.S., 2025), TRAIGA","source_url":"https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HB149","source_title":"Texas Legislature Online: HB 149 (89R)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Texas Attorney General (exclusive); state agencies may impose licensing sanctions","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties roughly $10,000–$12,000 per curable violation up to $80,000–$200,000 per uncurable violation, plus up to $40,000/day for continuing violations"},{"id":"tx-tdpsa","title":"Texas Data Privacy and Security Act (TDPSA)","short_title":"TDPSA","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["privacy","data-retention","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2023-06-18","last_verified_date":"2026-07-21","summary_plain":"Texans can access, correct, delete, and obtain copies of personal data held by covered businesses, and can opt out of targeted advertising, data sales, and profiling used for decisions with significant effects (like jobs, housing, or credit). Businesses must get consent for sensitive data, including biometrics.","summary_technical":"Tex. Bus. & Com. Code ch. 541 grants consumer rights including opt-out of 'profiling in furtherance of a decision that produces a legal or similarly significant effect,' with AG-exclusive enforcement and a 30-day cure period.","who_is_protected":"Texas residents acting in an individual (non-employment) context","who_must_comply":"Businesses processing personal data in Texas above small-business thresholds (except small businesses, with limited exceptions)","citation":"Tex. Bus. & Com. Code ch. 541 (HB 4, 2023)","source_url":"https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&Bill=HB4","source_title":"Texas Legislature Online: HB 4 (88R) — Texas Data Privacy and Security Act","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Texas Attorney General (exclusive)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Up to $7,500 per violation"},{"id":"ut-sb-149-aipa","title":"Utah Artificial Intelligence Policy Act (SB 149, as amended 2025)","short_title":"Utah AI Policy Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["consumer-protection","transparency","healthcare"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-05-01","enacted_date":"2024-03-13","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"SB 149 (2024 Gen. Sess.; signed Mar. 13, 2024; eff. May 1, 2024) enacted Utah Code Title 13, Ch. 72, Artificial Intelligence Policy Act (Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy, AI Learning Laboratory, regulatory mitigation agreements) and the GenAI disclosure/liability provision at § 13-2-12. In 2025, SB 226 (eff. May 7, 2025) repealed § 13-2-12 and re-enacted narrower disclosure rules in a new chapter (disclosure on a clear consumer request and for 'high-risk' interactions in regulated occupations; safe harbor when the AI discloses itself), and SB 332 (eff. May 7, 2025) moved the Act's repeal date to July 1, 2027. Current Utah Code § 63I-2-213(2): 'Title 13, Chapter 72, Artificial Intelligence Policy Act, is repealed July 1, 2027.' Enforcement is by the Division of Consumer Protection only: administrative fines up to $2,500 per violation, division court actions, and civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation of an administrative or court order (AG may bring on the division's behalf). No private right of action.","who_is_protected":"Utah consumers interacting with generative AI","who_must_comply":"Businesses using generative AI in consumer transactions; persons in regulated occupations using GenAI","citation":"Utah Code § 13-72-101 et seq. (SB 149, 2024; amended 2025)","source_url":"https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/static/SB0149.html","source_title":"Utah State Legislature: SB 149 Artificial Intelligence Amendments (2024)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Utah Division of Consumer Protection; Utah Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Administrative fines up to $2,500 per violation; up to $5,000 per violation for breach of division orders"},{"id":"ut-hb-452-mental-health-chatbots","title":"Utah HB 452: Mental Health Chatbot Protections","short_title":"HB 452 (Mental Health Chatbots)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["healthcare","consumer-protection","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-05-07","enacted_date":"2025-03-25","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Utah regulates AI chatbots that act like therapists: suppliers must clearly disclose the chatbot is not human, may not advertise products mid-conversation without disclosure, and may not sell or share users' individually identifiable health information.","summary_technical":"Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 72a (HB 452, 2025, eff. May 7, 2025) imposes disclosure, advertising-restriction, and health-data protections on suppliers of 'mental health chatbots' using generative AI, enforced by the Division of Consumer Protection, with an affirmative defense (Utah Code 58-60-118) for suppliers that file best-practice policies.","who_is_protected":"Utah users of mental health chatbots","who_must_comply":"Suppliers of mental health chatbots operating in Utah","citation":"Utah Code § 13-72a-101 et seq.; § 58-60-118 (HB 452, 2025)","source_url":"https://le.utah.gov/~2025/bills/static/HB0452.html","source_title":"Utah State Legislature: H.B. 452 Artificial Intelligence Amendments (2025)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Utah Division of Consumer Protection","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Administrative fines up to $2,500 per violation; in a court action, fines up to $2,500 per violation, injunctive relief and disgorgement; civil penalty up to $5,000 per violation of an administrative or court order"},{"id":"tn-elvis-act","title":"Tennessee Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security (ELVIS) Act","short_title":"ELVIS Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Tennessee","state_abbr":"TN","topics":["deepfakes","ai-images","copyright","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-03-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"The first US law protecting voices from AI cloning: Tennessee added 'voice' to its right-of-publicity law, so using AI to mimic someone's voice or likeness without permission is both a civil violation and a crime. It also allows lawsuits against those who distribute tools whose primary purpose is producing unauthorized voice or likeness replicas.","summary_technical":"Amends the Tennessee Personal Rights Protection Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101 et seq.) to cover voice (actual or simulated), adds liability for distributing technologies whose primary purpose is unauthorized replication, effective July 1, 2024.","who_is_protected":"All individuals (notably musicians and performers) whose voice, image, or likeness is used","who_must_comply":"Anyone making unauthorized commercial or replicative use of a person's voice/likeness, including AI tool distributors","citation":"Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-25-1101 to -1108 (ELVIS Act, 2024)","source_url":"https://www.tn.gov/governor/news/2024/1/10/tennessee-first-in-the-nation-to-address-ai-impact-on-music-industry.html","source_title":"Tennessee Governor's Office: ELVIS Act announcement","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Courts (civil actions); district attorneys (criminal)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil damages and injunctive relief; Class A misdemeanor criminal liability"},{"id":"fl-hb-919-election-ai-disclosure","title":"Florida CS/HB 919: AI Use in Political Advertising","short_title":"HB 919 (AI Political Ad Disclaimers)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Florida","state_abbr":"FL","topics":["elections","deepfakes","ai-images","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-04-29","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Florida political ads that use generative AI to depict a real person doing something they never did — with intent to injure a candidate or deceive voters — must carry a clear disclaimer that the content was created with generative AI. Failing to include the disclaimer is a first-degree misdemeanor.","summary_technical":"CS/HB 919 (Ch. 2024-126, Laws of Fla.; presented to Governor Apr. 26, 2024; approved Apr. 29, 2024; eff. July 1, 2024) creates Fla. Stat. § 106.145: a political advertisement, electioneering communication, or other miscellaneous advertisement of a political nature containing content created in whole or in part with generative AI that appears to depict a real person performing an action that did not actually occur, and was created with intent to injure a candidate or to deceive regarding a ballot issue, must prominently state \"Created in whole or in part with the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI).\" Format rules for print (bold, >= 12 pt), TV/video (>= 4% of vertical picture height), graphic and internet communications. Failure is a first-degree misdemeanor for the person identified as paying for, sponsoring or approving the ad, in addition to civil penalties; any person may file a complaint with the Florida Elections Commission, with expedited hearings.","who_is_protected":"Florida voters and candidates","who_must_comply":"Persons paying for, sponsoring, or approving covered political advertisements","citation":"Fla. Stat. § 106.145 (CS/HB 919, Ch. 2024-126, Laws of Fla.)","source_url":"https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/919","source_title":"Florida Senate — CS/HB 919 (2024), Ch. 2024-126","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Florida Elections Commission; criminal prosecution","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"First-degree misdemeanor for missing disclaimer; civil penalties via Elections Commission"},{"id":"fl-sb-484-data-centers","title":"Florida SB 484 (2026): Data Center Utility Cost Protections","short_title":"SB 484 (FL Data Center Costs)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Florida","state_abbr":"FL","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-05-07","last_verified_date":"2026-07-07","summary_plain":"One of the first state laws regulating AI data centers' utility impact: large data centers must bear their own electricity infrastructure costs rather than shifting them to households and small businesses, local governments keep their authority to reject data center projects, and Florida's water resources get new protections. Takes effect July 1, 2026.","summary_technical":"CS/CS/SB 484 (Ch. 2026-65, Laws of Fla.; signed May 7, 2026) prohibits utilities from passing large data-center service costs (including electricity costs) to residential and small-business customers, preserves local-government authority over data center siting, and adds water-resource protections; effective July 1, 2026 except as otherwise provided.","who_is_protected":"Florida residential and small-business ratepayers; local governments' zoning powers","who_must_comply":"Electric utilities and large data center customers in Florida","citation":"Fla. Ch. 2026-65 (SB 484, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2026/484/BillText/c2/HTML","source_title":"Florida SB 484 (2026) — Enrolled/Chaptered Text, Chapter 2026-65 (Florida Senate)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Florida Public Service Commission","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"wa-my-health-my-data","title":"Washington My Health My Data Act","short_title":"My Health My Data Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Washington","state_abbr":"WA","topics":["privacy","healthcare","biometrics","consumer-protection","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-03-31","enacted_date":"2023-04-27","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"A sweeping health-data privacy law covering 'consumer health data' far beyond HIPAA — including biometric data, health inferences drawn by algorithms, and reproductive health information. Companies need consent to collect or share such data, must honor deletion requests, and cannot geofence health facilities. Consumers can sue under Washington's Consumer Protection Act.","summary_technical":"Chapter 19.373 RCW (HB 1155): consent requirements for collection/sharing, valid authorization for sale, deletion rights, geofencing ban around health services, and a private right of action via the WA CPA; effective Mar. 31, 2024 (small businesses June 30, 2024).","who_is_protected":"Washington consumers and individuals whose health data is collected in Washington","who_must_comply":"Regulated entities doing business in Washington that collect consumer health data (includes AI-derived health inferences)","citation":"RCW ch. 19.373","source_url":"https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.373&full=true","source_title":"Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 19.373 RCW: My Health My Data Act","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Washington Attorney General; courts (private CPA actions)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"CPA remedies: actual damages (trebled up to $25,000), injunctive relief, attorney's fees; AG civil penalties"},{"id":"wa-sb-5152-election-synthetic-media","title":"Washington Synthetic Media in Election Ads Law (SB 5152)","short_title":"SB 5152 (Election Synthetic Media)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Washington","state_abbr":"WA","topics":["elections","deepfakes","ai-images","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-07-23","enacted_date":"2023-05-04","last_verified_date":"2026-06-10","summary_plain":"Election ads in Washington that use AI-manipulated or synthetic depictions of candidates must disclose it. Candidates harmed by undisclosed synthetic media can sue for damages and injunctive relief.","summary_technical":"Ch. 42.62 RCW (SB 5152, 2023) requires disclosure when electioneering communications contain synthetic media; provides a civil cause of action for candidates depicted without disclosure.","who_is_protected":"Washington voters and candidates","who_must_comply":"Sponsors of electioneering communications using synthetic media","citation":"RCW ch. 42.62 (SB 5152, 2023)","source_url":"https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.62","source_title":"Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 42.62 RCW: Synthetic media in campaigns","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Courts (candidate civil actions); Public Disclosure Commission context","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Damages and injunctive relief in civil actions"},{"id":"ct-sb-5-cart-act","title":"Connecticut AI Responsibility and Transparency Act (SB 5, Public Act 26-15)","short_title":"CT SB 5 (2026 AI Act)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Connecticut","state_abbr":"CT","topics":["automated-decisions","employment","consumer-protection","children","transparency","healthcare","deepfakes"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-10-01","enacted_date":"2026-05-27","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"After years of failed attempts, Connecticut enacted a comprehensive AI law in 2026 (Public Act 26-15, signed May 27, 2026). Starting October 1, 2026, employers filing federal layoff (WARN) notices must tell the state whether the layoffs relate to AI, and state anti-discrimination law makes clear that using automated hiring or employment-decision technology is no defense to a discrimination complaint. Strict AI companion-chatbot rules, especially for children, start January 1, 2027. Duties on developers and employers that use automated employment-decision technology apply to tools deployed on or after October 1, 2027.","summary_technical":"SB 5 (2026 Gen. Sess.), Public Act 26-15, approved May 27, 2026; phased effective dates (a few administrative sections from passage and July 1, 2026; main provisions Oct. 1, 2026 through Jan. 1, 2028); violations of the employment-decision-technology sections are CUTPA unfair/deceptive practices enforced solely by the AG, with a 60-day cure notice for violations through Dec. 31, 2027, and no private right of action.","who_is_protected":"Connecticut consumers, employees, job applicants, and minors using AI chatbots","who_must_comply":"Employers using automated employment-decision technology; AI companion chatbot operators; developers/deployers of covered AI systems in Connecticut","citation":"Conn. Public Act 26-15 (SB 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.cga.ct.gov/2026/act/pa/pdf/2026PA-00015-R00SB-00005-PA.pdf","source_title":"Public Act 26-15 (SB 5, 2026 Session) — Official PDF, Connecticut General Assembly","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Connecticut Attorney General (CUTPA); Connecticut Department of Labor (WARN-related provisions)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"CUTPA remedies and civil penalties; 60-day cure period available through end of 2027"},{"id":"ga-sb-540-chatbot-child-safety","title":"Georgia AI Chatbot Disclosure and Child Safety Act (SB 540)","short_title":"SB 540 (GA Chatbot Safety)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Georgia","state_abbr":"GA","topics":["children","consumer-protection","transparency"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2027-07-01","enacted_date":"2026-05-15","last_verified_date":"2026-09-24","summary_plain":"Georgia — the first Republican-led state to do so — enacted a chatbot safety law. Operators must tell users they're talking to AI, verify ages, give parents controls, and follow crisis protocols (like referring to the 988 lifeline) when users express suicidal thoughts. Chatbots talking to minors can't claim to be sentient, produce sexual content, simulate romance, encourage secrets from adults, or fake distress when a child ends the chat. No carve-out for chatbots inside big platforms. Effective July 1, 2027.","summary_technical":"SB 540 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.; signed May 2026; effective July 1, 2027) requires chatbot operators to disclose AI interactions, verify user age, provide parental controls, implement severe-harm detection protocols with crisis-resource referral (988), and prohibits companion chatbots interacting with minors from claiming sentience, generating sexually explicit content, simulating romantic relationships, fostering isolation, or simulating distress at conversation end; AG-enforced civil penalties up to $10,000 per knowing violation.","who_is_protected":"Georgia chatbot users, especially minors","who_must_comply":"AI chatbot operators, including chatbots embedded in major platforms (no big-tech exemption)","citation":"Ga. SB 540 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.), signed May 15, 2026; effective July 1, 2027","source_url":"https://gov.georgia.gov/document/2026-signed-legislation/sb-540/download","source_title":"Georgia SB 540 — Official Signed Legislation (Governor's Office, 2026)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Georgia Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties up to $10,000 per knowing violation"},{"id":"ga-sb-444-ai-insurance-decisions","title":"Georgia SB 444: No Insurance Coverage Denials Based Solely on AI","short_title":"SB 444 (GA AI Insurance Review)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Georgia","state_abbr":"GA","topics":["insurance","healthcare","automated-decisions"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-05-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-24","summary_plain":"Health insurers in Georgia can't let AI alone decide your coverage. Decisions about insurance coverage for healthcare services cannot be based solely on AI systems or software tools — a qualified human reviewer must be part of every coverage determination, especially before denying treatment. Effective January 1, 2027.","summary_technical":"SB 444 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.; signed May 2026; effective Jan. 1, 2027) amends Georgia's private review agent provisions to prohibit insurance coverage determinations for healthcare services from being based solely on artificial intelligence systems or software tools, requiring qualified human review in the decision process.","who_is_protected":"Georgia health-insurance policyholders and patients","who_must_comply":"Health insurers and private review agents operating in Georgia","citation":"Ga. SB 444 (2026), sponsored by Sen. Kay Kirkpatrick","source_url":"https://legiscan.com/GA/text/SB444/id/3405337","source_title":"Georgia SB444 | 2025-2026 | Regular Session — LegiScan","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Georgia Office of Commissioner of Insurance and Safety Fire","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"wa-ssb-5886-digital-likeness","title":"Washington SSB 5886: Protecting Forged Digital Likenesses (AI Deepfakes)","short_title":"SSB 5886 (WA Digital Likeness Rights)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Washington","state_abbr":"WA","topics":["deepfakes","copyright","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-11","enacted_date":"2026-03-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-24","summary_plain":"Washington updated its personality-rights law so that AI-generated audio or video that realistically mimics someone's face or voice without consent — called a 'forged digital likeness' — is now a civil violation. Victims can seek court injunctions to stop the misuse, and the civil penalty for each infringement is $3,000 plus any actual damages they can prove. The law became effective June 11, 2026.","summary_technical":"SSB 5886 (2025-26 Reg. Sess.; signed Mar. 16, 2026; effective June 11, 2026) amends ch. 63.60 RCW (Washington's personality rights statute) to add 'forged digital likeness' — AI-generated audio or video realistically depicting an individual's appearance, voice, signature, or actions without consent — as a protected attribute alongside name, voice, and photograph. Civil remedy: courts may issue injunctions; civil penalty increased to $3,000 per infringement, plus actual damages available.","who_is_protected":"Washington residents and public figures whose voice or likeness may be replicated in AI-generated deepfakes without consent","who_must_comply":"Anyone who creates, uses, or distributes forged digital likenesses of real people without consent in Washington","citation":"Wash. SSB 5886, Ch. 69, 2026 Laws; RCW ch. 63.60 (amending personality rights statute)","source_url":"https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2026/2026-04-06-washington-state-expands-personality-rights-law-to-cover-ai-generated-deepfakes","source_title":"Washington State Expands Personality Rights Law to Cover AI-Generated Deepfakes — Cooley LLP","source_type":"secondary-legal","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Washington courts (civil action by the person depicted)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"$3,000 civil penalty per infringement plus actual damages; injunctive relief available"},{"id":"wa-hb-2225-chatbot-safety","title":"Washington AI Companion Chatbot Act (HB 2225)","short_title":"HB 2225 (WA Chatbot Safety)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Washington","state_abbr":"WA","topics":["children","consumer-protection","transparency","healthcare"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-03-24","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Washington requires AI companion chatbots to clearly tell users they are talking to an AI, not a person — at the start of a conversation and at least every three hours (every hour for known minors or bots aimed at minors). Operators must have crisis protocols that refer users expressing suicidal thoughts or self-harm to a suicide hotline or crisis text line, and must shield minors from sexual content and manipulative engagement tactics. Violations are unfair or deceptive practices under Washington's Consumer Protection Act, so consumers can sue and the Attorney General can enforce. Effective January 1, 2027.","summary_technical":"ESHB 2225 (2026 Reg. Sess.; requested by Gov. Ferguson; passed Senate Mar. 6 and House Mar. 11, 2026; signed Mar. 24, 2026; Ch. 168, 2026 Laws; effective Jan. 1, 2027; new chapter in Title 19 RCW). 'AI companion chatbot' = AI system with a natural-language interface giving adaptive, human-like responses that can sustain a relationship across multiple interactions; excludes business/operational/customer-service bots that don't sustain a relationship or elicit emotional responses, limited video-game bots, stand-alone voice assistants, and narrowly tailored curriculum-aligned educational tools. Sec. 3: clear and conspicuous AI disclosure at the start of the interaction and at least every three hours; reasonable measures to stop the bot claiming to be human. Sec. 4 (operator knows the user is a minor, or the chatbot is directed to minors): AI notification at start and at least every hour; reasonable measures against sexually explicit content or suggestive dialogue; ban on manipulative engagement techniques (prompting return for emotional support, excessive praise, romantic bonding, simulated distress when the user tries to leave or delete an account, promoting isolation or dependence, encouraging secrecy from parents, discouraging breaks, soliciting purchases to maintain the relationship). Sec. 5: suicidal-ideation/self-harm protocol (incl. eating disorders) with referrals to crisis resources; operators must publicly disclose protocol details and the number of crisis referrals issued in the preceding calendar year. Sec. 6: violations are per se unfair or deceptive acts under the Consumer Protection Act, ch. 19.86 RCW (enforceable by the AG and by private CPA actions).","who_is_protected":"Washington consumers using AI companion chatbots; minors receive heightened protections","who_must_comply":"Operators of AI companion chatbots available to Washington users (with exclusions for business, gaming, and general assistant bots)","citation":"Wash. ESHB 2225, Ch. 168, Laws of 2026 (new chapter in Title 19 RCW); enforced via ch. 19.86 RCW","source_url":"https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2225&Year=2026&Initiative=false","source_title":"Washington State Legislature — HB 2225 bill summary (C 168 L 26)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Washington courts (private Consumer Protection Act actions); Washington Attorney General","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Actual damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees in private CPA actions; AG civil enforcement authority"},{"id":"wa-hb-1170-ai-content-disclosure","title":"Washington AI Content Provenance and Disclosure Act (E2SHB 1170)","short_title":"HB 1170 (WA AI Content Disclosure)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Washington","state_abbr":"WA","topics":["transparency","ai-images","deepfakes","consumer-protection"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2027-02-01","enacted_date":"2026-03-24","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"Large AI image, video, and audio generators must embed hard-to-remove provenance data — watermarks or tamper-resistant metadata — in the synthetic content they create, where commercially and technically reasonable. This lets journalists, courts, and the public identify AI-generated media. Applies to generative AI services with over 1 million monthly users that are available to Washington consumers. Enforced only by the Washington Attorney General under the Consumer Protection Act. Effective February 1, 2027.","summary_technical":"E2SHB 1170 (2025-26 Reg. Sess.; Laws of 2026, ch. 167; signed Mar. 24, 2026; effective Feb. 1, 2027) requires covered providers — entities that create or produce a generative AI system with over 1,000,000 monthly users that is publicly accessible to consumers in Washington — to include, to the extent commercially and technically reasonable, provenance data (e.g., watermarking or metadata such as the C2PA standard, made difficult to remove or tamper with) in AI-generated or materially altered images, video, and audio; excludes business-to-business uses and video games; enforced solely by the Attorney General under the Consumer Protection Act. No private right of action.","who_is_protected":"Washington consumers and the public exposed to AI-generated synthetic media","who_must_comply":"Covered providers: entities creating generative AI systems with 1M+ monthly users accessible in Washington","citation":"Wash. E2SHB 1170 (2026); Ch. 167, 2026 Laws","source_url":"https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1170&Year=2025&Initiative=false","source_title":"Washington State Legislature — HB 1170 Bill Summary (Chapter 167, 2026 Laws)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Washington Attorney General (Consumer Protection Act)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Consumer Protection Act enforcement remedies"},{"id":"ca-sb-1120-physicians-make-decisions","title":"California SB 1120: Physicians Make Decisions Act — No AI-Only Healthcare Denials","short_title":"SB 1120 (CA Physicians Make Decisions Act)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["insurance","healthcare","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-01-01","enacted_date":"2024-09-28","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"California was the first U.S. state to directly prohibit health insurance plans from using AI to deny, delay, or modify care. Under SB 1120, when a plan uses AI or algorithms in utilization review, a licensed physician or other qualified clinician — not an AI system — must make every medical-necessity determination. AI tools can assist in data analysis, but the final coverage decision must come from a licensed human. Insurers must disclose AI use and make their algorithms available for regulatory audits. Signed September 28, 2024; effective January 1, 2025.","summary_technical":"SB 1120 (Becker; 2023–2024 Reg. Sess.; Ch. 879, Stats. 2024; approved and chaptered Sept. 28, 2024; non-urgency, operative Jan. 1, 2025) amends Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1367.01 and Cal. Ins. Code § 10123.135. Health care service plans and disability insurers that use an AI, algorithm or other software tool for utilization review must ensure the tool bases determinations on the enrollee's medical or other clinical history and individual clinical circumstances, does not base its determination solely on a group dataset, does not supplant health care provider decision-making, does not discriminate, is fairly and equitably applied, is open to inspection for audit or compliance reviews by the regulator, is disclosed in written policies and procedures, is periodically reviewed and revised, does not use patient data beyond its intended and stated purpose, and does not directly or indirectly cause harm to the enrollee. The tool shall not deny, delay or modify health care services based on medical necessity — only a licensed physician or competent health care professional may make those determinations. DMHC and CDI administer.","who_is_protected":"California health insurance enrollees and patients subject to utilization review and prior-authorization decisions","who_must_comply":"Health care service plans and disability insurers (and specialized plans and specialized health insurers) operating in California that use AI in utilization review","citation":"Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1367.01; Cal. Ins. Code § 10123.135 (SB 1120, Stats. 2024, ch. 879)","source_url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1120","source_title":"California Legislative Information — SB 1120 (2024), Ch. 879","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"California Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC); California Department of Insurance (CDI)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Administrative penalties under DMHC and CDI enforcement authority for failure to meet UR timeframes or improper AI use"},{"id":"al-executiveorder-executive-order-no-738-alabama-generative-artificial-intelli-2024","title":"Alabama — Executive Order No. 738 - Alabama Generative Artificial Intelligence Task Force","short_title":"Executive Order No. 738 - Alabama Generative Artificial Inte","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Alabama","state_abbr":"AL","topics":["public-sector","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-02-28","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Governor Kay Ivey created a Generative AI Task Force to study current GenAI use in executive-branch agencies and recommend policies for responsible and effective adoption within a governance structure ensuring transparency, bias testing, and privacy.","summary_technical":"Governor Kay Ivey created a Generative AI Task Force to study current GenAI use in executive-branch agencies and recommend policies for responsible and effective adoption within a governance structure ensuring transparency, bias testing, and privacy.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Alabama executive-branch state agencies and their workforce","citation":"Executive Order No. 738 - Alabama Generative Artificial Intelligence Task Force","source_url":"https://aitaskforce.alabama.gov/about/executive-order-no-738/","source_title":"Executive Order - State of Alabama Generative AI Task Force (aitaskforce.alabama.gov)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"al-agencyguidance-alabama-generative-ai-acceptable-use-policy-ai-gv-p2-2025","title":"Alabama — Alabama Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy (AI-GV-P2)","short_title":"Alabama Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy (AI-GV-P2)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Alabama","state_abbr":"AL","topics":["public-sector","transparency","privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-31","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Alabama's Office of Information Technology issued a NIST AI RMF-based acceptable-use policy requiring human review of GenAI output, annotation of AI-generated code/output, prohibition of confidential-data inputs, and OIT authorization before contractors use GenAI in state systems.","summary_technical":"Alabama's Office of Information Technology issued a NIST AI RMF-based acceptable-use policy requiring human review of GenAI output, annotation of AI-generated code/output, prohibition of confidential-data inputs, and OIT authorization before contractors use GenAI in state systems.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"All Alabama state employees, contractors, and other users of State information systems, plus vendors implementing GenAI on behalf of the State","citation":"Alabama Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy (AI-GV-P2)","source_url":"https://oit.alabama.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Alabama-Generative-AI-Acceptable-Use-Policy.pdf","source_title":"Alabama Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy AI-GV-P2 (Office of Information Technology)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ak-agencyguidance-new-ai-features-for-state-of-alaska-employees-oit-guidance-2025","title":"Alaska — New AI Features for State of Alaska Employees - OIT Guidance","short_title":"New AI Features for State of Alaska Employees - OIT Guidance","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Alaska","state_abbr":"AK","topics":["public-sector","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-06-18","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Alaska's Office of Information Technology issued guidance for state employees using Microsoft 365 Copilot and Teams AI features, requiring them to review AI-generated content for accuracy and privacy, follow the ISP-172 acceptable-use policy, and recognize that Copilot-generated records may be subject to disclosure.","summary_technical":"Alaska's Office of Information Technology issued guidance for state employees using Microsoft 365 Copilot and Teams AI features, requiring them to review AI-generated content for accuracy and privacy, follow the ISP-172 acceptable-use policy, and recognize that Copilot-generated records may be subject to disclosure.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"All State of Alaska employees using state-provisioned AI tools","citation":"New AI Features for State of Alaska Employees - OIT Guidance","source_url":"https://oit.alaska.gov/home/news-service-announcements/new-ai-features-for-state-of-alaska-employees/","source_title":"New AI Features for State of Alaska Employees (Office of Information Technology, State of Alaska)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"az-agencyguidance-state-of-arizona-statewide-policy-p2000-generative-ai-policy-2024","title":"Arizona — State of Arizona Statewide Policy P2000 - Generative AI Policy","short_title":"State of Arizona Statewide Policy P2000 - Generative AI Poli","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arizona","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["public-sector","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-03-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Arizona Department of Administration issued statewide policy P2000 governing responsible generative-AI use, requiring careful review of AI output, prohibiting feeding proprietary or sensitive information to public models, and emphasizing data governance, transparency, security, and privacy.","summary_technical":"The Arizona Department of Administration issued statewide policy P2000 governing responsible generative-AI use, requiring careful review of AI output, prohibiting feeding proprietary or sensitive information to public models, and emphasizing data governance, transparency, security, and privacy.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Arizona state agencies and their employees using generative AI","citation":"State of Arizona Statewide Policy P2000 - Generative AI Policy","source_url":"https://aset.az.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/P2000%20-%20Generative%20AI%20Policy.pdf","source_title":"Arizona Department of Administration Statewide Policy P2000 - Generative AI Policy (ASET)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"az-agaction-attorney-general-mayes-announces-investigation-into-x-s-ai-c-2026","title":"Arizona — Attorney General Mayes Announces Investigation into X's AI Chatbot (Grok)","short_title":"Attorney General Mayes Announces Investigation into X's AI C","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arizona","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["public-sector","law-enforcement","biometrics"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-15","last_verified_date":"2026-08-25","summary_plain":"Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes opened an investigation into whether X's Grok AI chatbot violated Arizona law after reports it was used to generate and distribute harmful content, including child sexual abuse imagery and non-consensual exploitative images.","summary_technical":"Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes opened an investigation into whether X's Grok AI chatbot violated Arizona law after reports it was used to generate and distribute harmful content, including child sexual abuse imagery and non-consensual exploitative images.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"X (operator of the Grok AI chatbot) and, by extension, technology companies whose AI products are used to cause real-world harm in Arizona","citation":"Attorney General Mayes Announces Investigation into X's AI Chatbot (Grok)","source_url":"https://www.azag.gov/press-release/attorney-general-mayes-announces-investigation-xs-ai-chatbot","source_title":"Attorney General Mayes Announces Investigation into X's AI Chatbot (Arizona Attorney General's Office)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ar-agencyguidance-initial-report-arkansas-artificial-intelligence-and-analytic-2025","title":"Arkansas — Initial Report - Arkansas Artificial Intelligence and Analytics Center of Excellence","short_title":"Initial Report - Arkansas Artificial Intelligence and Analyt","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Arkansas","state_abbr":"AR","topics":["public-sector","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-02-07","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Arkansas AI and Analytics Center of Excellence (Department of Shared Administrative Services) delivered the governor an initial report recommending statewide AI governance, a Chief AI Officer, NIST-based evaluation of AI systems, updated procurement policies to safeguard citizen data, and AI-literacy training for state employees.","summary_technical":"The Arkansas AI and Analytics Center of Excellence (Department of Shared Administrative Services) delivered the governor an initial report recommending statewide AI governance, a Chief AI Officer, NIST-based evaluation of AI systems, updated procurement policies to safeguard citizen data, and AI-literacy training for state employees.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Arkansas state government agencies (recommendations for statewide adoption, not yet operative)","citation":"Initial Report - Arkansas Artificial Intelligence and Analytics Center of Excellence","source_url":"https://governor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/AI-CoE-Initial-Report.pdf","source_title":"Initial Report - Arkansas Artificial Intelligence and Analytics Center of Excellence (governor.arkansas.gov)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ca-executiveorder-executive-order-n-5-26-trusted-ai-procurement-2026","title":"California — Executive Order N-5-26 - Trusted AI Procurement","short_title":"Executive Order N-5-26 - Trusted AI Procurement","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","biometrics","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-03-30","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"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.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"California state agencies and departments, and vendors seeking to contract with or sell AI to the State","citation":"Executive Order N-5-26 - Trusted AI Procurement","source_url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/3.30-FINAL-Trusted-AI-Procurement-EO-N-5-26.pdf","source_title":"Executive Order N-5-26 (Governor Gavin Newsom, State of California)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ca-agencyguidance-california-genai-procurement-guidelines-and-toolkit-2024","title":"California — California GenAI Procurement Guidelines and Toolkit","short_title":"California GenAI Procurement Guidelines and Toolkit","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["public-sector","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-03-21","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"California's Government Operations Agency and Department of Technology issued procurement guidelines and a toolkit requiring state entities to complete a SIMM 5305-F GenAI risk assessment, use written solicitations with a GenAI Disclosure & Fact Sheet, engage the CIO/AIO, and report GenAI contracts before procuring generative AI.","summary_technical":"California's Government Operations Agency and Department of Technology issued procurement guidelines and a toolkit requiring state entities to complete a SIMM 5305-F GenAI risk assessment, use written solicitations with a GenAI Disclosure & Fact Sheet, engage the CIO/AIO, and report GenAI contracts before procuring generative AI.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"All California state agencies and departments considering or procuring generative AI, and their bidders/vendors","citation":"California GenAI Procurement Guidelines and Toolkit","source_url":"https://www.cdt.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/3a-GenAI-Guidelines.pdf","source_title":"State of California GenAI Guidelines for Public Sector Procurement (California Department of Technology / GovOps)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ca-agaction-attorney-general-bonta-legal-advisories-on-the-application-o-2025","title":"California — Attorney General Bonta Legal Advisories on the Application of California Law to AI","short_title":"Attorney General Bonta Legal Advisories on the Application o","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","privacy","transparency","employment"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-13","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"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.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Businesses, healthcare entities, and any organization that develops, sells, or uses AI systems in California","citation":"Attorney General Bonta Legal Advisories on the Application of California Law to AI","source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-issues-legal-advisories-application-california-law-ai","source_title":"Attorney General Bonta Issues Legal Advisories on the Application of California Law to AI (California DOJ)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"id-agencyguidance-artificial-intelligence-ai-governance-policy-standard-and-gu-2025","title":"Idaho — Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance Policy, Standard, and Guideline","short_title":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance Policy, Standard, an","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Idaho","state_abbr":"ID","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Idaho ITS's enterprise AI governance policy establishes a risk-classification framework, oversight responsibilities, and implementation requirements for AI use across state agencies and departments.","summary_technical":"Idaho ITS's enterprise AI governance policy establishes a risk-classification framework, oversight responsibilities, and implementation requirements for AI use across state agencies and departments.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"State of Idaho executive-branch agencies and departments using or developing AI systems","citation":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance Policy, Standard, and Guideline","source_url":"https://its.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/AI-PSG_FINALAug2025.pdf","source_title":"Idaho Information Technology Services - AI Governance Policy, Standard, and Guideline (Version 1.0)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"id-agaction-attorney-general-labrador-joins-bipartisan-coalition-urging--2025","title":"Idaho — Attorney General Labrador Joins Bipartisan Coalition Urging Tech Companies to Stop the Spread of Deepfake Nonconsensual Intimate Imagery","short_title":"Attorney General Labrador Joins Bipartisan Coalition Urging ","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Idaho","state_abbr":"ID","topics":["public-sector","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-08","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Idaho Attorney General joined a 47-state coalition demanding that search engines and payment platforms adopt safeguards to curb AI-generated deepfake nonconsensual intimate imagery.","summary_technical":"The Idaho Attorney General joined a 47-state coalition demanding that search engines and payment platforms adopt safeguards to curb AI-generated deepfake nonconsensual intimate imagery.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Search engines and online payment platforms hosting or monetizing AI-generated deepfake NCII","citation":"Attorney General Labrador Joins Bipartisan Coalition Urging Tech Companies to Stop the Spread of Deepfake Nonconsensual Intimate Imagery","source_url":"https://www.ag.idaho.gov/newsroom/attorney-general-labrador-joins-bipartisan-coalition-urging-tech-companies-to-stop-the-spread-of-deepfake-nonconsensual-intimate-imagery/","source_title":"Idaho Office of Attorney General - Newsroom","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"il-agencyguidance-policy-on-the-acceptable-and-responsible-use-of-artificial-i-2025","title":"Illinois — Policy on the Acceptable and Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"Policy on the Acceptable and Responsible Use of Artificial I","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Illinois","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-04-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Illinois DoIT policy governs how state agencies under the Governor's jurisdiction may develop, deploy, and use AI systems, requiring each utilizing agency to designate an AI point of contact and inventory deployed AI systems within 30 days.","summary_technical":"The Illinois DoIT policy governs how state agencies under the Governor's jurisdiction may develop, deploy, and use AI systems, requiring each utilizing agency to designate an AI point of contact and inventory deployed AI systems within 30 days.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"DoIT and Illinois executive-branch agencies under the Governor's jurisdiction, as AI creators or consumers","citation":"Policy on the Acceptable and Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence","source_url":"https://doit.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/doit/documents/support/policies/2021/20250401-DoIT-AI%20Policy-v2-%20A11Y.pdf","source_title":"Illinois Department of Innovation and Technology (DoIT) - AI Policy v2","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"il-agaction-attorney-general-raoul-urges-tech-companies-to-stop-the-spre-2025","title":"Illinois — Attorney General Raoul Urges Tech Companies to Stop the Spread of Deepfake Nonconsensual Intimate Imagery","short_title":"Attorney General Raoul Urges Tech Companies to Stop the Spre","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Illinois","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["public-sector","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-26","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Illinois Attorney General joined a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general pressing search engines and payment platforms to curb AI-generated deepfake nonconsensual intimate imagery, referencing Illinois's AI-generated CSAM and NCII law.","summary_technical":"The Illinois Attorney General joined a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general pressing search engines and payment platforms to curb AI-generated deepfake nonconsensual intimate imagery, referencing Illinois's AI-generated CSAM and NCII law.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Search engines and payment platforms enabling the spread or monetization of AI-generated deepfake NCII","citation":"Attorney General Raoul Urges Tech Companies to Stop the Spread of Deepfake Nonconsensual Intimate Imagery","source_url":"https://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/news/story/attorney-general-raoul-urges-tech-companies-to-stop-the-spread-of-deepfake-nonconsensual-intimate-imagery","source_title":"Office of the Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul - News","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"in-agencyguidance-state-of-indiana-artificial-intelligence-policy-2024","title":"Indiana — State of Indiana Artificial Intelligence Policy","short_title":"State of Indiana Artificial Intelligence Policy","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Indiana","state_abbr":"IN","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Indiana's state AI policy, issued by the Office of the Chief Data Officer, applies the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and requires agencies to submit an AI Readiness Assessment Questionnaire and report existing AI systems before use.","summary_technical":"Indiana's state AI policy, issued by the Office of the Chief Data Officer, applies the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and requires agencies to submit an AI Readiness Assessment Questionnaire and report existing AI systems before use.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"All Indiana state agencies and employees developing, procuring, or using AI systems","citation":"State of Indiana Artificial Intelligence Policy","source_url":"https://www.in.gov/mph/AI/","source_title":"State of Indiana Artificial Intelligence Policy and Guidance (Office of the Chief Data Officer / Management Performance Hub)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ia-agencyguidance-generative-artificial-intelligence-ai-policy-enterprise-py-a-2025","title":"Iowa — Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy (ENTERPRISE PY-AI)","short_title":"Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy (ENTERPRISE P","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Iowa","state_abbr":"IA","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-03-31","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Iowa's enterprise generative-AI policy, issued under Iowa Administrative Code 129-8.4(8B), sets minimum requirements and prohibited uses for generative AI, mandating human review of AI outputs and disclosure of AI-generated code.","summary_technical":"Iowa's enterprise generative-AI policy, issued under Iowa Administrative Code 129-8.4(8B), sets minimum requirements and prohibited uses for generative AI, mandating human review of AI outputs and disclosure of AI-generated code.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"All Supported-Entity workforce members (employees and contractors) and third parties performing work on behalf of Iowa state agencies","citation":"Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy (ENTERPRISE PY-AI)","source_url":"https://dom.iowa.gov/media/785/download?inline=","source_title":"State of Iowa Department of Management - Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy, ENTERPRISE PY-AI","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ia-agaction-attorney-general-brenna-bird-warns-of-deepfake-dangers-as-st-2025","title":"Iowa — Attorney General Brenna Bird Warns of Deepfake Dangers as Students Head Back to School","short_title":"Attorney General Brenna Bird Warns of Deepfake Dangers as St","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Iowa","state_abbr":"IA","topics":["public-sector","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-19","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Iowa Attorney General issued a consumer alert warning parents and schools that AI-generated deepfake images used to harass or bully students are criminal acts under state and federal law.","summary_technical":"The Iowa Attorney General issued a consumer alert warning parents and schools that AI-generated deepfake images used to harass or bully students are criminal acts under state and federal law.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Iowa parents, schools, and students; creators and distributors of AI-generated deepfake imagery of minors","citation":"Attorney General Brenna Bird Warns of Deepfake Dangers as Students Head Back to School","source_url":"https://www.iowaattorneygeneral.gov/newsroom/attorney-general-brenna-bird-warns-of-deepfake-dangers-as-students-head-back-to-school","source_title":"Iowa Attorney General - Newsroom","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ks-agencyguidance-state-of-kansas-generative-artificial-intelligence-policy-pp-2023","title":"Kansas — State of Kansas Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy (PPM 8200.00)","short_title":"State of Kansas Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy (P","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Kansas","state_abbr":"KS","topics":["public-sector","privacy","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-07-31","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Kansas Office of Information Technology Services enterprise policy sets acceptable-use rules for generative AI, requiring human review of all AI outputs, barring Restricted Use Information from AI tools, and imposing vendor disclosure and data-control requirements.","summary_technical":"The Kansas Office of Information Technology Services enterprise policy sets acceptable-use rules for generative AI, requiring human review of all AI outputs, barring Restricted Use Information from AI tools, and imposing vendor disclosure and data-control requirements.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Executive Branch cabinet and non-cabinet agencies, boards, and commissions under the Governor, plus their agents and contractors.","citation":"State of Kansas Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy (PPM 8200.00)","source_url":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/li_2024/b2023_24/committees/ctte_jt_it_1/documents/testimony/20230823_03.pdf","source_title":"State of Kansas Policy and Procedures Memorandum 8200.00 - Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy (Office of Information Technology Services)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ky-agencyguidance-commonwealth-office-of-technology-enterprise-policy-cio-126--2025","title":"Kentucky — Commonwealth Office of Technology Enterprise Policy CIO-126: Artificial Intelligence Policy","short_title":"Commonwealth Office of Technology Enterprise Policy CIO-126:","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Kentucky","state_abbr":"KY","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-10-06","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Kentucky's Commonwealth Office of Technology enterprise AI policy bans state agency use of high-risk AI systems, mandates human review before any consequential decision, and requires transparency disclaimers, bias controls, privacy protections, training, and vendor AI-use disclosure.","summary_technical":"Kentucky's Commonwealth Office of Technology enterprise AI policy bans state agency use of high-risk AI systems, mandates human review before any consequential decision, and requires transparency disclaimers, bias controls, privacy protections, training, and vendor AI-use disclosure.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"All executive branch agencies and non-executive branch agencies using COT-managed infrastructure, including employees, contractors, consultants, and volunteers in state government.","citation":"Commonwealth Office of Technology Enterprise Policy CIO-126: Artificial Intelligence Policy","source_url":"https://technology.ky.gov/policies-and-procedures/PoliciesProcedures/CIO-126%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20Policy.pdf","source_title":"Commonwealth Office of Technology, Office of the Chief Information Officer Enterprise Policy CIO-126: Artificial Intelligence Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"la-executiveorder-executive-order-jml-25-109-amended-state-government-s-use-of-2025","title":"Louisiana — Executive Order JML 25-109: Amended State Government's Use of AI","short_title":"Executive Order JML 25-109: Amended State Government's Use o","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Louisiana","state_abbr":"LA","topics":["public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-29","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Governor Jeff Landry's amended executive order requires Chief Information Officer or agency-head approval before any state agency uses AI, pauses AI procurement until December 15, 2025, mandates AI acquisition/information-management policies and an inventory of AI contracts and use cases, and restricts sensitive data inputs pending those policies.","summary_technical":"Governor Jeff Landry's amended executive order requires Chief Information Officer or agency-head approval before any state agency uses AI, pauses AI procurement until December 15, 2025, mandates AI acquisition/information-management policies and an inventory of AI contracts and use cases, and restricts sensitive data inputs pending those policies.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"All Louisiana state departments, commissions, boards, offices, agencies, and officers, and any political subdivision, within the executive branch.","citation":"Executive Order JML 25-109: Amended State Government's Use of AI","source_url":"https://www.doa.la.gov/media/tzqptbak/jml-25-109-amended-state-government-s-use-of-ai.pdf","source_title":"State of Louisiana, Office of the Governor, Executive Order Number JML 25-109 - Amended State Government's Use of AI","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"la-agencyguidance-artificial-intelligence-acceptable-use-policy-2025","title":"Louisiana — Artificial Intelligence Acceptable Use Policy","short_title":"Artificial Intelligence Acceptable Use Policy","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Louisiana","state_abbr":"LA","topics":["public-sector","privacy","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-29","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Louisiana's Office of Technology Services policy governs employee AI use, prohibiting entry of confidential/restricted state data into commercial AI, barring AI from making independent consequential decisions, and requiring human verification, AI-content labeling, and use of only state-approved systems.","summary_technical":"Louisiana's Office of Technology Services policy governs employee AI use, prohibiting entry of confidential/restricted state data into commercial AI, barring AI from making independent consequential decisions, and requiring human verification, AI-content labeling, and use of only state-approved systems.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"All consolidated state agencies and individual users of state-governed information technology resources, assets, and systems under OTS authority.","citation":"Artificial Intelligence Acceptable Use Policy","source_url":"https://www.doa.la.gov/doa/ots/policies-and-forms/artificial-intelligence-acceptable-use-policy/","source_title":"Louisiana Division of Administration, Office of Technology Services - Artificial Intelligence Acceptable Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"me-executiveorder-an-order-establishing-the-maine-artificial-intelligence-task-2024","title":"Maine — An Order Establishing the Maine Artificial Intelligence Task Force","short_title":"An Order Establishing the Maine Artificial Intelligence Task","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Maine","state_abbr":"ME","topics":["public-sector","privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-12-20","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Governor Janet Mills' executive order creates a 21-member Maine Artificial Intelligence Task Force to study AI's implications for the state, protect residents from harmful AI uses, and identify opportunities for public-sector AI deployment, with a final report due to the Governor and Legislature by October 31, 2025.","summary_technical":"Governor Janet Mills' executive order creates a 21-member Maine Artificial Intelligence Task Force to study AI's implications for the state, protect residents from harmful AI uses, and identify opportunities for public-sector AI deployment, with a final report due to the Governor and Legislature by October 31, 2025.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Task Force members and participating state and quasi-state agencies, staffed by the Governor's Office of Policy Innovation and the Future and the Office of Information Technology.","citation":"An Order Establishing the Maine Artificial Intelligence Task Force","source_url":"https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/official_documents/executive-orders/2024-12-order-establishing-maine-artificial-intelligence-task","source_title":"Office of Governor Janet T. Mills - An Order Establishing the Maine Artificial Intelligence Task Force","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"me-agencyguidance-genai-tools-and-acceptable-use-policy-2026","title":"Maine — GenAI Tools and Acceptable Use Policy","short_title":"GenAI Tools and Acceptable Use Policy","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Maine","state_abbr":"ME","topics":["public-sector","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-03-06","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Maine Office of Information Technology's generative AI policy (superseding the earlier GenAI moratorium) guides responsible use of GenAI on state IT infrastructure, requiring compliance with data classification standards, prohibiting confidential data inputs to public AI systems, and holding users accountable for AI outputs.","summary_technical":"The Maine Office of Information Technology's generative AI policy (superseding the earlier GenAI moratorium) guides responsible use of GenAI on state IT infrastructure, requiring compliance with data classification standards, prohibiting confidential data inputs to public AI systems, and holding users accountable for AI outputs.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"All Maine state government employees and personnel using generative AI tools in an official capacity on the state's IT infrastructure.","citation":"GenAI Tools and Acceptable Use Policy","source_url":"https://www.maine.gov/oit/sites/maine.gov.oit/files/inline-files/GenAIPolicy.pdf","source_title":"Maine Office of Information Technology - Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools and Acceptable Use Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"md-agencyguidance-the-state-of-maryland-s-responsible-ai-policy-implementation-2025","title":"Maryland — The State of Maryland's Responsible AI Policy Implementation Guidance (Version 1.0)","short_title":"The State of Maryland's Responsible AI Policy Implementation","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Maryland","state_abbr":"MD","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-05-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Maryland's Department of Information Technology guidance operationalizes the state's Responsible AI Policy, requiring agencies to designate an AI Lead, submit AI use cases through a risk-based intake process, complete Algorithmic Impact Assessments for high-risk systems, and document AI systems in a public inventory.","summary_technical":"Maryland's Department of Information Technology guidance operationalizes the state's Responsible AI Policy, requiring agencies to designate an AI Lead, submit AI use cases through a risk-based intake process, complete Algorithmic Impact Assessments for high-risk systems, and document AI systems in a public inventory.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Maryland executive branch state agencies implementing or using AI systems.","citation":"The State of Maryland's Responsible AI Policy Implementation Guidance (Version 1.0)","source_url":"https://doit.maryland.gov/policies/ai/Pages/maryland-responsible-ai-policy-implementation-guidance.aspx","source_title":"Maryland Department of Information Technology - The State of Maryland's Responsible AI Policy Implementation Guidance","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"mi-agencyguidance-adoption-and-usage-of-artificial-intelligence-guidelines-and-2025","title":"Michigan — Adoption and Usage of Artificial Intelligence: Guidelines and Responsibilities","short_title":"Adoption and Usage of Artificial Intelligence: Guidelines an","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Michigan","state_abbr":"MI","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-09","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Michigan's Department of Technology, Management and Budget issued guidelines establishing responsibilities for ethical AI use across state agencies, requiring data-classification awareness and human-in-the-loop review of AI-generated content.","summary_technical":"Michigan's Department of Technology, Management and Budget issued guidelines establishing responsibilities for ethical AI use across state agencies, requiring data-classification awareness and human-in-the-loop review of AI-generated content.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"State of Michigan executive-branch agencies, their business owners, and end users of AI tools.","citation":"Adoption and Usage of Artificial Intelligence: Guidelines and Responsibilities","source_url":"https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/-/media/Project/Websites/dtmb/Law-and-Policies/Governance/State-of-MichiganDTMBAdoption-and-Usage-of-Artificial-IntelligenceGuidelines-and-Responsibilities--P.pdf","source_title":"State of Michigan DTMB - Adoption and Usage of Artificial Intelligence: Guidelines and Responsibilities","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"mn-agencyguidance-public-artificial-intelligence-services-security-standard-2024","title":"Minnesota — Public Artificial Intelligence Services Security Standard","short_title":"Public Artificial Intelligence Services Security Standard","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Minnesota","state_abbr":"MN","topics":["public-sector","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Minnesota IT Services set a security standard governing state employees' use of public AI services (such as ChatGPT), restricting inputs to public/low-classification data and setting guardrails to prevent breaches of private or sensitive information.","summary_technical":"Minnesota IT Services set a security standard governing state employees' use of public AI services (such as ChatGPT), restricting inputs to public/low-classification data and setting guardrails to prevent breaches of private or sensitive information.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"All employees, contractors, and third parties who develop, deploy, or use AI systems within Minnesota state government.","citation":"Public Artificial Intelligence Services Security Standard","source_url":"https://mn.gov/mnit/government/policies/security/ai-standard/index.jsp","source_title":"Public Artificial Intelligence Services Security Standard - MN.gov (Minnesota IT Services)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ms-executiveorder-executive-order-no-1584-fostering-stakeholder-collaboration--2025","title":"Mississippi — Executive Order No. 1584 (Fostering Stakeholder Collaboration and Harnessing Artificial Intelligence)","short_title":"Executive Order No. 1584 (Fostering Stakeholder Collaboratio","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Mississippi","state_abbr":"MS","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-08","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Governor Tate Reeves directed the Department of Information Technology Services to inventory all state-agency AI, evaluate existing AI processes and procurement guidelines, and develop statewide responsible-AI policy recommendations.","summary_technical":"Governor Tate Reeves directed the Department of Information Technology Services to inventory all state-agency AI, evaluate existing AI processes and procurement guidelines, and develop statewide responsible-AI policy recommendations.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Mississippi state agencies (inventory and evaluation) and the Department of Information Technology Services (leading the effort).","citation":"Executive Order No. 1584 (Fostering Stakeholder Collaboration and Harnessing Artificial Intelligence)","source_url":"https://governorreeves.ms.gov/governor-reeves-issues-executive-order-to-foster-stakeholder-collaboration-and-harness-artificial-intelligence-ai/","source_title":"Governor Reeves Issues Executive Order to Foster Stakeholder Collaboration and Harness Artificial Intelligence (AI)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ms-agencyguidance-acceptable-use-policy-for-artificial-intelligence-2025","title":"Mississippi — Acceptable Use Policy for Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"Acceptable Use Policy for Artificial Intelligence","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Mississippi","state_abbr":"MS","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-11-25","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Mississippi ITS adopted an AI acceptable-use policy (implementing EO 1584) setting ten guiding principles including human oversight of AI decisions, bias testing, data-protection restrictions, and a prohibition on deepfakes and using AI for final sensitive decisions.","summary_technical":"Mississippi ITS adopted an AI acceptable-use policy (implementing EO 1584) setting ten guiding principles including human oversight of AI decisions, bias testing, data-protection restrictions, and a prohibition on deepfakes and using AI for final sensitive decisions.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Mississippi ITS, with the framework offered for adoption by other state agencies.","citation":"Acceptable Use Policy for Artificial Intelligence","source_url":"https://www.its.ms.gov/services/innovating/AI-AUP","source_title":"AI Acceptable Use Policy Information | Mississippi Department of Information Technology Services","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"mo-executiveorder-executive-order-26-02-strategic-framework-for-integration-of-2026","title":"Missouri — Executive Order 26-02 (Strategic Framework for Integration of Artificial Intelligence within State Government Operations)","short_title":"Executive Order 26-02 (Strategic Framework for Integration o","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Missouri","state_abbr":"MO","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-13","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Governor Mike Kehoe ordered the Office of Administration to develop a strategic framework for integrating AI into Missouri state government, prioritizing data privacy and security, human decision-making, transparency, accountability, and data quality.","summary_technical":"Governor Mike Kehoe ordered the Office of Administration to develop a strategic framework for integrating AI into Missouri state government, prioritizing data privacy and security, human decision-making, transparency, accountability, and data quality.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Missouri executive-branch state government, led by the Office of Administration Commissioner.","citation":"Executive Order 26-02 (Strategic Framework for Integration of Artificial Intelligence within State Government Operations)","source_url":"https://governor.mo.gov/actions/executive-orders","source_title":"Executive Orders - Governor Mike Kehoe - MO.gov","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"mt-executiveorder-executive-order-5-2025-406-jobs-initiative-2025","title":"Montana — Executive Order 5-2025 (406 JOBS Initiative)","short_title":"Executive Order 5-2025 (406 JOBS Initiative)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Montana","state_abbr":"MT","topics":["public-sector","employment"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-11","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Gov. Gianforte's order directs the Department of Labor & Industry and the State Workforce Innovation Board to expand AI training, integrate AI tools into workforce services, and prioritize AI-readiness in state talent-development programs.","summary_technical":"Gov. Gianforte's order directs the Department of Labor & Industry and the State Workforce Innovation Board to expand AI training, integrate AI tools into workforce services, and prioritize AI-readiness in state talent-development programs.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Montana Department of Labor & Industry and the State Workforce Innovation Board (state executive-branch agencies)","citation":"Executive Order 5-2025 (406 JOBS Initiative)","source_url":"https://news.mt.gov/Governors-Office/Governor_Gianforte_Signs_Executive_Order_To_Strengthen_Montanas_Workforce","source_title":"Governor Gianforte Signs Executive Order To Strengthen Montana's Workforce","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"nv-agencyguidance-policy-on-the-responsible-and-ethical-use-of-artificial-inte-2024","title":"Nevada — Policy on the Responsible and Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence in Nevada State Government Executive Branch","short_title":"Policy on the Responsible and Ethical Use of Artificial Inte","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Nevada","state_abbr":"NV","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-11-27","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Nevada CIO-signed policy sets minimum standards for responsible, ethical, and transparent AI use across executive-branch agencies, requiring risk-based assessments, procurement/contract controls, and continuous monitoring of AI tools.","summary_technical":"The Nevada CIO-signed policy sets minimum standards for responsible, ethical, and transparent AI use across executive-branch agencies, requiring risk-based assessments, procurement/contract controls, and continuous monitoring of AI tools.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Nevada executive-branch state agencies (governed by the Office of the CIO / State Technology Governance framework)","citation":"Policy on the Responsible and Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence in Nevada State Government Executive Branch","source_url":"https://www.it.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/itnewnvgov/content/Governance/Policy%20on%20the%20Responsible%20and%20Ethical%20Use%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20in%20Nevada%20-%20CIO%20Signed.pdf","source_title":"Policy on the Responsible and Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence in Nevada (CIO-Signed)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"nh-agaction-cease-and-desist-order-to-life-corporation-over-ai-voice-clo-2024","title":"New Hampshire — Cease-and-Desist Order to Life Corporation over AI voice-clone voter-suppression robocalls","short_title":"Cease-and-Desist Order to Life Corporation over AI voice-clo","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Hampshire","state_abbr":"NH","topics":["public-sector","law-enforcement","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-02-06","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The NH Attorney General's Election Law Unit issued a cease-and-desist order to Life Corporation for AI-generated robocalls that cloned President Biden's voice to suppress votes in the 2024 primary, applying existing state voter-suppression law to deepfake audio.","summary_technical":"The NH Attorney General's Election Law Unit issued a cease-and-desist order to Life Corporation for AI-generated robocalls that cloned President Biden's voice to suppress votes in the 2024 primary, applying existing state voter-suppression law to deepfake audio.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Life Corporation and any person distributing deceptive/AI-generated robocalls under New Hampshire voter-suppression law","citation":"Cease-and-Desist Order to Life Corporation over AI voice-clone voter-suppression robocalls","source_url":"https://www.doj.nh.gov/news-and-media/voter-suppression-ai-robocall-investigation-update","source_title":"Voter Suppression AI Robocall Investigation Update | New Hampshire Department of Justice","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"nj-agaction-guidance-on-algorithmic-discrimination-and-the-new-jersey-la-2025","title":"New Jersey — Guidance on Algorithmic Discrimination and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination","short_title":"Guidance on Algorithmic Discrimination and the New Jersey La","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Jersey","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","employment"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-09","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"AG Platkin and the Division on Civil Rights issued guidance clarifying that the NJ Law Against Discrimination applies to algorithmic discrimination from AI and automated decision tools, so covered entities can be liable for disparate treatment or disparate impact even without intent.","summary_technical":"AG Platkin and the Division on Civil Rights issued guidance clarifying that the NJ Law Against Discrimination applies to algorithmic discrimination from AI and automated decision tools, so covered entities can be liable for disparate treatment or disparate impact even without intent.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Employers, housing providers, places of public accommodation, and other entities covered by the NJ Law Against Discrimination that use AI/automated decision-making tools","citation":"Guidance on Algorithmic Discrimination and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination","source_url":"https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases25/2025-0108_DCR-Guidance-on-Algorithmic-Discrimination.pdf","source_title":"Guidance on Algorithmic Discrimination and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJ OAG / Division on Civil Rights)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"nj-agencyguidance-policy-on-responsible-use-of-generative-artificial-intellige-2023","title":"New Jersey — Policy on Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by State Employees","short_title":"Policy on Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intellige","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Jersey","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["public-sector","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-11-17","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"New Jersey's policy directs state employees using generative AI to disclose and label AI use, independently fact-check outputs, and refrain from entering confidential or personally identifiable information into AI tools.","summary_technical":"New Jersey's policy directs state employees using generative AI to disclose and label AI use, independently fact-check outputs, and refrain from entering confidential or personally identifiable information into AI tools.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"New Jersey state government executive-branch employees","citation":"Policy on Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by State Employees","source_url":"https://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/562023/20231117a.shtml","source_title":"Governor Murphy Announces New Policy to Promote State Employees' Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"nm-agencyguidance-state-of-new-mexico-generative-ai-use-guidelines-policy-vers-2025","title":"New Mexico — State of New Mexico: Generative AI Use Guidelines Policy (Version 1.0)","short_title":"State of New Mexico: Generative AI Use Guidelines Policy (Ve","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Mexico","state_abbr":"NM","topics":["public-sector","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"New Mexico's Department of Information Technology issued a signed policy leveraging the NIST AI Risk Management Framework to govern how executive agencies plan, develop, and deploy generative AI, including protection of non-public data.","summary_technical":"New Mexico's Department of Information Technology issued a signed policy leveraging the NIST AI Risk Management Framework to govern how executive agencies plan, develop, and deploy generative AI, including protection of non-public data.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"New Mexico executive branch state agencies deploying or using generative AI","citation":"State of New Mexico: Generative AI Use Guidelines Policy (Version 1.0)","source_url":"https://api.realfile.rtsclients.com/PublicFiles/16569e3bf98c467e95901b46fd511499/999352cc-f6d5-42cd-bd51-7073f5224917/Generative_AI_Use_Guidelines_Policy_Signed.pdf","source_title":"State of New Mexico: Generative AI Use Guidelines Policy (signed, Department of Information Technology)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ny-agencyguidance-acceptable-use-of-artificial-intelligence-technologies-nys-p-2024","title":"New York — Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies (NYS-P24-001)","short_title":"Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies (NYS-","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-08","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"New York's Office of Information Technology Services set enterprise rules requiring state agencies to conduct NIST-based risk assessments, maintain human oversight of AI decisions affecting the public, and disclose AI chatbots as non-human.","summary_technical":"New York's Office of Information Technology Services set enterprise rules requiring state agencies to conduct NIST-based risk assessments, maintain human oversight of AI decisions affecting the public, and disclose AI chatbots as non-human.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"New York State agencies, their employees, and contractors/third parties operating AI systems on their behalf","citation":"Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies (NYS-P24-001)","source_url":"https://its.ny.gov/acceptable-use-artificial-intelligence-technologies","source_title":"NYS-P24-001 Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies (NYS Office of Information Technology Services)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"nc-executiveorder-executive-order-no-24-advancing-trustworthy-artificial-intel-2025","title":"North Carolina — Executive Order No. 24: Advancing Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence That Benefits All North Carolinians","short_title":"Executive Order No. 24: Advancing Trustworthy Artificial Int","level":"state","jurisdiction":"North Carolina","state_abbr":"NC","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-02","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Governor Josh Stein's order establishes an AI Leadership Council and an AI Accelerator within NCDIT and requires each Cabinet agency to form an AI Oversight Team and submit AI use cases for risk assessment.","summary_technical":"Governor Josh Stein's order establishes an AI Leadership Council and an AI Accelerator within NCDIT and requires each Cabinet agency to form an AI Oversight Team and submit AI use cases for risk assessment.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"North Carolina Cabinet agencies (required); other state agencies encouraged","citation":"Executive Order No. 24: Advancing Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence That Benefits All North Carolinians","source_url":"https://governor.nc.gov/executive-order-no-24-advancing-trustworthy-artificial-intelligence-benefits-all-north-carolinians","source_title":"Executive Order No. 24 (Office of Governor Josh Stein)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"nc-agencyguidance-north-carolina-state-government-responsible-use-of-artificia-2024","title":"North Carolina — North Carolina State Government Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence Framework","short_title":"North Carolina State Government Responsible Use of Artificia","level":"state","jurisdiction":"North Carolina","state_abbr":"NC","topics":["public-sector","privacy","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"NCDIT published a NIST-based framework of principles, practices, and guidance for state agencies deploying AI while reducing privacy and data-protection risks to residents.","summary_technical":"NCDIT published a NIST-based framework of principles, practices, and guidance for state agencies deploying AI while reducing privacy and data-protection risks to residents.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"North Carolina state agencies deploying or using AI systems","citation":"North Carolina State Government Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence Framework","source_url":"https://it.nc.gov/resources/artificial-intelligence/ai-framework-responsible-use","source_title":"AI Framework for Responsible Use (North Carolina Department of Information Technology)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"nd-agencyguidance-artificial-intelligence-guideline-2025","title":"North Dakota — Artificial Intelligence Guideline","short_title":"Artificial Intelligence Guideline","level":"state","jurisdiction":"North Dakota","state_abbr":"ND","topics":["public-sector","privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-11-17","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"North Dakota Information Technology's guideline outlines best practices for secure, private, and ethical use of AI, supplementing the state's AI Policy and requiring GRC risk assessment before AI business use.","summary_technical":"North Dakota Information Technology's guideline outlines best practices for secure, private, and ethical use of AI, supplementing the state's AI Policy and requiring GRC risk assessment before AI business use.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"All North Dakota executive branch state agencies including the University Systems Office (excluding other higher-education institutions)","citation":"Artificial Intelligence Guideline","source_url":"https://www.ndit.nd.gov/sites/default/files/documents/about-Us/it-governance/doc/Artificial-Intelligence-Guidelines.pdf","source_title":"Artificial Intelligence Guideline (North Dakota Information Technology)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"oh-agencyguidance-use-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-state-of-ohio-solutions-2023","title":"Ohio — Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in State of Ohio Solutions (Policy IT-17)","short_title":"Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in State of Ohio Solutio","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Ohio","state_abbr":"OH","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-12-04","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Ohio's Department of Administrative Services adopted Policy IT-17 requiring state AI use to be fair, accountable, transparent, and human-centric, mandating piloting, human verification for consequential decisions, and limiting generative-AI inputs to public-record data.","summary_technical":"Ohio's Department of Administrative Services adopted Policy IT-17 requiring state AI use to be fair, accountable, transparent, and human-centric, mandating piloting, human verification for consequential decisions, and limiting generative-AI inputs to public-record data.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Ohio state agencies under the Governor's jurisdiction and their employees, contractors, and temporary personnel","citation":"Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in State of Ohio Solutions (Policy IT-17)","source_url":"https://innovateohio.gov/home/news-and-events/all-news/State+of+Ohio+AI+policy+balances+data+protection,+quality,+integrity","source_title":"State of Ohio AI Policy Balances Data Protection, Quality, Integrity (InnovateOhio / Ohio Department of Administrative Services)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ok-agencyguidance-use-of-ai-in-oklahoma-state-government-standard-2024","title":"Oklahoma — Use of AI in Oklahoma State Government Standard","short_title":"Use of AI in Oklahoma State Government Standard","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Oklahoma","state_abbr":"OK","topics":["public-sector","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Oklahoma's Office of Management and Enterprise Services, under the state CIO, sets a mandatory standard requiring agencies to use only CIO-approved AI tools, complete AI awareness training, verify AI output, and never input sensitive data.","summary_technical":"Oklahoma's Office of Management and Enterprise Services, under the state CIO, sets a mandatory standard requiring agencies to use only CIO-approved AI tools, complete AI awareness training, verify AI output, and never input sensitive data.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"All state agencies, boards, and commissions under the CIO's authority, plus suppliers, contractors, and other entities providing services to the state","citation":"Use of AI in Oklahoma State Government Standard","source_url":"https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/omes/documents/use-of-ai-in-oklahoma-standard.pdf","source_title":"Use of AI in Oklahoma State Government Standard (OMES)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"or-agencyguidance-responsible-ai-usage-policy-107-004-190-2025","title":"Oregon — Responsible AI Usage Policy (107-004-190)","short_title":"Responsible AI Usage Policy (107-004-190)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Oregon","state_abbr":"OR","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-02-11","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Oregon Enterprise Information Services establishes enterprise-wide governance for generative and agentic AI across executive-branch agencies, requiring AI adoption plans, human review of outputs, approval of new AI uses, and use of only approved tools.","summary_technical":"Oregon Enterprise Information Services establishes enterprise-wide governance for generative and agentic AI across executive-branch agencies, requiring AI adoption plans, human review of outputs, approval of new AI uses, and use of only approved tools.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Oregon executive-branch state agencies, boards, and commissions","citation":"Responsible AI Usage Policy (107-004-190)","source_url":"https://www.oregon.gov/eis/privacy-and-artificial-intelligence/pages/artificial-intelligence.aspx","source_title":"Enterprise Information Services: Privacy and Artificial Intelligence (State of Oregon)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"pa-agaction-ag-sunday-leads-coalition-of-42-attorneys-general-in-letter--2025","title":"Pennsylvania — AG Sunday Leads Coalition of 42 Attorneys General in Letter to A.I. Software Companies Demanding Safeguards to Protect Vulnerable Residents from Harmful Interactions with Bots","short_title":"AG Sunday Leads Coalition of 42 Attorneys General in Letter ","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pennsylvania","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-12-10","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Pennsylvania AG Dave Sunday led a coalition of 42 state attorneys general demanding that major AI chatbot companies implement testing, recall procedures, and consumer warnings to protect vulnerable users, especially children, from harmful bot interactions.","summary_technical":"Pennsylvania AG Dave Sunday led a coalition of 42 state attorneys general demanding that major AI chatbot companies implement testing, recall procedures, and consumer warnings to protect vulnerable users, especially children, from harmful bot interactions.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Major AI software companies (Anthropic, Apple, Chai AI, Character Technologies, Google, Luka, Meta, Microsoft, Nomi AI, OpenAI, Perplexity AI, Replika, xAI)","citation":"AG Sunday Leads Coalition of 42 Attorneys General in Letter to A.I. Software Companies Demanding Safeguards to Protect Vulnerable Residents from Harmful Interactions with Bots","source_url":"https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/taking-action/ag-sunday-leads-coalition-of-42-attorneys-general-in-letter-to-a-i-software-companies-demanding-safeguards-to-protect-vulnerable-residents-from-harmful-interactions-with-bots/","source_title":"PA Office of Attorney General - Taking Action (AG Dave Sunday)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ri-executiveorder-executive-order-24-06-artificial-intelligence-and-data-cente-2024","title":"Rhode Island — Executive Order 24-06: Artificial Intelligence and Data Centers of Excellence","short_title":"Executive Order 24-06: Artificial Intelligence and Data Cent","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Rhode Island","state_abbr":"RI","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-02-29","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Governor Dan McKee's executive order establishes an AI Task Force, an AI Center of Excellence and a Data Center of Excellence, and directs the Department of Administration to develop a state code of ethics for AI and secure AI adoption across state agencies.","summary_technical":"Governor Dan McKee's executive order establishes an AI Task Force, an AI Center of Excellence and a Data Center of Excellence, and directs the Department of Administration to develop a state code of ethics for AI and secure AI adoption across state agencies.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"All Rhode Island state agencies, plus Department of Labor and Training, RIDE, and OPC for AI training programs","citation":"Executive Order 24-06: Artificial Intelligence and Data Centers of Excellence","source_url":"https://governor.ri.gov/executive-orders/executive-order-24-06","source_title":"Executive Order 24-06 (Governor's Office, State of Rhode Island)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"sc-agencyguidance-south-carolina-state-agencies-artificial-intelligence-ai-str-2024","title":"South Carolina — South Carolina State Agencies' Artificial Intelligence (AI) Strategy","short_title":"South Carolina State Agencies' Artificial Intelligence (AI) ","level":"state","jurisdiction":"South Carolina","state_abbr":"SC","topics":["public-sector","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-06-19","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The South Carolina Department of Administration published a statewide AI strategy rooted in 'protect, promote, pursue' that establishes a Center of Excellence and AI Advisory Group and directs development of statewide acceptable-use, procurement, and data-protection policies for agencies.","summary_technical":"The South Carolina Department of Administration published a statewide AI strategy rooted in 'protect, promote, pursue' that establishes a Center of Excellence and AI Advisory Group and directs development of statewide acceptable-use, procurement, and data-protection policies for agencies.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"South Carolina state agencies adopting AI technologies","citation":"South Carolina State Agencies' Artificial Intelligence (AI) Strategy","source_url":"https://admin.sc.gov/SCAIStrategy","source_title":"Admin Releases AI Strategy To Help Guide State Agencies (SC Department of Administration)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"sd-agencyguidance-state-of-south-dakota-generative-artificial-intelligence-gui-2024","title":"South Dakota — State of South Dakota Generative Artificial Intelligence Guidelines & Acceptable State Use","short_title":"State of South Dakota Generative Artificial Intelligence Gui","level":"state","jurisdiction":"South Dakota","state_abbr":"SD","topics":["public-sector","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"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.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"South Dakota state government agencies and employees using generative AI","citation":"State of South Dakota Generative Artificial Intelligence Guidelines & Acceptable State Use","source_url":"https://www.sd.gov/bit?id=bit_standards_ai_guidance","source_title":"BIT - Standards AI Guidance | South Dakota Bureau of Information and Telecommunications","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"tn-agencyguidance-enterprise-artificial-intelligence-policy-200-pol-007-2024","title":"Tennessee — Enterprise Artificial Intelligence Policy (200-POL-007)","short_title":"Enterprise Artificial Intelligence Policy (200-POL-007)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Tennessee","state_abbr":"TN","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Tennessee's Department of Finance and Administration (Strategic Technology Solutions) sets minimum requirements for valid, reliable, transparent, and ethical use of AI across state departments, requiring monitoring of AI design, deployment, and procurement to minimize negative impacts.","summary_technical":"Tennessee's Department of Finance and Administration (Strategic Technology Solutions) sets minimum requirements for valid, reliable, transparent, and ethical use of AI across state departments, requiring monitoring of AI design, deployment, and procurement to minimize negative impacts.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"All Tennessee state departments and agencies developing, procuring, or deploying AI systems","citation":"Enterprise Artificial Intelligence Policy (200-POL-007)","source_url":"https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/finance/artificial-intelligence/200-POL-007%20Enterprise%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20Policy.pdf","source_title":"Enterprise Artificial Intelligence Policy 200-POL-007 | TN Department of Finance and Administration","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"tn-agaction-attorney-general-skrmetti-leads-44-states-in-demanding-compa-2025","title":"Tennessee — Attorney General Skrmetti Leads 44 States in Demanding Companies End Predatory AI Interactions with Kids","short_title":"Attorney General Skrmetti Leads 44 States in Demanding Compa","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Tennessee","state_abbr":"TN","topics":["public-sector","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-25","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Tennessee's Attorney General led a bipartisan coalition of 44 states in a demand letter to 12 major AI companies to implement safeguards against sexualized AI chatbot interactions with minors, applying consumer-protection authority to AI harms.","summary_technical":"Tennessee's Attorney General led a bipartisan coalition of 44 states in a demand letter to 12 major AI companies to implement safeguards against sexualized AI chatbot interactions with minors, applying consumer-protection authority to AI harms.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Named AI/technology companies (Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, xAI, Anthropic, Character Technologies, Perplexity AI, Apple, Chai AI, Luka Inc., Nomi AI, Replika)","citation":"Attorney General Skrmetti Leads 44 States in Demanding Companies End Predatory AI Interactions with Kids","source_url":"https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/news/2025/8/25/pr25-43.html","source_title":"Attorney General Skrmetti Leads 44 States in Demanding Companies End Predatory AI Interactions with Kids | TN Attorney General","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"tx-agencyguidance-ai-systems-code-of-ethics-and-minimum-risk-management-and-go-2026","title":"Texas — AI Systems Code of Ethics and Minimum Risk Management and Governance Standards (1 TAC Chapter 219)","short_title":"AI Systems Code of Ethics and Minimum Risk Management and Go","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-03-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Under Government Code 2054.702 and SB 1964, the Texas Department of Information Resources adopted a statewide AI code of ethics built on seven principles (human oversight, fairness, accuracy, redress, transparency, privacy, security) plus minimum risk-management standards for heightened-scrutiny AI systems.","summary_technical":"Under Government Code 2054.702 and SB 1964, the Texas Department of Information Resources adopted a statewide AI code of ethics built on seven principles (human oversight, fairness, accuracy, redress, transparency, privacy, security) plus minimum risk-management standards for heightened-scrutiny AI systems.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Texas state agencies and local government entities that procure, develop, deploy, or use AI systems","citation":"AI Systems Code of Ethics and Minimum Risk Management and Governance Standards (1 TAC Chapter 219)","source_url":"https://dir.texas.gov/ai-and-innovation/ai-templates-and-resources","source_title":"AI Templates and Resources | Texas Department of Information Resources","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"tx-agaction-attorney-general-ken-paxton-investigates-meta-and-character--2025","title":"Texas — Attorney General Ken Paxton Investigates Meta and Character.AI for Misleading Children with Deceptive AI-Generated Mental Health Services","short_title":"Attorney General Ken Paxton Investigates Meta and Character.","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["public-sector","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-18","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Texas Attorney General issued Civil Investigative Demands to Meta AI Studio and Character.AI to determine whether their AI chatbots deceptively marketed themselves as mental-health tools to children in violation of Texas consumer-protection law.","summary_technical":"The Texas Attorney General issued Civil Investigative Demands to Meta AI Studio and Character.AI to determine whether their AI chatbots deceptively marketed themselves as mental-health tools to children in violation of Texas consumer-protection law.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Meta Platforms and Character Technologies (Character.AI); operators of consumer-facing AI chatbots in Texas","citation":"Attorney General Ken Paxton Investigates Meta and Character.AI for Misleading Children with Deceptive AI-Generated Mental Health Services","source_url":"https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-investigates-meta-and-characterai-misleading-children-deceptive-ai","source_title":"Attorney General Ken Paxton Investigates Meta and Character.AI for Misleading Children with Deceptive AI-Generated Mental Health Services | Office of the Attorney General","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ut-agaction-attorneys-general-derek-brown-and-jeff-jackson-launch-nation-2026","title":"Utah — Attorneys General Derek Brown and Jeff Jackson Launch Nationwide Bipartisan AI Task Force","short_title":"Attorneys General Derek Brown and Jeff Jackson Launch Nation","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["public-sector","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-17","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"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.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"AI developers and platforms subject to state consumer-protection oversight","citation":"Attorneys General Derek Brown and Jeff Jackson Launch Nationwide Bipartisan AI Task Force","source_url":"https://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/ag-brown-announces-ai-task-force/","source_title":"Attorneys General Derek Brown and Jeff Jackson Launch Nationwide Bipartisan AI Task Force | Utah Attorney General","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"vt-executiveorder-executive-order-no-04-26-vermont-artificial-intelligence-eco-2026","title":"Vermont — Executive Order No. 04-26 - Vermont Artificial Intelligence Economic Task Force","short_title":"Executive Order No. 04-26 - Vermont Artificial Intelligence ","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Vermont","state_abbr":"VT","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-05-18","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Governor Phil Scott established the Vermont Artificial Intelligence Economic Task Force to assess how AI is reshaping the state economy and recommend, within 90 days, up to five ways state government could adopt AI to better serve the public.","summary_technical":"Governor Phil Scott established the Vermont Artificial Intelligence Economic Task Force to assess how AI is reshaping the state economy and recommend, within 90 days, up to five ways state government could adopt AI to better serve the public.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Vermont state government agencies (Agency of Digital Services and Agency of Commerce co-chair) and Task Force members","citation":"Executive Order No. 04-26 - Vermont Artificial Intelligence Economic Task Force","source_url":"https://governor.vermont.gov/document/executive-order-no-04-26","source_title":"EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 04-26 | Office of Governor Phil Scott","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"vt-agaction-attorney-general-donovan-sues-clearview-ai-for-violations-of-2020","title":"Vermont — Attorney General Donovan Sues Clearview AI for Violations of Consumer Protection Act and Data Broker Law","short_title":"Attorney General Donovan Sues Clearview AI for Violations of","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Vermont","state_abbr":"VT","topics":["public-sector","biometrics","facial-recognition","privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-03-10","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Vermont Attorney General sued Clearview AI under the Consumer Protection Act and Data Broker Law for scraping Vermonters' photos and using facial-recognition AI to map faces and sell access without consent.","summary_technical":"The Vermont Attorney General sued Clearview AI under the Consumer Protection Act and Data Broker Law for scraping Vermonters' photos and using facial-recognition AI to map faces and sell access without consent.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Clearview AI; facial-recognition and data-broker operators handling Vermonters' data","citation":"Attorney General Donovan Sues Clearview AI for Violations of Consumer Protection Act and Data Broker Law","source_url":"https://ago.vermont.gov/blog/2020/03/10/attorney-general-donovan-sues-clearview-ai-violations-consumer-protection-act-and-data-broker-law","source_title":"Attorney General Donovan Sues Clearview AI for Violations of Consumer Protection Act and Data Broker Law | Office of the Vermont Attorney General","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"va-executiveorder-executive-order-51-2025-first-in-the-nation-agentic-artifici-2025","title":"Virginia — Executive Order 51 (2025): First-In-The-Nation Agentic Artificial Intelligence (AI) Empowered Statewide Regulatory Review","short_title":"Executive Order 51 (2025): First-In-The-Nation Agentic Artif","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-11","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Governor Youngkin's order launches a pilot using agentic AI to scan the Commonwealth's regulations and guidance documents for redundant or outdated requirements and directs executive-branch agencies to incorporate AI into their periodic regulatory reviews.","summary_technical":"Governor Youngkin's order launches a pilot using agentic AI to scan the Commonwealth's regulations and guidance documents for redundant or outdated requirements and directs executive-branch agencies to incorporate AI into their periodic regulatory reviews.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Virginia executive-branch state agencies and the Office of Regulatory Management","citation":"Executive Order 51 (2025): First-In-The-Nation Agentic Artificial Intelligence (AI) Empowered Statewide Regulatory Review","source_url":"https://www.governor.virginia.gov/media/governorvirginiagov/governor-of-virginia/pdf/eo/EO-51---First-In-The-Nation-Agentic-Artificial-Intelligence-(AI)-Empowered-Statewide-Regulatory-Review---FINAL-UPDATED.pdf","source_title":"Executive Order 51 (2025) - Governor of Virginia (governor.virginia.gov)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"wa-agencyguidance-interim-guidelines-for-purposeful-and-responsible-use-of-gen-2023","title":"Washington — Interim Guidelines for Purposeful and Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Washington State Government","short_title":"Interim Guidelines for Purposeful and Responsible Use of Gen","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Washington","state_abbr":"WA","topics":["public-sector","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-08-08","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"WaTech's interim guidelines establish principles and dos-and-don'ts for state employees using generative AI, covering fact-checking, bias reduction, attribution, and protection of sensitive or confidential data.","summary_technical":"WaTech's interim guidelines establish principles and dos-and-don'ts for state employees using generative AI, covering fact-checking, bias reduction, attribution, and protection of sensitive or confidential data.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Washington state executive-branch agencies and their employees using generative AI","citation":"Interim Guidelines for Purposeful and Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Washington State Government","source_url":"https://watech.wa.gov/policies/generative-ai-guidelines","source_title":"Interim Guidelines for Purposeful and Responsible Use of Generative AI - WaTech","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"wi-agencyguidance-state-of-wisconsin-acceptable-technology-use-access-and-secu-2025","title":"Wisconsin — State of Wisconsin Acceptable Technology Use, Access, and Security Policy (includes AI-use provisions)","short_title":"State of Wisconsin Acceptable Technology Use, Access, and Se","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Wisconsin","state_abbr":"WI","topics":["public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-03-10","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Wisconsin Department of Administration's enterprise technology policy governs acceptable use of state IT resources by executive-branch employees and incorporates guidance on the use of artificial intelligence.","summary_technical":"The Wisconsin Department of Administration's enterprise technology policy governs acceptable use of state IT resources by executive-branch employees and incorporates guidance on the use of artificial intelligence.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Wisconsin executive-branch state agencies and employees using state technology resources","citation":"State of Wisconsin Acceptable Technology Use, Access, and Security Policy (includes AI-use provisions)","source_url":"https://det.wi.gov/Documents/AUP%20-%20Effective%20Date%203.10.2025.pdf","source_title":"Acceptable Technology Use, Access, and Security Policy - Wisconsin Division of Enterprise Technology (DET)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"co-agaction-colorado-attorney-general-rulemaking-for-the-automated-decis-2026","title":"Colorado — Colorado Attorney General Rulemaking for the Automated Decision-Making Technology (ADMT) Act and Chatbot Safety Act","short_title":"Colorado Attorney General Rulemaking for the Automated Decis","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Colorado","state_abbr":"CO","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-30","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Colorado Attorney General's Office opened pre-rulemaking to write rules implementing the state's Automated Decision-Making Technology Act (algorithmic-discrimination protections for high-risk AI) and the Chatbot Safety Act, taking public comment through July 13, 2026 ahead of the laws' January 1, 2027 effective date.","summary_technical":"The Colorado Attorney General's Office opened pre-rulemaking to write rules implementing the state's Automated Decision-Making Technology Act (algorithmic-discrimination protections for high-risk AI) and the Chatbot Safety Act, taking public comment through July 13, 2026 ahead of the laws' January 1, 2027 effective date.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Developers and deployers of automated decision-making technology used in consequential decisions, and operators of covered chatbots doing business in Colorado.","citation":"Colorado Attorney General Rulemaking for the Automated Decision-Making Technology (ADMT) Act and Chatbot Safety Act","source_url":"https://coag.gov/ai/","source_title":"Colorado Anti-Discrimination in AI Law (ADAI) / ADMT Rulemaking | Colorado Attorney General","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ct-agencyguidance-2025-state-of-connecticut-artificial-intelligence-inventory-2025","title":"Connecticut — 2025 State of Connecticut Artificial Intelligence Inventory","short_title":"2025 State of Connecticut Artificial Intelligence Inventory","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Connecticut","state_abbr":"CT","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-12-08","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Department of Administrative Services Bureau of Information Technology Solutions publishes the state's annual, statutorily mandated inventory of AI systems used by state agencies, cataloging each system's vendor, capabilities, whether it informs decisions, and whether an impact assessment was done.","summary_technical":"The Department of Administrative Services Bureau of Information Technology Solutions publishes the state's annual, statutorily mandated inventory of AI systems used by state agencies, cataloging each system's vendor, capabilities, whether it informs decisions, and whether an impact assessment was done.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Connecticut executive-branch state agencies, which must report their AI systems to DAS/BITS for the public inventory.","citation":"2025 State of Connecticut Artificial Intelligence Inventory","source_url":"https://portal.ct.gov/das/knowledge-base/articles/bits/ai-inventory","source_title":"2025 State of Connecticut Artificial Intelligence Inventory | CT Department of Administrative Services","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ct-agaction-attorney-general-tong-memorandum-on-artificial-intelligence-2026","title":"Connecticut — Attorney General Tong Memorandum on Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"Attorney General Tong Memorandum on Artificial Intelligence","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Connecticut","state_abbr":"CT","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","privacy","employment"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-02-25","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Connecticut AG William Tong issued a memorandum explaining how existing Connecticut civil rights, data privacy and security, consumer protection (unfair trade practices), and antitrust laws already apply to AI systems, signaling enforcement priorities.","summary_technical":"Connecticut AG William Tong issued a memorandum explaining how existing Connecticut civil rights, data privacy and security, consumer protection (unfair trade practices), and antitrust laws already apply to AI systems, signaling enforcement priorities.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Businesses and organizations using AI in areas such as tenant screening, employment, credit, insurance, and targeted advertising affecting Connecticut residents.","citation":"Attorney General Tong Memorandum on Artificial Intelligence","source_url":"https://portal.ct.gov/ag/press-releases/2026-press-releases/attorney-general-tong-releases-memorandum-on-artificial-intelligence","source_title":"Attorney General Tong Releases Memorandum on Artificial Intelligence | CT Office of the Attorney General","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"de-agaction-ag-jennings-completes-review-of-openai-recapitalization-stat-2025","title":"Delaware — AG Jennings Completes Review of OpenAI Recapitalization (Statement of No Objection with Governance Commitments)","short_title":"AG Jennings Completes Review of OpenAI Recapitalization (Sta","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Delaware","state_abbr":"DE","topics":["public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-10-28","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Exercising Delaware's charitable/nonprofit oversight authority over OpenAI, Inc. (a Delaware nonprofit), AG Kathy Jennings issued a Statement of No Objection to OpenAI's recapitalization only after securing binding commitments keeping the nonprofit in control of the new public benefit corporation and prioritizing AI safety over financial interests.","summary_technical":"Exercising Delaware's charitable/nonprofit oversight authority over OpenAI, Inc. (a Delaware nonprofit), AG Kathy Jennings issued a Statement of No Objection to OpenAI's recapitalization only after securing binding commitments keeping the nonprofit in control of the new public benefit corporation and prioritizing AI safety over financial interests.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"OpenAI, Inc. (and its public benefit corporation), a Delaware nonprofit corporation subject to the Attorney General's charitable-oversight authority.","citation":"AG Jennings Completes Review of OpenAI Recapitalization (Statement of No Objection with Governance Commitments)","source_url":"https://news.delaware.gov/2025/10/28/ag-jennings-completes-review-of-openai-recapitalization/","source_title":"AG Jennings completes review of OpenAI recapitalization | State of Delaware News","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ga-agencyguidance-generative-ai-responsible-use-ss-25-001-2025","title":"Georgia — Generative AI Responsible Use (SS-25-001)","short_title":"Generative AI Responsible Use (SS-25-001)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Georgia","state_abbr":"GA","topics":["public-sector","transparency","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Georgia Technology Authority's enterprise standard requires executive-branch agencies to obtain GTA approval before procuring or using generative AI, keep humans in the loop reviewing GenAI output, disclose GenAI use, bar entry of PII/PHI without approval, maintain a GenAI inventory, and report incidents within 48 hours.","summary_technical":"The Georgia Technology Authority's enterprise standard requires executive-branch agencies to obtain GTA approval before procuring or using generative AI, keep humans in the loop reviewing GenAI output, disclose GenAI use, bar entry of PII/PHI without approval, maintain a GenAI inventory, and report incidents within 48 hours.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"Georgia executive-branch state agencies and their employees using generative AI tools for official business (excluding judicial, legislative, constitutional officers, and the University System of Georgia).","citation":"Generative AI Responsible Use (SS-25-001)","source_url":"https://gta-psg.georgia.gov/psg/generative-ai-responsible-use-ss-25-001","source_title":"Generative AI Responsible Use (SS-25-001) | Georgia Technology Authority Enterprise Policies, Standards, and Guidelines","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"dc-executiveorder-mayor-s-order-2024-028-articulating-dc-s-artificial-intellig-2024","title":"District of Columbia — Mayor's Order 2024-028: Articulating DC's Artificial Intelligence Values and Establishing Artificial Intelligence Strategic Benchmarks","short_title":"Mayor's Order 2024-028: Articulating DC's Artificial Intelli","level":"state","jurisdiction":"District of Columbia","state_abbr":"DC","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-02-08","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"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.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"District of Columbia government agencies and the Executive Branch adopting or deploying AI solutions, overseen by the Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO).","citation":"Mayor's Order 2024-028: Articulating DC's Artificial Intelligence Values and Establishing Artificial Intelligence Strategic Benchmarks","source_url":"https://mayor.dc.gov/release/mayor-bowser-signs-order-defining-dc%E2%80%99s-ai-values-and-ai-strategic-plan","source_title":"Mayor Bowser Signs Order Defining DC's AI Values and AI Strategic Plan","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"dc-agencyguidance-octo-ai-ml-governance-policy-2024","title":"District of Columbia — OCTO AI/ML Governance Policy","short_title":"OCTO AI/ML Governance Policy","level":"state","jurisdiction":"District of Columbia","state_abbr":"DC","topics":["public-sector","privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-02-08","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"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.","who_is_protected":"Residents interacting with state government AI systems; public-sector data subjects.","who_must_comply":"All District workforce members responsible for application identity and role definition, any District agency receiving OCTO enterprise services, and any provider or third-party entity with access to District information, systems, networks, and applications.","citation":"OCTO AI/ML Governance Policy","source_url":"https://octo.dc.gov/page/aiml-governance-policy","source_title":"AI/ML Governance Policy - DC OCTO","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ca-transit-authority-bay-area-rapid-transit-bart-bart-surveillance-technology-ordinance-20","title":"Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) — BART Surveillance Technology Ordinance","short_title":"BART Surveillance Technology Ordinance","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2018-09-13","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"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.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)","citation":"BART Surveillance Technology Ordinance","source_url":"https://www.aclunc.org/news/bart-board-s-vote-surveillance-technology-protects-privacy-bart-riders-promotes-public-safety","source_title":"BART Board's Vote on Surveillance Technology Protects the Privacy of BART Riders | ACLU of Northern CA","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"oh-village-council-yellow-springs-oh-community-control-over-police-surveillance-ccops-ordi","title":"Yellow Springs, OH — Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) Ordinance","short_title":"Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) Ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Yellow Springs, OH","state_abbr":"OH","city":"Yellow Springs, OH","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2018-11-19","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Yellow Springs requires the police or municipal agencies to present new surveillance technology to Village Council for a public-hearing cost-benefit review and a use policy before adoption, with annual reporting.","summary_technical":"Yellow Springs requires the police or municipal agencies to present new surveillance technology to Village Council for a public-hearing cost-benefit review and a use policy before adoption, with annual reporting.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Yellow Springs, OH","citation":"Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) Ordinance","source_url":"https://ysnews.com/news/2018/11/village-council-surveillance-policy-passed","source_title":"Village Council - Surveillance policy passed | The Yellow Springs News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ma-city-council-cambridge-ma-surveillance-technology-ordinance-2018","title":"Cambridge, MA — Surveillance Technology Ordinance","short_title":"Surveillance Technology Ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cambridge, MA","state_abbr":"MA","city":"Cambridge, MA","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","transparency","public-sector","facial-recognition"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2018-12-10","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Cambridge bars city departments from funding, acquiring, or using surveillance technology without express City Council approval, requiring public impact reports, a use policy, and ongoing use reporting.","summary_technical":"Cambridge bars city departments from funding, acquiring, or using surveillance technology without express City Council approval, requiring public impact reports, a use policy, and ongoing use reporting.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Cambridge, MA","citation":"Surveillance Technology Ordinance","source_url":"https://www.aclum.org/press-releases/cambridge-passes-law-requiring-community-control-police-surveillance/","source_title":"Cambridge passes law requiring community control of police surveillance | ACLU of Massachusetts","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ma-city-council-somerville-ma-face-surveillance-full-ban-ordinance-2019","title":"Somerville, MA — Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance","short_title":"Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Somerville, MA","state_abbr":"MA","city":"Somerville, MA","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2019-06-27","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Somerville, as part of the CCOPS movement, unanimously banned any city department from using face-surveillance technology and barred use of face-recognition-derived data in municipal proceedings.","summary_technical":"Somerville, as part of the CCOPS movement, unanimously banned any city department from using face-surveillance technology and barred use of face-recognition-derived data in municipal proceedings.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Somerville, MA","citation":"Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance","source_url":"https://www.aclum.org/en/press-releases/somerville-city-council-moves-ban-government-face-surveillance","source_title":"Somerville City Council moves to ban government face surveillance | ACLU of Massachusetts","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"wi-city-council-madison-wi-use-of-surveillance-technology-ordinance-ordinance-5930-2020","title":"Madison, WI — Use of Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Ordinance 59300; MGO 23.63)","short_title":"Use of Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Ordinance 59300; M","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Madison, WI","state_abbr":"WI","city":"Madison, WI","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Madison requires city agencies to notify the Mayor and Common Council and route surveillance-technology acquisitions through Council approval, plus annual public reporting on surveillance technology use.","summary_technical":"Madison requires city agencies to notify the Mayor and Common Council and route surveillance-technology acquisitions through Council approval, plus annual public reporting on surveillance technology use.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Madison, WI","citation":"Use of Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Ordinance 59300; MGO 23.63)","source_url":"https://library.municode.com/wi/madison/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_ORD_MADISON_WISCONSIN_VOLUME_III_CHAPTERS_20--31_CH23OFAGPUPO_23.63USSUTE","source_title":"Sec. 23.63 Use of Surveillance Technology | Madison, WI Code of Ordinances","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ma-city-council-boston-ma-ordinance-on-surveillance-oversight-and-information-sha-2021","title":"Boston, MA — Ordinance on Surveillance Oversight and Information Sharing","short_title":"Ordinance on Surveillance Oversight and Information Sharing","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Boston, MA","state_abbr":"MA","city":"Boston, MA","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","privacy","transparency","public-sector","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2021-10-21","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Boston bars police from acquiring, deploying, or newly repurposing surveillance technology without City Council approval and restricts sharing student information with police, complementing its earlier facial-recognition ban.","summary_technical":"Boston bars police from acquiring, deploying, or newly repurposing surveillance technology without City Council approval and restricts sharing student information with police, complementing its earlier facial-recognition ban.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Boston, MA","citation":"Ordinance on Surveillance Oversight and Information Sharing","source_url":"https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/10/21/boston-new-police-surveillance-technology-approval-required","source_title":"Boston City Council votes to bar police from using new surveillance tech without approval | WBUR","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ma-city-council-somerville-ma-face-surveillance-full-ban-ordinance-prohibiting-munici-2019","title":"Somerville, MA — Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance prohibiting municipal use of face recognition","short_title":"Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance prohibiting municipal u","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Somerville, MA","state_abbr":"MA","city":"Somerville, MA","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2019-06-27","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Somerville's City Council unanimously banned any city department or agency, including police, from using face surveillance technology, making it the first East Coast city to do so.","summary_technical":"Somerville's City Council unanimously banned any city department or agency, including police, from using face surveillance technology, making it the first East Coast city to do so.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Somerville, MA","citation":"Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance prohibiting municipal use of face recognition","source_url":"https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/somerville-becomes-first-east-coast-city-ban-government-use-face-recognition","source_title":"Somerville Becomes First East Coast City to Ban Government Use of Face Recognition Technology | ACLU","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ca-city-council-oakland-ca-amendment-to-surveillance-and-community-safety-ordinanc-2019","title":"Oakland, CA — Amendment to Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance (Municipal Code Ch. 9.64) banning city/police face recognition","short_title":"Amendment to Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance (Mu","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Oakland, CA","state_abbr":"CA","city":"Oakland, CA","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2019-07-16","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Oakland's City Council amended its surveillance ordinance to bar all city agencies, including police, from acquiring, using, or accessing facial recognition technology.","summary_technical":"Oakland's City Council amended its surveillance ordinance to bar all city agencies, including police, from acquiring, using, or accessing facial recognition technology.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Oakland, CA","citation":"Amendment to Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance (Municipal Code Ch. 9.64) banning city/police face recognition","source_url":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/07/victory-oakland-city-council-votes-ban-government-use-face-surveillance","source_title":"Victory: Oakland City Council Votes to Ban Government Use of Face Surveillance | EFF","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ma-city-council-springfield-ma-five-year-moratorium-on-police-and-municipal-use-of-fac-202","title":"Springfield, MA — Five-year moratorium on police and municipal use of face surveillance technology","short_title":"Five-year moratorium on police and municipal use of face sur","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Springfield, MA","state_abbr":"MA","city":"Springfield, MA","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-02-24","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Springfield's City Council voted 11-2 to impose a five-year moratorium barring the police department and other municipal agencies from using facial surveillance technology.","summary_technical":"Springfield's City Council voted 11-2 to impose a five-year moratorium barring the police department and other municipal agencies from using facial surveillance technology.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Springfield, MA","citation":"Five-year moratorium on police and municipal use of face surveillance technology","source_url":"https://www.wamc.org/new-england-news/2020-02-25/springfield-passes-moratorium-on-face-surveillance-technology","source_title":"Springfield Passes Moratorium On Face Surveillance Technology | WAMC","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ma-city-council-boston-ma-ordinance-banning-face-surveillance-technology-in-bosto-2020","title":"Boston, MA — Ordinance banning face surveillance technology in Boston","short_title":"Ordinance banning face surveillance technology in Boston","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Boston, MA","state_abbr":"MA","city":"Boston, MA","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-06-24","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Boston's City Council voted unanimously to ban city government, including police, from using face surveillance technology and from asking third parties to use it on their behalf.","summary_technical":"Boston's City Council voted unanimously to ban city government, including police, from using face surveillance technology and from asking third parties to use it on their behalf.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Boston, MA","citation":"Ordinance banning face surveillance technology in Boston","source_url":"https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/boston-bans-face-recognition-surveillance","source_title":"Boston Bans Face Recognition Surveillance | ACLU","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"or-city-council-portland-or-ordinance-banning-use-of-face-recognition-technologies--2020","title":"Portland, OR — Ordinance banning use of face recognition technologies by City of Portland bureaus","short_title":"Ordinance banning use of face recognition technologies by Ci","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Portland, OR","state_abbr":"OR","city":"Portland, OR","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-09-09","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Portland's City Council unanimously banned all city bureaus, including police, from using or acquiring face recognition technology, with narrow device-unlock and redaction exceptions.","summary_technical":"Portland's City Council unanimously banned all city bureaus, including police, from using or acquiring face recognition technology, with narrow device-unlock and redaction exceptions.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Portland, OR","citation":"Ordinance banning use of face recognition technologies by City of Portland bureaus","source_url":"https://www.portland.gov/wheeler/news/2020/9/9/city-council-approves-ordinances-banning-use-facial-recognition-technologies","source_title":"City Council Approves Ordinances Banning Use of Facial Recognition Technologies | Portland.gov","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"pa-city-council-pittsburgh-pa-ordinance-requiring-city-council-approval-before-police-2020","title":"Pittsburgh, PA — Ordinance requiring City Council approval before police use of facial recognition and predictive policing technology","short_title":"Ordinance requiring City Council approval before police use ","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Pittsburgh, PA","state_abbr":"PA","city":"Pittsburgh, PA","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-09-22","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Pittsburgh's City Council barred the police bureau from obtaining or using facial recognition or predictive policing technology without prior City Council approval, functioning as a moratorium on new use.","summary_technical":"Pittsburgh's City Council barred the police bureau from obtaining or using facial recognition or predictive policing technology without prior City Council approval, functioning as a moratorium on new use.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Pittsburgh, PA","citation":"Ordinance requiring City Council approval before police use of facial recognition and predictive policing technology","source_url":"https://www.publicsource.org/pittsburgh-city-council-vote-regulate-facial-recognition/","source_title":"Pittsburgh City Council votes to regulate facial recognition and predictive policing | PublicSource","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"la-city-council-new-orleans-la-surveillance-technology-and-data-protection-ordinance-b-202","title":"New Orleans, LA — Surveillance Technology and Data Protection ordinance banning NOPD facial recognition and predictive policing","short_title":"Surveillance Technology and Data Protection ordinance bannin","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New Orleans, LA","state_abbr":"LA","city":"New Orleans, LA","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-12-17","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"New Orleans' City Council banned NOPD use of facial recognition, stingrays, and predictive policing in 2020, but the council rolled back the facial recognition ban to permit limited use in 2022.","summary_technical":"New Orleans' City Council banned NOPD use of facial recognition, stingrays, and predictive policing in 2020, but the council rolled back the facial recognition ban to permit limited use in 2022.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"New Orleans, LA","citation":"Surveillance Technology and Data Protection ordinance banning NOPD facial recognition and predictive policing","source_url":"https://thelensnola.org/2020/12/18/new-orleans-city-council-approves-ban-on-facial-recognition-predictive-policing-and-other-surveillance-tech/","source_title":"New Orleans City Council bans facial recognition, predictive policing and other surveillance tech | The Lens","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"mn-city-council-minneapolis-mn-ordinance-banning-city-and-police-department-use-of-fac-202","title":"Minneapolis, MN — Ordinance banning city and police department use of facial recognition technology","short_title":"Ordinance banning city and police department use of facial r","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Minneapolis, MN","state_abbr":"MN","city":"Minneapolis, MN","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2021-02-12","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Minneapolis' City Council voted 13-0 to bar all city agencies, including the police department, from acquiring or using facial recognition technology or data derived from it.","summary_technical":"Minneapolis' City Council voted 13-0 to bar all city agencies, including the police department, from acquiring or using facial recognition technology or data derived from it.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Minneapolis, MN","citation":"Ordinance banning city and police department use of facial recognition technology","source_url":"https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/12/minneapolis-facial-recognition-ban/","source_title":"Minneapolis bans its police department from using facial recognition software | TechCrunch","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"wa-county-king-county-wa-ordinance-prohibiting-king-county-government-and-sherif-2021","title":"King County, WA — Ordinance prohibiting King County government and Sheriff use of facial recognition technology","short_title":"Ordinance prohibiting King County government and Sheriff use","level":"county","jurisdiction":"King County, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"King County, WA","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","children","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2021-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"King County became the first U.S. county to ban its administrative agencies and the Sheriff's Office from using facial recognition technology, with a narrow exception for the National Child Search Assistance Act.","summary_technical":"King County became the first U.S. county to ban its administrative agencies and the Sheriff's Office from using facial recognition technology, with a narrow exception for the National Child Search Assistance Act.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"King County, WA","citation":"Ordinance prohibiting King County government and Sheriff use of facial recognition technology","source_url":"https://kingcounty.gov/en/legacy/council/mainnews/2021/june/6-01-facial-recognition","source_title":"Facial Recognition Technology Ban Passed by King County Council | King County","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ma-city-council-cambridge-ma-ordinance-banning-municipal-use-of-face-surveillance-te-2020","title":"Cambridge, MA — Ordinance banning municipal use of face surveillance technology","short_title":"Ordinance banning municipal use of face surveillance technol","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cambridge, MA","state_abbr":"MA","city":"Cambridge, MA","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-01-13","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Cambridge's City Council banned all city departments, including police, from using face surveillance technology, joining a wave of Massachusetts municipal bans.","summary_technical":"Cambridge's City Council banned all city departments, including police, from using face surveillance technology, joining a wave of Massachusetts municipal bans.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Cambridge, MA","citation":"Ordinance banning municipal use of face surveillance technology","source_url":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/movement-ban-government-use-face-recognition","source_title":"The Movement to Ban Government Use of Face Recognition | EFF","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"wi-police-department-milwaukee-wi-milwaukee-police-department-self-imposed-moratorium-on--","title":"Milwaukee, WI — Milwaukee Police Department self-imposed moratorium on facial recognition technology","short_title":"Milwaukee Police Department self-imposed moratorium on facia","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Milwaukee, WI","state_abbr":"WI","city":"Milwaukee, WI","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-02-06","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"After sustained public opposition, the Milwaukee Police Department announced it would not use or acquire facial recognition technology pending a formal policy, a moratorium the Common Council can modify or reject.","summary_technical":"After sustained public opposition, the Milwaukee Police Department announced it would not use or acquire facial recognition technology pending a formal policy, a moratorium the Common Council can modify or reject.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Milwaukee, WI","citation":"Milwaukee Police Department self-imposed moratorium on facial recognition technology","source_url":"https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2026/02/09/public-outcry-over-facial-recognition-technology-leads-milwaukee-police-to-ban-it-for-now/","source_title":"Public outcry over facial recognition technology leads Milwaukee police to ban it, for now | Wisconsin Examiner","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"nj-port-authority-port-authority-of-new-york-and-new-jersey-newark-libert-newark-liberty-f","title":"Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Newark Liberty International Airport) — Newark Liberty Facial Recognition eGates for TSA Screening","short_title":"Newark Liberty Facial Recognition eGates for TSA Screening","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Newark Liberty International Airport)","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"expired","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Port Authority of NY & NJ deployed facial-recognition eGates at Newark Liberty that let enrolled travelers pass TSA checkpoints by matching a live facial scan against their identity document instead of a manual ID check.","summary_technical":"The Port Authority of NY & NJ deployed facial-recognition eGates at Newark Liberty that let enrolled travelers pass TSA checkpoints by matching a live facial scan against their identity document instead of a manual ID check.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Newark Liberty International Airport)","citation":"Newark Liberty Facial Recognition eGates for TSA Screening","source_url":"https://www.govtech.com/products/newark-n-j-airport-tests-facial-recognition-for-boarding","source_title":"Newark, N.J., Airport Tests Facial Recognition for Boarding (GovTech)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"nj-port-authority-port-authority-of-new-york-and-new-jersey-newark-libert-newark-biometric","title":"Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Newark Liberty International Airport, Terminal B) — Newark Biometric Self-Boarding E-Gate Pilot (with IDEMIA/Lufthansa/CBP)","short_title":"Newark Biometric Self-Boarding E-Gate Pilot (with IDEMIA/Luf","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Newark Liberty International Airport, Terminal B)","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"expired","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Port Authority piloted a biometric self-boarding e-gate at Newark Gate 62 that captured passengers' faces and verified them against CBP's passport database to board without documents, with scans deleted within 12 hours.","summary_technical":"The Port Authority piloted a biometric self-boarding e-gate at Newark Gate 62 that captured passengers' faces and verified them against CBP's passport database to board without documents, with scans deleted within 12 hours.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Newark Liberty International Airport, Terminal B)","citation":"Newark Biometric Self-Boarding E-Gate Pilot (with IDEMIA/Lufthansa/CBP)","source_url":"https://na.idemia.com/2021/08/20/the-port-authority-of-ny-and-nj-launches-a-biometric-self-boarding-e-gate-pilot-at-newark-airport-with-idemia/","source_title":"The Port Authority of NY and NJ Launches a Biometric Self-Boarding E-Gate Pilot at Newark Airport with IDEMIA","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"mi-airport-authority-wayne-county-airport-authority-delta-detroit-metropolit-delta-cbp-bio","title":"Wayne County Airport Authority / Delta (Detroit Metropolitan Airport) — Delta-CBP Biometric Boarding and Simplified Arrival at Detroit Metro Airport","short_title":"Delta-CBP Biometric Boarding and Simplified Arrival at Detro","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Wayne County Airport Authority / Delta (Detroit Metropolitan Airport)","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Wayne County Airport Authority / Delta (Detroit Metropolitan Airport)","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2018-07-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Delta, the Wayne County Airport Authority and CBP deployed facial-recognition boarding at Detroit Metro, letting international passengers board by facial scan matched to CBP's photo gallery.","summary_technical":"Delta, the Wayne County Airport Authority and CBP deployed facial-recognition boarding at Detroit Metro, letting international passengers board by facial scan matched to CBP's photo gallery.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Wayne County Airport Authority / Delta (Detroit Metropolitan Airport)","citation":"Delta-CBP Biometric Boarding and Simplified Arrival at Detroit Metro Airport","source_url":"https://www.biometricupdate.com/201807/deltas-biometric-boarding-pilot-lands-in-detroit","source_title":"Delta's biometric boarding pilot lands in Detroit (Biometric Update)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ga-airport-authority-city-of-atlanta-delta-cbp-hartsfield-jackson-atlanta-in-first-u-s-bio","title":"City of Atlanta / Delta / CBP (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Terminal F) — First U.S. Biometric Terminal (Maynard H. Jackson International Terminal)","short_title":"First U.S. Biometric Terminal (Maynard H. Jackson Internatio","level":"city","jurisdiction":"City of Atlanta / Delta / CBP (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Terminal F)","state_abbr":"GA","city":"City of Atlanta / Delta / CBP (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Terminal F)","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2018-12-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Delta, CBP, TSA and Hartsfield-Jackson opened the first end-to-end biometric terminal in the U.S., using facial recognition for check-in, bag drop, TSA screening, boarding, and CBP arrival.","summary_technical":"Delta, CBP, TSA and Hartsfield-Jackson opened the first end-to-end biometric terminal in the U.S., using facial recognition for check-in, bag drop, TSA screening, boarding, and CBP arrival.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"City of Atlanta / Delta / CBP (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Terminal F)","citation":"First U.S. Biometric Terminal (Maynard H. Jackson International Terminal)","source_url":"https://www.futuretravelexperience.com/2018/12/delta-officially-unveils-new-biometric-terminal-at-atlanta-international-airport/","source_title":"Delta officially unveils new biometric terminal at Atlanta International Airport","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"us-federal-agency-u-s-customs-and-border-protection-all-u-s-international-simplified-arriv","title":"U.S. Customs and Border Protection (all U.S. international airports) — Simplified Arrival Facial Biometric Comparison at All U.S. International Airports","short_title":"Simplified Arrival Facial Biometric Comparison at All U.S. I","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2022-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"CBP completed nationwide deployment of Simplified Arrival, which photographs international arrivals at airport inspection points and matches faces against government passport/visa galleries, with opt-out for U.S. citizens.","summary_technical":"CBP completed nationwide deployment of Simplified Arrival, which photographs international arrivals at airport inspection points and matches faces against government passport/visa galleries, with opt-out for U.S. citizens.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"U.S. Customs and Border Protection (all U.S. international airports)","citation":"Simplified Arrival Facial Biometric Comparison at All U.S. International Airports","source_url":"https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-completes-simplified-arrival-expansion-all-us-airports","source_title":"CBP Completes Simplified Arrival Expansion at All US Airports","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"us-federal-agency-u-s-customs-and-border-protection-u-s-cruise-seaports-m-cbp-biometric-fa","title":"U.S. Customs and Border Protection (U.S. cruise seaports: Miami, Port Everglades, Galveston, etc.) — CBP Biometric Facial Comparison at Cruise Seaports","short_title":"CBP Biometric Facial Comparison at Cruise Seaports","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"CBP runs biometric facial comparison at roughly 11 U.S. cruise seaports (including Miami and Port Everglades), scanning disembarking passengers' faces against passport/visa photos with a U.S.-citizen opt-out.","summary_technical":"CBP runs biometric facial comparison at roughly 11 U.S. cruise seaports (including Miami and Port Everglades), scanning disembarking passengers' faces against passport/visa photos with a U.S.-citizen opt-out.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"U.S. Customs and Border Protection (U.S. cruise seaports: Miami, Port Everglades, Galveston, etc.)","citation":"CBP Biometric Facial Comparison at Cruise Seaports","source_url":"https://thepointsguy.com/news/cbp-facial-recognition-us-cruise-ports/","source_title":"You could breeze through customs faster after your next cruise, thanks to facial recognition (The Points Guy)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"us-federal-agency-transportation-security-administration-approximately-35-tsa-facial-compa","title":"Transportation Security Administration (approximately 350+ U.S. airport checkpoints) — TSA Facial Comparison Technology (CAT-2 / Traveler Verification Service)","short_title":"TSA Facial Comparison Technology (CAT-2 / Traveler Verificat","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"TSA uses CAT-2 camera units at 350+ airport checkpoints to compare a live photo of a traveler to their ID photo (or to a CBP TVS gallery), with signage stating participation is voluntary and travelers may decline.","summary_technical":"TSA uses CAT-2 camera units at 350+ airport checkpoints to compare a live photo of a traveler to their ID photo (or to a CBP TVS gallery), with signage stating participation is voluntary and travelers may decline.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Transportation Security Administration (approximately 350+ U.S. airport checkpoints)","citation":"TSA Facial Comparison Technology (CAT-2 / Traveler Verification Service)","source_url":"https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/factsheets/facial-comparison-technology","source_title":"Facial Comparison Technology (TSA fact sheet)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"us-federal-agency-u-s-department-of-homeland-security-cbp-airports-seapor-final-rule-colle","title":"U.S. Department of Homeland Security / CBP (airports, seaports, land ports nationwide) — Final Rule: Collection of Biometric Data From Aliens Upon Entry to and Departure From the United States","short_title":"Final Rule: Collection of Biometric Data From Aliens Upon En","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector","privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-12-26","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"This DHS/CBP final rule authorizes facial-biometric collection from all noncitizens on entry and exit at airports, seaports and land ports, removing prior exemptions and expanding to new travel modalities.","summary_technical":"This DHS/CBP final rule authorizes facial-biometric collection from all noncitizens on entry and exit at airports, seaports and land ports, removing prior exemptions and expanding to new travel modalities.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"U.S. Department of Homeland Security / CBP (airports, seaports, land ports nationwide)","citation":"Final Rule: Collection of Biometric Data From Aliens Upon Entry to and Departure From the United States","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/27/2025-19655/collection-of-biometric-data-from-aliens-upon-entry-to-and-departure-from-the-united-states","source_title":"Federal Register: Collection of Biometric Data From Aliens Upon Entry to and Departure From the United States","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"us-federal-legislature-u-s-senate-traveler-privacy-protection-act-of-2025-s-16-traveler-pr","title":"U.S. Senate (Traveler Privacy Protection Act of 2025, S.1691) — Traveler Privacy Protection Act of 2025 (S.1691)","short_title":"Traveler Privacy Protection Act of 2025 (S.1691)","level":"federal","jurisdiction":"United States","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"This pending bipartisan Senate bill would guarantee travelers the right to opt out of TSA facial recognition at airports, bar worse treatment for opting out, and limit retention and secondary use of face data.","summary_technical":"This pending bipartisan Senate bill would guarantee travelers the right to opt out of TSA facial recognition at airports, bar worse treatment for opting out, and limit retention and secondary use of face data.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"U.S. Senate (Traveler Privacy Protection Act of 2025, S.1691)","citation":"Traveler Privacy Protection Act of 2025 (S.1691)","source_url":"https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1691/text/is","source_title":"S.1691 Traveler Privacy Protection Act of 2025 (Congress.gov)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"me-city-council-portland-me-portland-municipal-facial-recognition-ban-implicating-t-2020","title":"Portland, ME — Portland Municipal Facial Recognition Ban (implicating the Portland Jetport and ocean port)","short_title":"Portland Municipal Facial Recognition Ban (implicating the P","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Portland, ME","state_abbr":"ME","city":"Portland, ME","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","public-sector","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-08-04","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Portland barred city use of facial recognition after debate over the city-run Jetport and ocean port, though the ban does not reach federal CBP use required for international-flight processing.","summary_technical":"Portland barred city use of facial recognition after debate over the city-run Jetport and ocean port, though the ban does not reach federal CBP use required for international-flight processing.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Portland, ME","citation":"Portland Municipal Facial Recognition Ban (implicating the Portland Jetport and ocean port)","source_url":"https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/portland-maine-councilors-ban-facial-recognition-tech.html","source_title":"Portland, Maine, Councilors Ban Facial Recognition Tech (GovTech)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"wa-county-king-county-wa-home-to-seattle-tacoma-international-air-king-county-facial-recog","title":"King County, WA (home to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport) — King County Facial Recognition Technology Ban (Ordinance 2021)","short_title":"King County Facial Recognition Technology Ban (Ordinance 202","level":"county","jurisdiction":"King County, WA (home to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport)","state_abbr":"WA","county":"King County, WA (home to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport)","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","public-sector","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2021-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"King County (which operates Sea-Tac's environs and the Sheriff's Office) became the first U.S. county to ban all county-agency use of facial recognition, though federal CBP use at Sea-Tac is unaffected.","summary_technical":"King County (which operates Sea-Tac's environs and the Sheriff's Office) became the first U.S. county to ban all county-agency use of facial recognition, though federal CBP use at Sea-Tac is unaffected.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"King County, WA (home to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport)","citation":"King County Facial Recognition Technology Ban (Ordinance 2021)","source_url":"https://statescoop.com/king-county-washington-bans-facial-recognition/","source_title":"King County, Washington, bans facial recognition (StateScoop)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"pa-public-utility-commission-pennsylvania-public-utility-commission-model-tariff-framework","title":"Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission — Model Tariff Framework for Large Load Customers (Docket M-2025-3054271)","short_title":"Model Tariff Framework for Large Load Customers (Docket M-20","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-04-30","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Pennsylvania PUC adopted a first-of-its-kind model tariff framework requiring large load customers exceeding 50 MW individually or 100 MW in aggregate (e.g., data centers) to bear interconnection upgrade costs, post financial assurances, and follow a public application queue so existing ratepayers are not saddled with their costs.","summary_technical":"The Pennsylvania PUC adopted a first-of-its-kind model tariff framework requiring large load customers exceeding 50 MW individually or 100 MW in aggregate (e.g., data centers) to bear interconnection upgrade costs, post financial assurances, and follow a public application queue so existing ratepayers are not saddled with their costs.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission","citation":"Model Tariff Framework for Large Load Customers (Docket M-2025-3054271)","source_url":"https://www.puc.pa.gov/press-release/2026/puc-acts-to-protect-ratepayers-guide-data-center-growth-with-new-large-load-tariff-framework-4-30-26","source_title":"PUC Acts to Protect Ratepayers, Guide Data Center Growth with New Large Load Tariff Framework | PA PUC","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"or-public-utility-commission-oregon-public-utility-commission-portland-general-elect-order","title":"Oregon Public Utility Commission (Portland General Electric) — Order 26-154 Approving PGE Large-Load Tariff Framework for Data Centers","short_title":"Order 26-154 Approving PGE Large-Load Tariff Framework for D","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Oregon Public Utility Commission (Portland General Electric)","state_abbr":"OR","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-05-07","last_verified_date":"2026-07-19","summary_plain":"The Oregon PUC approved a large-load tariff for data centers exceeding 20 MW that requires customers to fund 100% of distribution upgrades, sign 10-to-30-year contracts, pay minimum demand charges at 90% of contracted capacity, and adds a 1 cent/kWh surcharge on projects over 100 MW to offset residential and low-income customer costs. In July 2026 the PUC approved PGE's compliance rate filing implementing the framework: data-center customers' rates rise about 29.7% while residential bills drop about 1.3%.","summary_technical":"The Oregon PUC approved a large-load tariff for data centers exceeding 20 MW that requires customers to fund 100% of distribution upgrades, sign 10-to-30-year contracts, pay minimum demand charges at 90% of contracted capacity, and adds a 1 cent/kWh surcharge on projects over 100 MW to offset residential and low-income customer costs. FOLLOW-ON (July 7, 2026): the PUC unanimously approved PGE's compliance rate filing implementing the large-load/data-center framework under HB 3546 (POWER Act) — average 29.7% rate increase for data-center customers effective July 8, 2026; residential bills decrease ~1.3%, commercial ~2.1%, other industrial ~1.4%.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Oregon Public Utility Commission (Portland General Electric)","citation":"Order 26-154 Approving PGE Large-Load Tariff Framework for Data Centers","source_url":"https://www.utilitydive.com/news/oregon-puc-approves-pges-large-load-tariff-framework-for-data-centers/821361/","source_title":"Oregon PUC approves PGE's large-load tariff framework for data centers | Utility Dive","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"oh-public-utility-commission-public-utilities-commission-of-ohio-aep-ohio-aep-ohio-data-ce","title":"Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (AEP Ohio) — AEP Ohio Data Center Tariff Order (Case 24-0508-EL-ATA)","short_title":"AEP Ohio Data Center Tariff Order (Case 24-0508-EL-ATA)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (AEP Ohio)","state_abbr":"OH","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-09","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Ohio PUC adopted a settlement creating a new data center customer class for loads of 25 MW or greater, requiring those customers to pay for at least 85% of contracted capacity for a minimum 12-year term plus exit fees and financial assurances to prevent cost-shifting to other customers.","summary_technical":"The Ohio PUC adopted a settlement creating a new data center customer class for loads of 25 MW or greater, requiring those customers to pay for at least 85% of contracted capacity for a minimum 12-year term plus exit fees and financial assurances to prevent cost-shifting to other customers.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (AEP Ohio)","citation":"AEP Ohio Data Center Tariff Order (Case 24-0508-EL-ATA)","source_url":"https://puco.ohio.gov/news/puco-orders-aep-ohio-to-create-data-center-specific-tariff","source_title":"PUCO orders AEP Ohio to create data center specific tariff | Public Utilities Commission of Ohio","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"va-public-utility-commission-virginia-state-corporation-commission-dominion-energy-v-new-g","title":"Virginia State Corporation Commission (Dominion Energy Virginia) — New GS-5 Data Center / Large Load Rate Class, DEV 2025 Biennial Review (Case PUR-2025-00058)","short_title":"New GS-5 Data Center / Large Load Rate Class, DEV 2025 Bienn","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Virginia State Corporation Commission (Dominion Energy Virginia)","state_abbr":"VA","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-11-25","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Virginia SCC created a new GS-5 rate class (effective Jan 1, 2027) for customers exceeding 25 MW with load factor above 75%, requiring 14-year contracts and minimum demand charges of 85% for transmission/distribution and 60% for generation so data centers pay their own costs.","summary_technical":"The Virginia SCC created a new GS-5 rate class (effective Jan 1, 2027) for customers exceeding 25 MW with load factor above 75%, requiring 14-year contracts and minimum demand charges of 85% for transmission/distribution and 60% for generation so data centers pay their own costs.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Virginia State Corporation Commission (Dominion Energy Virginia)","citation":"New GS-5 Data Center / Large Load Rate Class, DEV 2025 Biennial Review (Case PUR-2025-00058)","source_url":"https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/virginia-regulators-approve-new-rate-class-for-data-centers-and-other-large-loads/","source_title":"Virginia regulators approve new rate class for data centers and other large loads | DCD","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ga-public-utility-commission-georgia-public-service-commission-georgia-power-rule-establis","title":"Georgia Public Service Commission (Georgia Power) — Rule Establishing Special Contract Terms for Large-Load Customers Over 100 MW","short_title":"Rule Establishing Special Contract Terms for Large-Load Cust","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Georgia Public Service Commission (Georgia Power)","state_abbr":"GA","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-01-23","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Georgia PSC unanimously approved a rule allowing Georgia Power to bill new customers using more than 100 MW under special terms, requiring them to cover transmission and distribution construction costs, permitting contracts up to 15 years, and mandating PSC review of each large-load contract.","summary_technical":"The Georgia PSC unanimously approved a rule allowing Georgia Power to bill new customers using more than 100 MW under special terms, requiring them to cover transmission and distribution construction costs, permitting contracts up to 15 years, and mandating PSC review of each large-load contract.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Georgia Public Service Commission (Georgia Power)","citation":"Rule Establishing Special Contract Terms for Large-Load Customers Over 100 MW","source_url":"https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/georgia-psc-approves-new-billing-rules-for-data-centers-and-large-load-customers/","source_title":"Georgia PSC approves new billing rules for data centers and large load customers | DCD","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"in-public-utility-commission-indiana-utility-regulatory-commission-indiana-michigan--i-m-i","title":"Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Indiana Michigan Power) — I&M Industrial Power (Large Load) Tariff Settlement Order (Cause No. 46097)","short_title":"I&M Industrial Power (Large Load) Tariff Settlement Order (C","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Indiana Michigan Power)","state_abbr":"IN","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-02-19","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Indiana URC approved a settlement modifying Indiana Michigan Power's Industrial Power Tariff for facilities of at least 70 MW (or 150 MW aggregated), requiring 12-year contracts, minimum monthly demand charges of 80% of contract capacity, exit fees, and collateral so grid-upgrade costs fall on data centers rather than existing ratepayers.","summary_technical":"The Indiana URC approved a settlement modifying Indiana Michigan Power's Industrial Power Tariff for facilities of at least 70 MW (or 150 MW aggregated), requiring 12-year contracts, minimum monthly demand charges of 80% of contract capacity, exit fees, and collateral so grid-upgrade costs fall on data centers rather than existing ratepayers.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Indiana Michigan Power)","citation":"I&M Industrial Power (Large Load) Tariff Settlement Order (Cause No. 46097)","source_url":"https://www.utilitydive.com/news/indiana-iurc-large-load-interconnection-data-center-aep-amazon-google/740452/","source_title":"Indiana regulators approve 'large load' interconnection rules | Utility Dive","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"wi-public-utility-commission-public-service-commission-of-wisconsin-we-energies-we-energie","title":"Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (We Energies) — We Energies Very Large Customer (VLC) Data Center Tariff Order","short_title":"We Energies Very Large Customer (VLC) Data Center Tariff Ord","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (We Energies)","state_abbr":"WI","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-04-24","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Wisconsin PSC approved but overhauled We Energies' data center tariff, lowering the eligibility threshold from 500 MW to 100 MW, extending the minimum contract term to 15 years, and removing a capacity-only option so data centers pay their full share and existing customers are not subsidizing them.","summary_technical":"The Wisconsin PSC approved but overhauled We Energies' data center tariff, lowering the eligibility threshold from 500 MW to 100 MW, extending the minimum contract term to 15 years, and removing a capacity-only option so data centers pay their full share and existing customers are not subsidizing them.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (We Energies)","citation":"We Energies Very Large Customer (VLC) Data Center Tariff Order","source_url":"https://www.wpr.org/news/state-regulators-change-we-energies-data-center-rate-proposal-to-protect-customers","source_title":"State regulators change We Energies' data center rate proposal to protect customers | WPR","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ky-public-utility-commission-kentucky-public-service-commission-lg-e-and-ku-lg-e-ku-cpcn-o","title":"Kentucky Public Service Commission (LG&E and KU) — LG&E/KU CPCN Order Addressing Extremely High Load Factor Data Center Tariff (Case 2025-00045)","short_title":"LG&E/KU CPCN Order Addressing Extremely High Load Factor Dat","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Kentucky Public Service Commission (LG&E and KU)","state_abbr":"KY","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Kentucky PSC authorized LG&E/KU to build two gas plants for future data centers and endorsed an 'extremely high load factor' tariff under which new data centers using at least 100 MW must pay for at least 80% of their stated monthly consumption for 15 years, while deferring the cost-recovery mechanism to a later rate case.","summary_technical":"The Kentucky PSC authorized LG&E/KU to build two gas plants for future data centers and endorsed an 'extremely high load factor' tariff under which new data centers using at least 100 MW must pay for at least 80% of their stated monthly consumption for 15 years, while deferring the cost-recovery mechanism to a later rate case.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Kentucky Public Service Commission (LG&E and KU)","citation":"LG&E/KU CPCN Order Addressing Extremely High Load Factor Data Center Tariff (Case 2025-00045)","source_url":"https://www.lpm.org/news/2025-10-28/kentucky-regulators-grant-lg-e-ku-permission-to-build-power-plants-for-future-data-centers","source_title":"Kentucky regulators grant LG&E/KU permission to build power plants for future data centers | LPM","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ut-public-utility-commission-utah-public-service-commission-rocky-mountain-power-pac-large","title":"Utah Public Service Commission (Rocky Mountain Power / PacifiCorp) — Large-Load Flexible Tariff Investigation for Facilities Reaching 100 MW (per SB 132)","short_title":"Large-Load Flexible Tariff Investigation for Facilities Reac","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah Public Service Commission (Rocky Mountain Power / PacifiCorp)","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-03-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Following Utah SB 132 (2025), the Utah PSC opened an investigation into a flexible large-load tariff for Rocky Mountain Power covering facilities expected to reach at least 100 MW within five years, allowing such facilities to procure their own supply if serving them would require major ratepayer-funded upgrades.","summary_technical":"Following Utah SB 132 (2025), the Utah PSC opened an investigation into a flexible large-load tariff for Rocky Mountain Power covering facilities expected to reach at least 100 MW within five years, allowing such facilities to procure their own supply if serving them would require major ratepayer-funded upgrades.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Utah Public Service Commission (Rocky Mountain Power / PacifiCorp)","citation":"Large-Load Flexible Tariff Investigation for Facilities Reaching 100 MW (per SB 132)","source_url":"https://www.latitudemedia.com/news/utah-is-taking-a-different-approach-to-new-data-center-load/","source_title":"Utah is taking a different approach to new data center load | Latitude Media","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"sc-public-utility-commission-public-service-commission-of-south-carolina-large-load-tariff","title":"Public Service Commission of South Carolina — Large Load Tariff Docket Opened via Duke Energy Progress/Carolinas Settlements","short_title":"Large Load Tariff Docket Opened via Duke Energy Progress/Car","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Public Service Commission of South Carolina","state_abbr":"SC","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Settlements with Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas require the South Carolina PSC to open a large load tariff docket that could establish consumer protections ensuring incremental data-center costs are not shifted onto residential and traditional business customers.","summary_technical":"Settlements with Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas require the South Carolina PSC to open a large load tariff docket that could establish consumer protections ensuring incremental data-center costs are not shifted onto residential and traditional business customers.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Public Service Commission of South Carolina","citation":"Large Load Tariff Docket Opened via Duke Energy Progress/Carolinas Settlements","source_url":"https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2025/12/electric-utility-affordability-crisis-brewing-south-carolina","source_title":"Electric Utility Affordability Crisis Brewing in South Carolina | Sierra Club","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ca-sheriff-riverside-county-ca-riverside-cal-id-biometric-identifi-facial-recognition-poli","title":"Riverside County, CA (Riverside Cal-ID Biometric Identification Network / RCSD) — Facial Recognition Policy (Riverside Cal-ID / RCSD)","short_title":"Facial Recognition Policy (Riverside Cal-ID / RCSD)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Riverside County, CA (Riverside Cal-ID Biometric Identification Network / RCSD)","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Riverside County, CA (Riverside Cal-ID Biometric Identification Network / RCSD)","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-03-23","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Riverside County Sheriff's Department's Cal-ID biometric network governs use of its facial recognition system, restricting acceptable search reasons, requiring training, data-quality assurance, retention/purging rules, and oversight for participating law-enforcement agencies.","summary_technical":"The Riverside County Sheriff's Department's Cal-ID biometric network governs use of its facial recognition system, restricting acceptable search reasons, requiring training, data-quality assurance, retention/purging rules, and oversight for participating law-enforcement agencies.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Riverside County, CA (Riverside Cal-ID Biometric Identification Network / RCSD)","citation":"Facial Recognition Policy (Riverside Cal-ID / RCSD)","source_url":"https://www.riversidesheriff.org/DocumentCenter/View/7466/CALID-FR-Policy","source_title":"Facial Recognition Policy - Riverside County Sheriff's Department / CALID","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ca-sheriff-orange-county-ca-orange-county-sheriff-coroner-departme-orange-county-sd-policy","title":"Orange County, CA (Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department) — Orange County SD Policy Manual, Policy 308 - Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)","short_title":"Orange County SD Policy Manual, Policy 308 - Unmanned Aerial","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Orange County, CA (Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department)","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Orange County, CA (Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department)","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2021-03-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Orange County Sheriff's UAV policy sets rules for lawful, FAA Part 107-compliant drone operations, requiring mission briefs, after-action reports, and prohibiting missions that violate the public's privacy rights.","summary_technical":"The Orange County Sheriff's UAV policy sets rules for lawful, FAA Part 107-compliant drone operations, requiring mission briefs, after-action reports, and prohibiting missions that violate the public's privacy rights.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Orange County, CA (Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department)","citation":"Orange County SD Policy Manual, Policy 308 - Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)","source_url":"https://ocsheriff.gov/sites/ocsd/files/2021-03/Policy%20308%20Unmanned%20Aerial%20Vehicle%20(UAV).pdf","source_title":"Policy 308 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) - Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"il-sheriff-cook-county-il-cook-county-sheriff-cook-county-jail-cook-county-jail-ai-powered","title":"Cook County, IL (Cook County Sheriff / Cook County Jail) — Cook County Jail AI-powered video surveillance system (BriefCam) contract","short_title":"Cook County Jail AI-powered video surveillance system (Brief","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Cook County, IL (Cook County Sheriff / Cook County Jail)","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Cook County, IL (Cook County Sheriff / Cook County Jail)","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","automated-decisions","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Cook County Sheriff's Office proposed a $1.12M three-year BriefCam contract to add AI video analytics, facial recognition, and object identification across Cook County Jail's video, drawing opposition from 80 community groups.","summary_technical":"The Cook County Sheriff's Office proposed a $1.12M three-year BriefCam contract to add AI video analytics, facial recognition, and object identification across Cook County Jail's video, drawing opposition from 80 community groups.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Cook County, IL (Cook County Sheriff / Cook County Jail)","citation":"Cook County Jail AI-powered video surveillance system (BriefCam) contract","source_url":"https://chicago.suntimes.com/public-safety/2026/05/12/cook-county-jail-ai-briefcam-chicago-crime","source_title":"Cook County Jail could get a $1.1 million AI-powered surveillance system - Chicago Sun-Times","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"az-sheriff-maricopa-county-az-maricopa-county-sheriff-s-office-mcso-ai-assisted-body-scann","title":"Maricopa County, AZ (Maricopa County Sheriff's Office) — MCSO AI-assisted body scanner deployment for jail contraband detection (LINEV Systems)","short_title":"MCSO AI-assisted body scanner deployment for jail contraband","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Maricopa County, AZ (Maricopa County Sheriff's Office)","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Maricopa County, AZ (Maricopa County Sheriff's Office)","topics":["automated-decisions","law-enforcement","public-sector","biometrics"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-10-20","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office deployed ten AI-assisted X-ray body scanners across six jail facilities to detect internally concealed contraband on inmates using automated anomaly detection and drug-detection software.","summary_technical":"The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office deployed ten AI-assisted X-ray body scanners across six jail facilities to detect internally concealed contraband on inmates using automated anomaly detection and drug-detection software.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Maricopa County, AZ (Maricopa County Sheriff's Office)","citation":"MCSO AI-assisted body scanner deployment for jail contraband detection (LINEV Systems)","source_url":"https://www.corrections1.com/products/facility-products/body-scanners/maricopa-county-sheriffs-office-selects-linev-systems-us-inc-to-deploy-ai-assisted-body-scanners-for-enhanced-contraband-detection-across-facilities","source_title":"Maricopa County Sheriff's Office selects LINEV Systems US, Inc. to deploy AI-assisted body scanners - Corrections1","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"wa-sheriff-spokane-county-wa-spokane-county-sheriff-s-office-spokane-county-real-time-crim","title":"Spokane County, WA (Spokane County Sheriff's Office) — Spokane County Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC) surveillance use policy","short_title":"Spokane County Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC) surveillance us","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Spokane County, WA (Spokane County Sheriff's Office)","state_abbr":"WA","county":"Spokane County, WA (Spokane County Sheriff's Office)","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-04-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Spokane County Sheriff's RTCC fuses surveillance cameras, license plate readers, BriefCam video analytics, 911 and social media data for real-time intelligence while stating it does not use facial recognition biometric software and applies access controls and audits.","summary_technical":"The Spokane County Sheriff's RTCC fuses surveillance cameras, license plate readers, BriefCam video analytics, 911 and social media data for real-time intelligence while stating it does not use facial recognition biometric software and applies access controls and audits.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Spokane County, WA (Spokane County Sheriff's Office)","citation":"Spokane County Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC) surveillance use policy","source_url":"https://www.spokanecounty.gov/5453/Real-Time-Crime-Center-RTCC","source_title":"Real Time Crime Center (RTCC) | Spokane County, WA","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"tx-sheriff-johnson-county-tx-johnson-county-sheriff-s-office-johnson-county-sheriff-nation","title":"Johnson County, TX (Johnson County Sheriff's Office) — Johnson County Sheriff nationwide Flock ALPR search (abortion 'death investigation')","short_title":"Johnson County Sheriff nationwide Flock ALPR search (abortio","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Johnson County, TX (Johnson County Sheriff's Office)","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Johnson County, TX (Johnson County Sheriff's Office)","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-05-09","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Johnson County Sheriff's deputies ran nationwide Flock automated license plate reader searches across tens of thousands of cameras and thousands of networks to locate a woman in a self-managed-abortion investigation, illustrating an operational sheriff ALPR practice.","summary_technical":"Johnson County Sheriff's deputies ran nationwide Flock automated license plate reader searches across tens of thousands of cameras and thousands of networks to locate a woman in a self-managed-abortion investigation, illustrating an operational sheriff ALPR practice.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Johnson County, TX (Johnson County Sheriff's Office)","citation":"Johnson County Sheriff nationwide Flock ALPR search (abortion 'death investigation')","source_url":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-missing-person-it","source_title":"Flock Safety and Texas Sheriff Claimed License Plate Search Was for a Missing Person. It Was an Abortion Investigation. - EFF","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ny-sheriff-suffolk-county-ny-suffolk-county-sheriff-s-office-suffolk-county-jail-ai-inmate","title":"Suffolk County, NY (Suffolk County Sheriff's Office) — Suffolk County Jail AI inmate-call monitoring (LEO Technologies 'Verus')","short_title":"Suffolk County Jail AI inmate-call monitoring (LEO Technolog","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Suffolk County, NY (Suffolk County Sheriff's Office)","state_abbr":"NY","county":"Suffolk County, NY (Suffolk County Sheriff's Office)","topics":["automated-decisions","law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2019-04-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Suffolk County Sheriff's jail deployed LEO Technologies' Verus AI, which uses Amazon speech-to-text to transcribe and keyword-flag inmate phone calls, monitoring over 2.5 million calls between April 2019 and May 2020.","summary_technical":"The Suffolk County Sheriff's jail deployed LEO Technologies' Verus AI, which uses Amazon speech-to-text to transcribe and keyword-flag inmate phone calls, monitoring over 2.5 million calls between April 2019 and May 2020.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Suffolk County, NY (Suffolk County Sheriff's Office)","citation":"Suffolk County Jail AI inmate-call monitoring (LEO Technologies 'Verus')","source_url":"https://www.context.news/surveillance/ai-surveillance-takes-us-prisons-by-storm","source_title":"AI surveillance takes U.S. prisons by storm - Context (Thomson Reuters Foundation)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"nm-sheriff-santa-fe-county-nm-santa-fe-county-sheriff-s-office-santa-fe-county-sheriff-pro","title":"Santa Fe County, NM (Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office) — Santa Fe County Sheriff proposed Clearview AI facial recognition pilot contract","short_title":"Santa Fe County Sheriff proposed Clearview AI facial recogni","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Santa Fe County, NM (Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office)","state_abbr":"NM","county":"Santa Fe County, NM (Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office)","topics":["facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office asked the County Commission to approve a $17,100 one-year Clearview AI facial recognition pilot, but commissioners tabled it and required the office to first present a use policy and vet vendor data-sharing (including with ICE).","summary_technical":"The Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office asked the County Commission to approve a $17,100 one-year Clearview AI facial recognition pilot, but commissioners tabled it and required the office to first present a use policy and vet vendor data-sharing (including with ICE).","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Santa Fe County, NM (Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office)","citation":"Santa Fe County Sheriff proposed Clearview AI facial recognition pilot contract","source_url":"https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/santa-fe-county-sheriff-s-office-seeks-powerful-facial-recognition-tech-from-controversial-clearview-ai/article_d0becf5d-288e-4166-a9f8-821fc2fd4255.html","source_title":"Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office seeks powerful facial recognition tech from controversial Clearview AI - Santa Fe New Mexican","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ca-city-council-san-francisco-ca-ordinance-prohibiting-sale-or-use-of-algorithmic-device-2","title":"San Francisco, CA — Ordinance prohibiting sale or use of algorithmic devices to set rents (Administrative Code / Rent Ordinance Section 37.10C)","short_title":"Ordinance prohibiting sale or use of algorithmic devices to ","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Francisco, CA","state_abbr":"CA","city":"San Francisco, CA","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-10-14","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"San Francisco, the first US city to do so, bans landlords from selling or using algorithmic revenue-management software that uses non-public competitor data to recommend rents or occupancy levels, with civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation plus damages and attorneys' fees.","summary_technical":"San Francisco, the first US city to do so, bans landlords from selling or using algorithmic revenue-management software that uses non-public competitor data to recommend rents or occupancy levels, with civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation plus damages and attorneys' fees.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"San Francisco, CA","citation":"Ordinance prohibiting sale or use of algorithmic devices to set rents (Administrative Code / Rent Ordinance Section 37.10C)","source_url":"https://www.sf.gov/information--algorithmic-devices-set-rent-are-prohibited-san-francisco","source_title":"Algorithmic devices that set rent are prohibited in San Francisco | SF.gov","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"pa-city-council-philadelphia-pa-bill-no-240823-ordinance-banning-algorithmic-and-person-20","title":"Philadelphia, PA — Bill No. 240823 — Ordinance Banning Algorithmic Rental Price-Fixing","short_title":"Philadelphia Bill 240823 — Algorithmic Rent-Fixing Ban","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Philadelphia, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Philadelphia","city":"Philadelphia, PA","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-11-13","enacted_date":"2024-10-24","last_verified_date":"2026-07-31","summary_plain":"Philadelphia's Bill 240823 (sponsored by Councilmember Nicolas O'Rourke, passed 17-0 on October 24, 2024 and signed November 13, 2024) bars landlords from using revenue-management software that pools private competitor leasing data to coordinate rents, with fines up to $2,000 per violation and a private right of action for tenants. On July 28, 2026 three class-action lawsuits were filed — the first known enforcement actions under the ordinance — against Willow Bridge Property Co. and RealPage Inc.","summary_technical":"Philadelphia Bill No. 240823, adopted by City Council 17-0, October 24, 2024; signed by Mayor Parker November 13, 2024; effective November 13, 2024. Prohibits use of algorithmic revenue-management software that incorporates nonpublic competitor pricing/occupancy data to generate rental pricing recommendations. Penalties: $2,000 per violation (or treble damages in private actions). Private right of action granted to tenants. First enforcement: Liu et al. v. Willow Bridge Property Co. & RealPage Inc., Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, three parallel class-action complaints filed July 28, 2026 (indexed separately as litig-liu-v-willow-bridge-realpage-philly-2026). Councilmember O'Rourke's office confirmed these are the inaugural enforcement proceedings. Cross-ref: NJ FAIR Act (nj-new-jersey-forbidding-the-algorithmic-inflation-of-rent-fair-act-a-2026, signed July 20, 2026) and DOJ RealPage consent decree (us-doj-realpage-consent-decree-2025).","who_is_protected":"Philadelphia residential tenants","who_must_comply":"Residential landlords in Philadelphia using algorithmic rent-pricing software","citation":"Philadelphia Bill No. 240823 (adopted Oct. 24, 2024; signed Nov. 13, 2024; effective Nov. 13, 2024)","source_url":"https://phlcouncil.com/councilmember-orourkes-algorithmic-rental-price-fixing-ban-passes-council-heads-to-mayor-parkers-desk/","source_title":"Councilmember O'Rourke's Algorithmic Rental Price-Fixing Ban Passes Council — Philadelphia City Council","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Philadelphia; private right of action","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"$2,000 per violation or treble damages; injunctive relief; private right of action"},{"id":"mn-city-council-minneapolis-mn-use-of-algorithms-in-rental-rates-ordinance-2025","title":"Minneapolis, MN — Use of Algorithms in Rental Rates Ordinance","short_title":"Use of Algorithms in Rental Rates Ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Minneapolis, MN","state_abbr":"MN","city":"Minneapolis, MN","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Minneapolis (third US city, 11-2 vote in March 2025) prohibits owners from using 'algorithmic devices' relying on non-public competitor data to set rents or occupancy, enforced through rental-license self-attestation and a tenant private right of action, effective March 1, 2026.","summary_technical":"Minneapolis (third US city, 11-2 vote in March 2025) prohibits owners from using 'algorithmic devices' relying on non-public competitor data to set rents or occupancy, enforced through rental-license self-attestation and a tenant private right of action, effective March 1, 2026.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Minneapolis, MN","citation":"Use of Algorithms in Rental Rates Ordinance","source_url":"https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/minneapolis-city-council-passes-ban-on-landlords-using-algorithms-to-set-rent/","source_title":"Minneapolis City Council passes ban on landlords using algorithms to set rent - KSTP","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ca-city-council-berkeley-ca-ordinance-prohibiting-use-of-algorithmic-rent-setting-d-2025","title":"Berkeley, CA — Ordinance prohibiting use of algorithmic rent-setting devices","short_title":"Ordinance prohibiting use of algorithmic rent-setting device","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Berkeley, CA","state_abbr":"CA","city":"Berkeley, CA","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-03-11","enacted_date":"2025-03-11","last_verified_date":"2026-07-09","summary_plain":"Berkeley's City Council voted 8-1 in March 2025 to prohibit landlords from using algorithms to coordinate rent prices or manage vacancies. The ban was subsequently suspended by a follow-up Council ordinance after RealPage filed a First Amendment lawsuit challenging the measure. The suspension ordinance's second reading was scheduled for July 8, 2025; a November 2025 amendment extended the suspension to March 1, 2026. Post-March 2026 status remains unclear — RealPage litigation is ongoing. The ban is currently NOT being enforced.","summary_technical":"Berkeley City Council voted 8-1 in March 2025 to adopt an ordinance prohibiting landlords from using algorithmic rent-setting software (Revenue Management Software) that coordinates pricing using non-public competitor data. RealPage filed a First Amendment challenge, and the Council passed a suspension ordinance pausing enforcement while litigation proceeds. The second reading of the suspension ordinance was scheduled for July 8, 2025. A November 2025 Berkeley amendment further extended the suspension to March 1, 2026. As of July 2026 the RealPage lawsuit remains pending and the ban is not being enforced. Status set to 'proposed' (not currently enforceable) pending outcome of litigation or Council action to reinstate.","who_is_protected":"Berkeley renters subject to algorithmically coordinated rents","who_must_comply":"Landlords using algorithmic rent-setting software in Berkeley","citation":"Ordinance prohibiting use of algorithmic rent-setting devices (Berkeley City Council, March 11, 2025; suspended 2025 pending RealPage litigation)","source_url":"https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-03-11%20Item%2018%20Adopt%20an%20Ordinance%20to%20Prohibit.pdf","source_title":"Adopt an Ordinance to Prohibit [algorithmic rent-setting] - City of Berkeley","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ri-city-council-providence-ri-ordinance-prohibiting-price-fixing-rental-algorithms-2025","title":"Providence, RI — Ordinance prohibiting price-fixing rental algorithms","short_title":"Ordinance prohibiting price-fixing rental algorithms","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Providence, RI","state_abbr":"RI","city":"Providence, RI","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-05-15","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Providence (ordinance by Council President Rachel Miller, final passage May 15, 2025) bans landlords from using price-fixing rental algorithms like RealPage, with civil penalties up to $500 per day per instance of violation.","summary_technical":"Providence (ordinance by Council President Rachel Miller, final passage May 15, 2025) bans landlords from using price-fixing rental algorithms like RealPage, with civil penalties up to $500 per day per instance of violation.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Providence, RI","citation":"Ordinance prohibiting price-fixing rental algorithms (Providence Code ch. 13 Art. X §§ 13-69–13-73)","source_url":"https://council.providenceri.gov/2025/05/15/city-council-bans-use-of-rent-setting-algorithms/","source_title":"City Council Bans Use of Rent-Setting Algorithms - Providence City Council","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"nj-city-council-jersey-city-nj-ordinance-banning-algorithmic-rent-setting-software-2025","title":"Jersey City, NJ — Ordinance banning algorithmic rent-setting software","short_title":"Ordinance banning algorithmic rent-setting software","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Jersey City, NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","city":"Jersey City, NJ","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-05-14","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Jersey City passed a ban on algorithmic rent-setting software in May 2025 after statewide New Jersey efforts stalled, prohibiting landlords from using coordinated pricing algorithms.","summary_technical":"Jersey City passed a ban on algorithmic rent-setting software in May 2025 after statewide New Jersey efforts stalled, prohibiting landlords from using coordinated pricing algorithms.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Jersey City, NJ","citation":"Ordinance banning algorithmic rent-setting software","source_url":"https://stateline.org/2025/03/28/cities-lead-bans-on-algorithmic-rent-hikes-as-states-lag-behind/","source_title":"Cities lead bans on algorithmic rent hikes as states lag behind - Stateline","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"wa-city-council-seattle-wa-council-bill-121000-ban-on-algorithmic-rent-fixing-smc--2025","title":"Seattle, WA — Council Bill 121000 - Ban on algorithmic rent fixing (SMC 7.34)","short_title":"Council Bill 121000 - Ban on algorithmic rent fixing (SMC 7.","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Seattle, WA","state_abbr":"WA","city":"Seattle, WA","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-06-24","last_verified_date":"2026-09-04","summary_plain":"Seattle's CB 121000 (sponsored by Councilmember Cathy Moore, passed 7-0 on June 24, 2025, signed July 1, 2025) prohibits landlords from using software that runs automated analysis of housing-market data to generate inflated rent recommendations, with penalties up to $7,500 per violation and a tenant private right of action.","summary_technical":"Seattle's CB 121000 (sponsored by Councilmember Cathy Moore, passed 7-0 on June 24, 2025, signed July 1, 2025) prohibits landlords from using software that runs automated analysis of housing-market data to generate inflated rent recommendations, with penalties up to $7,500 per violation and a tenant private right of action.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Seattle, WA","citation":"Council Bill 121000 - Ban on algorithmic rent fixing (SMC 7.34)","source_url":"https://council.seattle.gov/2025/06/24/council-passes-councilmember-moores-legislation-to-help-prevent-renter-displacement/","source_title":"Council passes Councilmember Moore's legislation to help prevent renter displacement - Seattle City Council","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"wa-county-king-county-wa-ordinance-outlawing-algorithmic-rent-price-fixing-in-un-2025","title":"King County, WA — Ordinance outlawing algorithmic rent price fixing in unincorporated King County","short_title":"Ordinance outlawing algorithmic rent price fixing in unincor","level":"county","jurisdiction":"King County, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"King County, WA","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-23","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"King County (sponsored by Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, passed Sept 23, 2025 as the 11th US jurisdiction) prohibits landlords in unincorporated King County from contracting with algorithmic rent-setting services like RealPage, letting harmed renters sue for up to $7,500 per violation plus damages and attorneys' fees.","summary_technical":"King County (sponsored by Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, passed Sept 23, 2025 as the 11th US jurisdiction) prohibits landlords in unincorporated King County from contracting with algorithmic rent-setting services like RealPage, letting harmed renters sue for up to $7,500 per violation plus damages and attorneys' fees.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"King County, WA","citation":"Ordinance outlawing algorithmic rent price fixing in unincorporated King County","source_url":"https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/council/governance-leadership/county-council/newsroom/2025/09-23-mosqueda-rent-price-fixing-release","source_title":"Council approves Mosqueda legislation outlawing rent price fixing in King County - King County, Washington","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"or-city-council-portland-or-ordinance-192122-prohibition-of-anti-competitive-algori-2025","title":"Portland, OR — Ordinance 192122 - Prohibition of anti-competitive algorithmic rental pricing (City Code 30.01.088)","short_title":"Ordinance 192122 - Prohibition of anti-competitive algorithm","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Portland, OR","state_abbr":"OR","city":"Portland, OR","topics":["consumer-protection","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-11-19","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Portland's Ordinance 192122 (passed 8-2 on Nov 19, 2025, effective ~Feb 2026) bans the sale and use of revenue-management 'algorithmic devices' that analyze competitor data to coordinate rents, with fines and a tenant right to sue up to $1,000 per violation.","summary_technical":"Portland's Ordinance 192122 (passed 8-2 on Nov 19, 2025, effective ~Feb 2026) bans the sale and use of revenue-management 'algorithmic devices' that analyze competitor data to coordinate rents, with fines and a tenant right to sue up to $1,000 per violation.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Portland, OR","citation":"Ordinance 192122 - Prohibition of anti-competitive algorithmic rental pricing (City Code 30.01.088)","source_url":"https://www.portland.gov/council/documents/ordinance/algorithmic-rental-pricing","source_title":"Amend Affordable Housing Code to add prohibition of anti-competitive rental practices including algorithmic devices | Portland.gov","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ma-city-council-cambridge-ma-cambridge-terminates-flock-safety-alpr-contract-for-mat-2025","title":"Cambridge, MA — Cambridge terminates Flock Safety ALPR contract for 'material breach of trust'","short_title":"Cambridge terminates Flock Safety ALPR contract for 'materia","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cambridge, MA","state_abbr":"MA","city":"Cambridge, MA","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-12-09","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"After suspending its Flock cameras in October 2025 over fears data could reach ICE in violation of the city's sanctuary ordinance, Cambridge terminated the contract when Flock installed cameras without authorization.","summary_technical":"After suspending its Flock cameras in October 2025 over fears data could reach ICE in violation of the city's sanctuary ordinance, Cambridge terminated the contract when Flock installed cameras without authorization.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Cambridge, MA","citation":"Cambridge terminates Flock Safety ALPR contract for 'material breach of trust'","source_url":"https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/12/10/cambridge-ends-flock-contract/","source_title":"Cambridge Ends Contract With License Plate Reader Amid Concerns Over 'Breach of Trust' | The Harvard Crimson","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"tx-city-council-san-marcos-tx-san-marcos-city-council-votes-to-discontinue-flock-safe-2025","title":"San Marcos, TX — San Marcos City Council votes to discontinue Flock Safety ALPR contract","short_title":"San Marcos City Council votes to discontinue Flock Safety AL","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Marcos, TX","state_abbr":"TX","city":"San Marcos, TX","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-12-02","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The City Council voted on December 2, 2025 to discontinue its Flock Safety contract, and all city-contracted Flock cameras were deactivated and removed as of February 1, 2026.","summary_technical":"The City Council voted on December 2, 2025 to discontinue its Flock Safety contract, and all city-contracted Flock cameras were deactivated and removed as of February 1, 2026.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"San Marcos, TX","citation":"San Marcos City Council votes to discontinue Flock Safety ALPR contract","source_url":"https://www.sanmarcostx.gov/4530/Automated-License-Plate-Readers-ALPR","source_title":"Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) | City of San Marcos, TX","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"tx-city-council-austin-tx-austin-transparent-and-responsible-use-of-surveillance--2026","title":"Austin, TX — Austin Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Technology (TRUST) Act","short_title":"Austin Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Techn","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Austin, TX","state_abbr":"TX","city":"Austin, TX","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-04-23","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"After letting its Flock ALPR contract expire in 2025, the Austin City Council passed the TRUST Act requiring council approval and public review before departments can acquire, use, or share data from surveillance technology like license plate readers and drones.","summary_technical":"After letting its Flock ALPR contract expire in 2025, the Austin City Council passed the TRUST Act requiring council approval and public review before departments can acquire, use, or share data from surveillance technology like license plate readers and drones.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Austin, TX","citation":"Austin Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Technology (TRUST) Act","source_url":"https://www.spartnerships.com/austin-trust-act-surveillance-technology/","source_title":"Austin adopts TRUST Act as Texas cities split on license plate readers | Strategic Partnerships, Inc.","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"il-city-council-evanston-il-evanston-deactivates-19-alpr-cameras-and-terminates-flo-2025","title":"Evanston, IL — Evanston deactivates 19 ALPR cameras and terminates Flock Safety contract","short_title":"Evanston deactivates 19 ALPR cameras and terminates Flock Sa","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Evanston, IL","state_abbr":"IL","city":"Evanston, IL","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-26","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Evanston deactivated all 19 of its Flock cameras and issued a termination notice effective September 26, 2025 after a state audit found Flock illegally shared Illinois data with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.","summary_technical":"Evanston deactivated all 19 of its Flock cameras and issued a termination notice effective September 26, 2025 after a state audit found Flock illegally shared Illinois data with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Evanston, IL","citation":"Evanston deactivates 19 ALPR cameras and terminates Flock Safety contract","source_url":"https://abc7chicago.com/post/evanston-oak-park-end-contracts-flock-safety-license-plate-reader-company-investigation-illinois/17678137/","source_title":"Evanston, Oak Park end contracts with Flock Safety, license plate reader company under investigation in Illinois - ABC7 Chicago","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"il-city-council-oak-park-il-oak-park-village-board-votes-4-3-to-terminate-flock-saf-2025","title":"Oak Park, IL — Oak Park Village Board votes 4-3 to terminate Flock Safety ALPR contract","short_title":"Oak Park Village Board votes 4-3 to terminate Flock Safety A","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Oak Park, IL","state_abbr":"IL","city":"Oak Park, IL","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"expired","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Oak Park Village Board voted 4-3 on August 5, 2025 to cancel its Flock contract and deactivate eight ALPR cameras, citing privacy concerns and misuse of data for immigration enforcement in violation of state law and the village's sanctuary ordinance.","summary_technical":"The Oak Park Village Board voted 4-3 on August 5, 2025 to cancel its Flock contract and deactivate eight ALPR cameras, citing privacy concerns and misuse of data for immigration enforcement in violation of state law and the village's sanctuary ordinance.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Oak Park, IL","citation":"Oak Park Village Board votes 4-3 to terminate Flock Safety ALPR contract","source_url":"https://www.oakpark.com/2025/08/07/oak-park-terminates-flock-license-plate-reader-contract/","source_title":"Oak Park terminates Flock license plate reader contract - Wednesday Journal","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ca-city-council-santa-cruz-ca-santa-cruz-city-council-votes-6-1-to-terminate-flock-sa-2026","title":"Santa Cruz, CA — Santa Cruz City Council votes 6-1 to terminate Flock Safety ALPR contract","short_title":"Santa Cruz City Council votes 6-1 to terminate Flock Safety ","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Santa Cruz, CA","state_abbr":"CA","city":"Santa Cruz, CA","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"expired","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"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.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Santa Cruz, CA","citation":"Santa Cruz City Council votes 6-1 to terminate Flock Safety ALPR contract","source_url":"https://santacruzlocal.org/2026/01/13/santa-cruz-leaders-vote-to-terminate-contract-with-flock/","source_title":"Santa Cruz leaders vote to terminate contract with Flock - Santa Cruz Local","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"az-city-council-flagstaff-az-flagstaff-city-council-votes-unanimously-to-end-flock-s-2025","title":"Flagstaff, AZ — Flagstaff City Council votes unanimously to end Flock Safety ALPR program","short_title":"Flagstaff City Council votes unanimously to end Flock Safety","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Flagstaff, AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","city":"Flagstaff, AZ","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"expired","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Flagstaff City Council voted unanimously on December 16, 2025 to terminate its Flock contract and immediately deactivate all 32 cameras, citing privacy, cybersecurity, public-records, and data-sharing concerns.","summary_technical":"The Flagstaff City Council voted unanimously on December 16, 2025 to terminate its Flock contract and immediately deactivate all 32 cameras, citing privacy, cybersecurity, public-records, and data-sharing concerns.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Flagstaff, AZ","citation":"Flagstaff City Council votes unanimously to end Flock Safety ALPR program","source_url":"https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/flagstaff-ariz-to-end-use-of-license-plate-cameras","source_title":"Flagstaff, Ariz., to End Use of License Plate Cameras - GovTech","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"or-city-council-eugene-or-eugene-ends-flock-safety-alpr-contract-after-council-or-2025","title":"Eugene, OR — Eugene ends Flock Safety ALPR contract after council-ordered pause","short_title":"Eugene ends Flock Safety ALPR contract after council-ordered","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Eugene, OR","state_abbr":"OR","city":"Eugene, OR","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"expired","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"After the City Council voted 8-0 in October 2025 to pause the cameras over federal-misuse fears, Eugene Police ended the Flock contract on December 5, 2025 citing data-security and community-expectation concerns.","summary_technical":"After the City Council voted 8-0 in October 2025 to pause the cameras over federal-misuse fears, Eugene Police ended the Flock contract on December 5, 2025 citing data-security and community-expectation concerns.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Eugene, OR","citation":"Eugene ends Flock Safety ALPR contract after council-ordered pause","source_url":"https://www.klcc.org/breaking/2025-12-05/eugene-and-springfield-both-announce-end-of-flock-camera-usage","source_title":"Eugene and Springfield both announce end of Flock camera usage - KLCC","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"co-city-council-denver-co-denver-ends-flock-safety-alpr-contract-and-replaces-ven-2026","title":"Denver, CO — Denver ends Flock Safety ALPR contract and replaces vendor amid data-sharing concerns","short_title":"Denver ends Flock Safety ALPR contract and replaces vendor a","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Denver, CO","state_abbr":"CO","city":"Denver, CO","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"expired","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"After Denver ended its Flock contract over privacy and federal data-sharing concerns, the City Council voted on March 31, 2026 to approve a smaller replacement ALPR contract with Axon, with several members demanding an ALPR-regulating ordinance first.","summary_technical":"After Denver ended its Flock contract over privacy and federal data-sharing concerns, the City Council voted on March 31, 2026 to approve a smaller replacement ALPR contract with Axon, with several members demanding an ALPR-regulating ordinance first.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Denver, CO","citation":"Denver ends Flock Safety ALPR contract and replaces vendor amid data-sharing concerns","source_url":"https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/local-politics/denver-city-councilaxon-license-plate-reader-contract-flock/73-b757a1bc-3e36-49b2-8de0-2742600be5db","source_title":"Denver City Council approves Axon license plate reader contract by single vote, Flock cameras taken down | 9news.com","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"nc-town-council-hillsborough-nc-hillsborough-ends-its-relationship-with-flock-safety-al-20","title":"Hillsborough, NC — Hillsborough ends its relationship with Flock Safety ALPR cameras","short_title":"Hillsborough ends its relationship with Flock Safety ALPR ca","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Hillsborough, NC","state_abbr":"NC","city":"Hillsborough, NC","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"expired","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Town leaders in Hillsborough, North Carolina ended the town's relationship with Flock Safety in October 2025 amid the wave of local governments dropping ALPR contracts over surveillance and immigration data-sharing concerns.","summary_technical":"Town leaders in Hillsborough, North Carolina ended the town's relationship with Flock Safety in October 2025 amid the wave of local governments dropping ALPR contracts over surveillance and immigration data-sharing concerns.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Hillsborough, NC","citation":"Hillsborough ends its relationship with Flock Safety ALPR cameras","source_url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/national/2026/02/17/why-some-cities-are-ditching-their-flock-license-plate-readers","source_title":"Why some cities are ditching their Flock license plate readers | KPBS Public Media","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ca-police-department-chula-vista-ca-chula-vista-police-department-drone-as-first-responder","title":"Chula Vista, CA — Chula Vista Police Department Drone as First Responder (DFR) Program and UAS Policy","short_title":"Chula Vista Police Department Drone as First Responder (DFR)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chula Vista, CA","state_abbr":"CA","city":"Chula Vista, CA","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2018-10-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Chula Vista PD launched the nation's first Drone as First Responder program in 2018, deploying drones to 911 calls under a policy that bars recording where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy absent a warrant or emergency.","summary_technical":"Chula Vista PD launched the nation's first Drone as First Responder program in 2018, deploying drones to 911 calls under a policy that bars recording where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy absent a warrant or emergency.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Chula Vista, CA","citation":"Chula Vista Police Department Drone as First Responder (DFR) Program and UAS Policy","source_url":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/drone-first-responder-programs-are-latest-aerial-police-surveillance-push","source_title":"Drone as First Responder Programs Are Swarming Across the United States (EFF)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ca-police-department-san-francisco-ca-sfpd-unmanned-aircraft-system-drone-program-authoriz","title":"San Francisco, CA — SFPD Unmanned Aircraft System (Drone) Program authorized under Proposition E (SF Admin Code 96I.2)","short_title":"SFPD Unmanned Aircraft System (Drone) Program authorized und","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Francisco, CA","state_abbr":"CA","city":"San Francisco, CA","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-05-16","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"After voters passed Proposition E in March 2024, SFPD began operating drones for criminal investigations, vehicle pursuits, and critical incidents, with publicly available flight logs starting May 16, 2024.","summary_technical":"After voters passed Proposition E in March 2024, SFPD began operating drones for criminal investigations, vehicle pursuits, and critical incidents, with publicly available flight logs starting May 16, 2024.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"San Francisco, CA","citation":"SFPD Unmanned Aircraft System (Drone) Program authorized under Proposition E (SF Admin Code 96I.2)","source_url":"https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/your-sfpd/explore-department/drones","source_title":"Drones | San Francisco Police Department","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"or-police-department-portland-or-portland-police-bureau-small-uas-drone-program-authoriz-2","title":"Portland, OR — Portland Police Bureau Small UAS (Drone) Program authorized by City Council (Ordinance 191882)","short_title":"Portland Police Bureau Small UAS (Drone) Program authorized ","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Portland, OR","state_abbr":"OR","city":"Portland, OR","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","privacy","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-04-05","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Portland City Council authorized the Police Bureau to operate drones on April 5, 2023, expanded them citywide in September 2024, and launched a Drone as First Responder pilot in September 2025, with policy explicitly barring mass surveillance and facial recognition.","summary_technical":"Portland City Council authorized the Police Bureau to operate drones on April 5, 2023, expanded them citywide in September 2024, and launched a Drone as First Responder pilot in September 2025, with policy explicitly barring mass surveillance and facial recognition.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Portland, OR","citation":"Portland Police Bureau Small UAS (Drone) Program authorized by City Council (Ordinance 191882)","source_url":"https://www.portland.gov/police/community/drones","source_title":"Police Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Program | Portland.gov","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"dc-police-department-washington-dc-metropolitan-police-department-mpd-unmanned-aircraft-sy","title":"Washington, DC (Metropolitan Police Department) — MPD Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program (General Order 803.09)","short_title":"MPD Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program (General Order 803.09)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Washington, DC (Metropolitan Police Department)","state_abbr":"DC","city":"Washington, DC (Metropolitan Police Department)","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","privacy","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"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.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Washington, DC (Metropolitan Police Department)","citation":"MPD Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program (General Order 803.09)","source_url":"https://mpdc.dc.gov/uas","source_title":"Drones and Unmanned Aircraft Systems | mpdc","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"fl-police-department-tampa-fl-tampa-police-department-drone-as-first-responder-progra-2026","title":"Tampa, FL — Tampa Police Department Drone as First Responder Program","short_title":"Tampa Police Department Drone as First Responder Program","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Tampa, FL","state_abbr":"FL","city":"Tampa, FL","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","privacy","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-03-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Tampa PD operates a Skydio-based DFR pilot in the Ybor and Downtown areas governed by Florida Statute 934.50, prohibiting facial recognition, weaponization, and warrantless surveillance of private areas.","summary_technical":"Tampa PD operates a Skydio-based DFR pilot in the Ybor and Downtown areas governed by Florida Statute 934.50, prohibiting facial recognition, weaponization, and warrantless surveillance of private areas.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Tampa, FL","citation":"Tampa Police Department Drone as First Responder Program","source_url":"https://www.tampa.gov/police/transparency/dfr","source_title":"Drone as First Responder (DFR) Program | City of Tampa","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"md-police-department-montgomery-county-md-montgomery-county-police-department-drone-as-fir","title":"Montgomery County, MD — Montgomery County Police Department Drone as First Responder Program","short_title":"Montgomery County Police Department Drone as First Responder","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Montgomery County, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Montgomery County, MD","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","privacy","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-11-20","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Montgomery County Police launched a DFR program on November 20, 2023, limited to responding to calls for service, with no proactive surveillance, audio recording, or facial recognition and a warrant requirement for private areas.","summary_technical":"Montgomery County Police launched a DFR program on November 20, 2023, limited to responding to calls for service, with no proactive surveillance, audio recording, or facial recognition and a warrant requirement for private areas.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Montgomery County, MD","citation":"Montgomery County Police Department Drone as First Responder Program","source_url":"https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/howdoI/drone-as-first-responder.html","source_title":"Drone as First Responder Program, Department of Police, Montgomery County, MD","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"tn-police-department-nashville-tn-metro-nashville-police-department-metro-nashville-police","title":"Nashville, TN (Metro Nashville Police Department) — Metro Nashville Police Drones as First Responder Trial Program","short_title":"Metro Nashville Police Drones as First Responder Trial Progr","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Nashville, TN (Metro Nashville Police Department)","state_abbr":"TN","city":"Nashville, TN (Metro Nashville Police Department)","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","privacy","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-05-22","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Metro Nashville Police runs a DFR trial using three Skydio drones dispatched only to specific emergency calls, with no facial recognition or routine patrol and non-evidentiary footage deleted after 7 days.","summary_technical":"Metro Nashville Police runs a DFR trial using three Skydio drones dispatched only to specific emergency calls, with no facial recognition or routine patrol and non-evidentiary footage deleted after 7 days.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Nashville, TN (Metro Nashville Police Department)","citation":"Metro Nashville Police Drones as First Responder Trial Program","source_url":"https://www.nashville.gov/departments/police/crime-control-strategies/drones-first-responder","source_title":"Drones as First Responder Trial Program | Nashville.gov","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"fl-police-department-orlando-fl-orlando-police-department-drone-as-first-responder-prog-20","title":"Orlando, FL — Orlando Police Department Drone as First Responder Program (Axon contract approved by City Council)","short_title":"Orlando Police Department Drone as First Responder Program (","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Orlando, FL","state_abbr":"FL","city":"Orlando, FL","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-02-24","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Orlando City Council approved a $6.83M Axon DFR program on February 24, 2026, deploying 11 drones across 9 rooftop docking stations for automated 911-call response, governed by state law and limited to specific calls rather than mass surveillance.","summary_technical":"Orlando City Council approved a $6.83M Axon DFR program on February 24, 2026, deploying 11 drones across 9 rooftop docking stations for automated 911-call response, governed by state law and limited to specific calls rather than mass surveillance.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Orlando, FL","citation":"Orlando Police Department Drone as First Responder Program (Axon contract approved by City Council)","source_url":"https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/orlando-approves-drone-program-speed-up-emergency-response","source_title":"Orlando approves $6.8M 'eyes in the sky' drone program to speed up emergency response | FOX 35 Orlando","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ca-city-council-oakland-ca-oakland-city-council-drone-use-policy-plus-expanded-bio-2020","title":"Oakland, CA — Oakland City Council Drone Use Policy plus expanded biometric-surveillance and predictive-policing bans (amended Surveillance Transparency Ordinance)","short_title":"Oakland City Council Drone Use Policy plus expanded biometri","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Oakland, CA","state_abbr":"CA","city":"Oakland, CA","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-12-16","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"On December 16, 2020, the Oakland City Council approved a drone use policy requiring annual reporting and, via revisions to its surveillance transparency ordinance, expanded its facial-recognition ban to other biometric surveillance and barred predictive-policing software.","summary_technical":"On December 16, 2020, the Oakland City Council approved a drone use policy requiring annual reporting and, via revisions to its surveillance transparency ordinance, expanded its facial-recognition ban to other biometric surveillance and barred predictive-policing software.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Oakland, CA","citation":"Oakland City Council Drone Use Policy plus expanded biometric-surveillance and predictive-policing bans (amended Surveillance Transparency Ordinance)","source_url":"https://oaklandprivacy.org/oakland-city-council-approves-drone-use-and-bans-predictive-policing-and-biometric-surveillance/","source_title":"Oakland City Council Approves Drone Use and Bans Predictive Policing and Biometric Surveillance | Oakland Privacy","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ri-police-department-providence-ri-providence-police-department-general-order-460-01-unman","title":"Providence, RI — Providence Police Department General Order 460.01 - Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Operations","short_title":"Providence Police Department General Order 460.01 - Unmanned","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Providence, RI","state_abbr":"RI","city":"Providence, RI","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-03-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Providence Police Department issued General Order 460.01 governing its UAS operations, a formal written policy setting the rules for drone deployment by the department.","summary_technical":"The Providence Police Department issued General Order 460.01 governing its UAS operations, a formal written policy setting the rules for drone deployment by the department.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Providence, RI","citation":"Providence Police Department General Order 460.01 - Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Operations","source_url":"https://ppd.providenceri.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/460.01-Unmanned-Aircraft-Systems-UAS-Operations.pdf","source_title":"460.01 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Operations (Providence Police Department)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ca-city-council-santa-cruz-ca-ordinance-banning-municipal-use-of-predictive-policing--2020","title":"Santa Cruz, CA — Ordinance banning municipal use of predictive policing and facial recognition technology","short_title":"Ordinance banning municipal use of predictive policing and f","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Santa Cruz, CA","state_abbr":"CA","city":"Santa Cruz, CA","topics":["law-enforcement","automated-decisions","facial-recognition","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-06-23","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"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.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Santa Cruz, CA","citation":"Ordinance banning municipal use of predictive policing and facial recognition technology","source_url":"https://www.santacruzworks.org/news/santa-cruz-is-the-first-city-to-city-ban-predictive-policing","source_title":"Santa Cruz is the First City to Ban Predictive Policing (Santa Cruz Works)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ca-city-council-oakland-ca-amendments-to-the-surveillance-and-community-safety-cco-2020","title":"Oakland, CA — Amendments to the Surveillance and Community Safety (CCOPS) Ordinance prohibiting predictive policing analytics","short_title":"Amendments to the Surveillance and Community Safety (CCOPS) ","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Oakland, CA","state_abbr":"CA","city":"Oakland, CA","topics":["law-enforcement","automated-decisions","biometrics","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-12-15","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Oakland amended its Community Control of Police Surveillance ordinance to expressly prohibit city use of predictive policing analytics (and biometric surveillance) while requiring City Council approval, with resident input, for any other surveillance technology.","summary_technical":"Oakland amended its Community Control of Police Surveillance ordinance to expressly prohibit city use of predictive policing analytics (and biometric surveillance) while requiring City Council approval, with resident input, for any other surveillance technology.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Oakland, CA","citation":"Amendments to the Surveillance and Community Safety (CCOPS) Ordinance prohibiting predictive policing analytics","source_url":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/oaklands-progressive-fight-protect-residents-government-surveillance","source_title":"Oakland's Progressive Fight to Protect Residents from Government Surveillance (EFF)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"wa-city-council-seattle-wa-real-time-crime-center-surveillance-impact-report-and-c-2024","title":"Seattle, WA — Real-Time Crime Center Surveillance Impact Report and Crime Prevention Technology Pilot legislation","short_title":"Real-Time Crime Center Surveillance Impact Report and Crime ","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Seattle, WA","state_abbr":"WA","city":"Seattle, WA","topics":["law-enforcement","automated-decisions","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-10-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Seattle's Real-Time Crime Center was authorized under the city's surveillance ordinance through a Council-approved Surveillance Impact Report, requiring Council sign-off for material changes and an independent Office of Inspector General evaluation of its analytics.","summary_technical":"Seattle's Real-Time Crime Center was authorized under the city's surveillance ordinance through a Council-approved Surveillance Impact Report, requiring Council sign-off for material changes and an independent Office of Inspector General evaluation of its analytics.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Seattle, WA","citation":"Real-Time Crime Center Surveillance Impact Report and Crime Prevention Technology Pilot legislation","source_url":"https://harrell.seattle.gov/2025/07/15/seattles-real-time-crime-center-delivers-early-results-to-improve-public-safety/","source_title":"Seattle's Real Time Crime Center Delivers Early Results (Office of the Mayor)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ca-city-council-chula-vista-ca-privacy-protection-and-technology-transparency-policy-g-202","title":"Chula Vista, CA — Privacy Protection and Technology Transparency Policy governing the Real-Time Operations Center","short_title":"Privacy Protection and Technology Transparency Policy govern","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chula Vista, CA","state_abbr":"CA","city":"Chula Vista, CA","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2022-11-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Chula Vista's City Council adopted a privacy and technology-transparency policy and oversight commission governing how the police department's Real-Time Operations Center acquires surveillance tools and stores, shares, and profits from data such as drone and license-plate-reader feeds.","summary_technical":"Chula Vista's City Council adopted a privacy and technology-transparency policy and oversight commission governing how the police department's Real-Time Operations Center acquires surveillance tools and stores, shares, and profits from data such as drone and license-plate-reader feeds.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Chula Vista, CA","citation":"Privacy Protection and Technology Transparency Policy governing the Real-Time Operations Center","source_url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/local/2022/11/02/chula-vista-city-council-approves-privacy-policy","source_title":"Chula Vista City Council approves privacy policy (KPBS)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"wi-city-council-madison-wi-ordinance-ord-20-00056-prohibiting-city-agency-use-of-f-2020","title":"Madison, WI — Ordinance ORD-20-00056 prohibiting city-agency use of facial recognition technology","short_title":"Ordinance ORD-20-00056 prohibiting city-agency use of facial","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Madison, WI","state_abbr":"WI","city":"Madison, WI","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","biometrics","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-12-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Madison's Common Council voted 17-2 to bar city agencies from acquiring or using facial recognition technology or facial-surveillance-derived information, with narrow exceptions for human-trafficking and missing/exploited-children cases.","summary_technical":"Madison's Common Council voted 17-2 to bar city agencies from acquiring or using facial recognition technology or facial-surveillance-derived information, with narrow exceptions for human-trafficking and missing/exploited-children cases.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Madison, WI","citation":"Ordinance ORD-20-00056 prohibiting city-agency use of facial recognition technology","source_url":"https://library.municode.com/wi/madison/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=1027600","source_title":"Ordinance No. ORD-20-00056 (Madison, WI Municode)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ny-school-district-new-york-city-public-schools-ny-guidance-on-artificial-intelligence-pre","title":"New York City Public Schools, NY — Guidance on Artificial Intelligence (preliminary 'traffic light' framework)","short_title":"Guidance on Artificial Intelligence (preliminary 'traffic li","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New York City Public Schools, NY","state_abbr":"NY","city":"New York City Public Schools, NY","topics":["education","children","automated-decisions","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"NYC Public Schools issued preliminary AI guidance using a green/yellow/red 'traffic light' framework that permits some staff and student uses, requires human review for others, and prohibits AI in grading, discipline, IEPs and placement decisions, with a fuller playbook to follow.","summary_technical":"NYC Public Schools issued preliminary AI guidance using a green/yellow/red 'traffic light' framework that permits some staff and student uses, requires human review for others, and prohibits AI in grading, discipline, IEPs and placement decisions, with a fuller playbook to follow.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"New York City Public Schools, NY","citation":"Guidance on Artificial Intelligence (preliminary 'traffic light' framework)","source_url":"https://www.chalkbeat.org/newyork/2026/03/24/preliminary-ai-policy-nyc-schools/","source_title":"What NYC's new AI school rules say, and what still remains unclear - Chalkbeat","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"il-school-district-chicago-public-schools-il-cps-ai-guidebook-generative-ai-guidance-for-s","title":"Chicago Public Schools, IL — CPS AI Guidebook (generative AI guidance for students, staff, families, administrators)","short_title":"CPS AI Guidebook (generative AI guidance for students, staff","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chicago Public Schools, IL","state_abbr":"IL","city":"Chicago Public Schools, IL","topics":["education","children","public-sector","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Chicago Public Schools published an AI Guidebook giving human-in-the-loop generative-AI guidance for students, staff, families, and administrators, requiring teacher permission and AI-use citation by students and barring confidential data in AI tools.","summary_technical":"Chicago Public Schools published an AI Guidebook giving human-in-the-loop generative-AI guidance for students, staff, families, and administrators, requiring teacher permission and AI-use citation by students and barring confidential data in AI tools.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Chicago Public Schools, IL","citation":"CPS AI Guidebook (generative AI guidance for students, staff, families, administrators)","source_url":"https://www.cps.edu/strategic-initiatives/ai-guidebook/","source_title":"AI Guidebook - Chicago Public Schools","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"tx-school-district-houston-independent-school-district-tx-houston-isd-generative-ai-guideb","title":"Houston Independent School District, TX — Houston ISD Generative AI Guidebook","short_title":"Houston ISD Generative AI Guidebook","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Houston Independent School District, TX","state_abbr":"TX","city":"Houston Independent School District, TX","topics":["education","children","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-11-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Houston ISD released a comprehensive generative-AI guidebook with age-based access rules (supervised pre-approved tools under 14; 14+ with parental consent and teacher permission) plus data-privacy and academic-integrity guidance for students and staff.","summary_technical":"Houston ISD released a comprehensive generative-AI guidebook with age-based access rules (supervised pre-approved tools under 14; 14+ with parental consent and teacher permission) plus data-privacy and academic-integrity guidance for students and staff.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Houston Independent School District, TX","citation":"Houston ISD Generative AI Guidebook","source_url":"https://www.houstonlanding.org/answer-key-what-are-the-rules-for-students-using-ai-in-their-school-work/","source_title":"Can students in Houston schools use AI for their schoolwork? - Houston Landing","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"fl-school-district-hillsborough-county-public-schools-fl-board-policy-2130-emerging-techno","title":"Hillsborough County Public Schools, FL — Board Policy 2130 (Emerging Technologies) and HCPS Artificial Intelligence Implementation Guide","short_title":"Board Policy 2130 (Emerging Technologies) and HCPS Artificia","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Hillsborough County Public Schools, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Hillsborough County Public Schools, FL","topics":["education","children","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-06-02","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Hillsborough County Public Schools adopted Board Policy 2130 and an AI Implementation Guide setting age-based generative-AI limits (no unsupervised use before 8th grade; written parental consent and teacher approval thereafter) built on six guiding principles.","summary_technical":"Hillsborough County Public Schools adopted Board Policy 2130 and an AI Implementation Guide setting age-based generative-AI limits (no unsupervised use before 8th grade; written parental consent and teacher approval thereafter) built on six guiding principles.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Hillsborough County Public Schools, FL","citation":"Board Policy 2130 (Emerging Technologies) and HCPS Artificial Intelligence Implementation Guide","source_url":"https://www.hillsboroughschools.org/article/2269960","source_title":"HCPS Artificial Intelligence Implementation - Hillsborough County Public Schools","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"nc-school-district-charlotte-mecklenburg-schools-nc-board-policy-o-aiu-and-cms-generative-","title":"Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, NC — Board Policy O-AIU and CMS Generative AI Guidance (2025-26)","short_title":"Board Policy O-AIU and CMS Generative AI Guidance (2025-26)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, NC","topics":["education","children","public-sector","privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-10-28","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools board approved Board Policy O-AIU on Oct. 28, 2025, requiring an AI committee to review any AI system using staff or student data, mandating FERPA-compliant vetting, age-appropriate tools, and barring AI from replacing human decision-making.","summary_technical":"The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools board approved Board Policy O-AIU on Oct. 28, 2025, requiring an AI committee to review any AI system using staff or student data, mandating FERPA-compliant vetting, age-appropriate tools, and barring AI from replacing human decision-making.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, NC","citation":"Board Policy O-AIU and CMS Generative AI Guidance (2025-26)","source_url":"https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/education/cms-ai-policy-approved-10-28-2025/275-3493b1d6-b031-4154-81bd-ac43e35b63b4","source_title":"CMS board approves AI policy. Here's what's in it - WCNC","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ca-school-district-san-francisco-unified-school-district-ca-generative-and-agentic-ai-in-s","title":"San Francisco Unified School District, CA — Generative and Agentic AI in SFUSD (staff guidance)","short_title":"Generative and Agentic AI in SFUSD (staff guidance)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Francisco Unified School District, CA","state_abbr":"CA","city":"San Francisco Unified School District, CA","topics":["education","public-sector","privacy","children","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-20","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"San Francisco Unified published generative and agentic AI guidance for staff covering recommended uses, hallucination and privacy risks, and unreliability of AI plagiarism checkers, noting it is guidance rather than board-approved policy.","summary_technical":"San Francisco Unified published generative and agentic AI guidance for staff covering recommended uses, hallucination and privacy risks, and unreliability of AI plagiarism checkers, noting it is guidance rather than board-approved policy.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"San Francisco Unified School District, CA","citation":"Generative and Agentic AI in SFUSD (staff guidance)","source_url":"https://www.sfusd.edu/generative-and-agentic-ai-sfusd","source_title":"Generative and Agentic AI in SFUSD - SFUSD","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"nc-school-district-wake-county-public-school-system-nc-policy-code-1910-generative-artific","title":"Wake County Public School System, NC — Policy Code 1910 Generative Artificial Intelligence (draft)","short_title":"Policy Code 1910 Generative Artificial Intelligence (draft)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Wake County Public School System, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Wake County Public School System, NC","topics":["education","children","public-sector","privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Wake County Public School System advanced draft Policy 1910 on generative AI on June 17, 2026, which discourages AI detectors, requires students to disclose and explain AI use and cite it, and bars sharing student PII with certain AI systems, pending board approval.","summary_technical":"Wake County Public School System advanced draft Policy 1910 on generative AI on June 17, 2026, which discourages AI detectors, requires students to disclose and explain AI use and cite it, and bars sharing student PII with certain AI systems, pending board approval.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Wake County Public School System, NC","citation":"Policy Code 1910 Generative Artificial Intelligence (draft)","source_url":"https://www.wral.com/news/education/whats-in-wake-schools-new-ai-policy-draft-june-2026/","source_title":"No AI detectors, more citations. What's in a new Wake schools' AI policy draft - WRAL","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"fl-school-district-miami-dade-county-public-schools-fl-board-directive-to-develop-comprehe","title":"Miami-Dade County Public Schools, FL — Board directive to develop comprehensive AI use guidelines (tiered framework)","short_title":"Board directive to develop comprehensive AI use guidelines (","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Miami-Dade County Public Schools, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Miami-Dade County Public Schools, FL","topics":["education","children","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-08-12","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Miami-Dade County Public Schools board approved a measure directing staff to create comprehensive ethical AI guidelines for students and teachers, including a tiered use framework and misuse-consequences, with recommendations due back to the board.","summary_technical":"The Miami-Dade County Public Schools board approved a measure directing staff to create comprehensive ethical AI guidelines for students and teachers, including a tiered use framework and misuse-consequences, with recommendations due back to the board.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Miami-Dade County Public Schools, FL","citation":"Board directive to develop comprehensive AI use guidelines (tiered framework)","source_url":"https://www.wlrn.org/education/2025-08-12/miami-dade-schools-ai-artificial-intelligence-guidelines","source_title":"AI in schools: Miami-Dade set to develop ethical guidelines for students, teachers - WLRN","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"fl-school-district-broward-county-public-schools-fl-bcps-ai-task-force-resources-and-distr","title":"Broward County Public Schools, FL — BCPS AI Task Force resources and districtwide AI (Microsoft Copilot) rollout guidance","short_title":"BCPS AI Task Force resources and districtwide AI (Microsoft ","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Broward County Public Schools, FL","state_abbr":"FL","county":"Broward County Public Schools, FL","topics":["education","children","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-11-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Broward County Public Schools stood up an AI Task Force in November 2024 that produced responsible-use resources for administrators, teachers, and students alongside a large districtwide Microsoft Copilot rollout addressing academic integrity and AI literacy.","summary_technical":"Broward County Public Schools stood up an AI Task Force in November 2024 that produced responsible-use resources for administrators, teachers, and students alongside a large districtwide Microsoft Copilot rollout addressing academic integrity and AI literacy.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Broward County Public Schools, FL","citation":"BCPS AI Task Force resources and districtwide AI (Microsoft Copilot) rollout guidance","source_url":"https://www.wlrn.org/education/2025-07-08/ai-artificial-intelligence-broward-schools","source_title":"'AI can be used for good': Broward public schools are set to 'embrace' artificial intelligence - WLRN","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ca-state-education-dept-california-department-of-education-guidance-for-the-safe-and-effec","title":"California Department of Education — Guidance for the Safe and Effective Use of Artificial Intelligence in California Public Schools","short_title":"Guidance for the Safe and Effective Use of Artificial Intell","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California Department of Education","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["education","children","privacy","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"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.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"California Department of Education","citation":"Guidance for the Safe and Effective Use of Artificial Intelligence in California Public Schools","source_url":"https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/pl/aiincalifornia.asp","source_title":"Artificial Intelligence - Professional Learning (CA Dept of Education)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"oh-state-education-dept-ohio-department-of-education-and-workforce-ai-model-policy-for-ohi","title":"Ohio Department of Education and Workforce — AI Model Policy for Ohio Districts and Schools","short_title":"AI Model Policy for Ohio Districts and Schools","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Ohio Department of Education and Workforce","state_abbr":"OH","topics":["education","children","privacy","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-06","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Ohio's education department released a state model AI policy that all public, community, and STEM schools must adopt (or customize) a formal AI policy from by July 1, 2026, covering student/staff use, privacy, ethics, and vendor evaluation.","summary_technical":"Ohio's education department released a state model AI policy that all public, community, and STEM schools must adopt (or customize) a formal AI policy from by July 1, 2026, covering student/staff use, privacy, ethics, and vendor evaluation.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Ohio Department of Education and Workforce","citation":"AI Model Policy for Ohio Districts and Schools","source_url":"https://education.ohio.gov/Topics/AI-in-Ohio-s-Education/Model-Policy","source_title":"AI Model Policy for Ohio Districts and Schools | Ohio Department of Education and Workforce","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"wa-state-education-dept-washington-office-of-superintendent-of-public-instructi-human-cent","title":"Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) — Human-Centered AI Guidance for K-12 Public Schools","short_title":"Human-Centered AI Guidance for K-12 Public Schools","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)","state_abbr":"WA","topics":["education","children","privacy","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Washington's state superintendent issued 'Human-AI-Human' guidance for K-12 schools covering AI foundations, classroom implementation, ethical considerations, policy suggestions, and privacy compliance.","summary_technical":"Washington's state superintendent issued 'Human-AI-Human' guidance for K-12 schools covering AI foundations, classroom implementation, ethical considerations, policy suggestions, and privacy compliance.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)","citation":"Human-Centered AI Guidance for K-12 Public Schools","source_url":"https://ospi.k12.wa.us/student-success/resources-subject-area/human-centered-artificial-intelligence-schools","source_title":"Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence in Schools | OSPI","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"nm-state-education-dept-new-mexico-public-education-department-new-mexico-ai-guidance-for-","title":"New Mexico Public Education Department — New Mexico AI Guidance for K-12 Education 1.0","short_title":"New Mexico AI Guidance for K-12 Education 1.0","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Mexico Public Education Department","state_abbr":"NM","topics":["education","children","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-05-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"New Mexico's education department published a K-12 AI handbook covering AI literacy, guiding principles for ethical use, and a framework for responsible AI integration in classrooms.","summary_technical":"New Mexico's education department published a K-12 AI handbook covering AI literacy, guiding principles for ethical use, and a framework for responsible AI integration in classrooms.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"New Mexico Public Education Department","citation":"New Mexico AI Guidance for K-12 Education 1.0","source_url":"https://web.ped.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/NM-AI-Guidance-Signed-4-29-2025.pdf","source_title":"AI Guidance for K-12 Education 1.0, New Mexico Public Education Department","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"nc-state-education-dept-north-carolina-department-of-public-instruction-ncdpi-nc-generativ","title":"North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) — NC Generative AI Implementation Recommendations and Considerations for PK-13 Public Schools","short_title":"NC Generative AI Implementation Recommendations and Consider","level":"state","jurisdiction":"North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI)","state_abbr":"NC","topics":["education","children","privacy","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-16","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"North Carolina's education department released a generative AI guidebook (including the 'EVERY' responsible-use framework) covering leadership, human capacity, curriculum, data privacy, and technology infrastructure for public schools.","summary_technical":"North Carolina's education department released a generative AI guidebook (including the 'EVERY' responsible-use framework) covering leadership, human capacity, curriculum, data privacy, and technology infrastructure for public schools.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI)","citation":"NC Generative AI Implementation Recommendations and Considerations for PK-13 Public Schools","source_url":"https://www.dpi.nc.gov/news/press-releases/2024/01/16/ncdpi-releases-guidance-use-artificial-intelligence-schools","source_title":"NCDPI releases guidance on the use of artificial intelligence in schools | NC DPI","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"or-state-education-dept-oregon-department-of-education-generative-artificial-intelligence-","title":"Oregon Department of Education — Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 Classrooms Guidance","short_title":"Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 Classrooms G","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Oregon Department of Education","state_abbr":"OR","topics":["education","children","privacy","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-11-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Oregon's education department maintains generative AI guidance and a companion 'Developing Policy and Protocols' document to help districts adopt safe, ethical, equitable AI policies in K-12 classrooms.","summary_technical":"Oregon's education department maintains generative AI guidance and a companion 'Developing Policy and Protocols' document to help districts adopt safe, ethical, equitable AI policies in K-12 classrooms.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Oregon Department of Education","citation":"Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 Classrooms Guidance","source_url":"https://www.oregon.gov/ode/educator-resources/teachingcontent/pages/generative-artificial-intelligence-(ai)-for-k-12-schools.aspx","source_title":"Oregon Department of Education : Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 Classrooms Guidance","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"wv-state-education-dept-west-virginia-department-of-education-wvde-artificial-intelligence","title":"West Virginia Department of Education — WVDE Artificial Intelligence Guidance (v1.2)","short_title":"WVDE Artificial Intelligence Guidance (v1.2)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"West Virginia Department of Education","state_abbr":"WV","topics":["education","children","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-03-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"West Virginia's education department published AI guidance supporting superintendents, district staff, and educators in safely integrating generative AI into instruction, administration, and district operations aligned with state board policies.","summary_technical":"West Virginia's education department published AI guidance supporting superintendents, district staff, and educators in safely integrating generative AI into instruction, administration, and district operations aligned with state board policies.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"West Virginia Department of Education","citation":"WVDE Artificial Intelligence Guidance (v1.2)","source_url":"https://wvde.us/educator-staff-development/artificial-intelligence","source_title":"Artificial Intelligence | West Virginia Department of Education","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"la-state-education-dept-louisiana-department-of-education-ldoe-artificial-intelligence-in-","title":"Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) — Artificial Intelligence in Louisiana Schools: Guidance for K-12 Schools","short_title":"Artificial Intelligence in Louisiana Schools: Guidance for K","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE)","state_abbr":"LA","topics":["education","children","privacy","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-28","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Louisiana's education department, acting on its AI Task Force recommendations, released K-12 AI guidance including a four-tier use system (AI-Empowered/Enhanced/Assisted/Prohibited) and a cyclical framework for policy, stakeholders, and monitoring.","summary_technical":"Louisiana's education department, acting on its AI Task Force recommendations, released K-12 AI guidance including a four-tier use system (AI-Empowered/Enhanced/Assisted/Prohibited) and a cyclical framework for policy, stakeholders, and monitoring.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE)","citation":"Artificial Intelligence in Louisiana Schools: Guidance for K-12 Schools","source_url":"https://doe.louisiana.gov/docs/default-source/technology-footprint/ldoe-ai-guidance.pdf","source_title":"Artificial Intelligence in Louisiana Schools: Guidance for K-12 Schools (LDOE)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"co-state-education-dept-colorado-department-of-education-colorado-roadmap-for-ai-in-k-12-e","title":"Colorado Department of Education — Colorado Roadmap for AI in K-12 Education","short_title":"Colorado Roadmap for AI in K-12 Education","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Colorado Department of Education","state_abbr":"CO","topics":["education","children","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Colorado's education department (with the Colorado Education Initiative) published a statewide roadmap providing K-12 districts practical strategies and resources for integrating AI into teaching and learning.","summary_technical":"Colorado's education department (with the Colorado Education Initiative) published a statewide roadmap providing K-12 districts practical strategies and resources for integrating AI into teaching and learning.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Colorado Department of Education","citation":"Colorado Roadmap for AI in K-12 Education","source_url":"https://ed.cde.state.co.us/artificialintelligence","source_title":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) - Colorado Department of Education","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"al-state-education-dept-alabama-state-department-of-education-alsde-ai-policy-template-for","title":"Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) — AI Policy Template for Local Education Agencies","short_title":"AI Policy Template for Local Education Agencies","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE)","state_abbr":"AL","topics":["education","children","privacy","public-sector","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Alabama's education department released a customizable AI policy template for LEAs built on eight pillars (strategy, governance, data privacy/security, procurement, implementation, competency, risk management, effectiveness).","summary_technical":"Alabama's education department released a customizable AI policy template for LEAs built on eight pillars (strategy, governance, data privacy/security, procurement, implementation, competency, risk management, effectiveness).","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE)","citation":"AI Policy Template for Local Education Agencies","source_url":"https://www.aiforeducation.io/ai-resources/state-ai-guidance","source_title":"State AI Guidance for Education — AI for Education (Alabama)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ut-state-education-dept-utah-state-board-of-education-usbe-artificial-intelligence-framewo","title":"Utah State Board of Education (USBE) — Artificial Intelligence Framework for Utah P-12 Education: Guidance on the Use of AI in Our Schools","short_title":"Artificial Intelligence Framework for Utah P-12 Education: G","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Utah State Board of Education (USBE)","state_abbr":"UT","topics":["education","children","privacy","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-03-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Utah's state board of education issued an AI framework guiding students, staff, and communities on responsible and prohibited use of generative AI, with special considerations for safety, security, and privacy.","summary_technical":"Utah's state board of education issued an AI framework guiding students, staff, and communities on responsible and prohibited use of generative AI, with special considerations for safety, security, and privacy.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Utah State Board of Education (USBE)","citation":"Artificial Intelligence Framework for Utah P-12 Education: Guidance on the Use of AI in Our Schools","source_url":"https://schools.utah.gov/informationtechnology/artificialintelligence/index","source_title":"Artificial Intelligence | Utah State Board of Education","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"wi-state-education-dept-wisconsin-department-of-public-instruction-dpi-empowering-lifelong","title":"Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) — Empowering Lifelong Learning: AI Guidance for Enhancing K-12 and Library Education","short_title":"Empowering Lifelong Learning: AI Guidance for Enhancing K-12","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI)","state_abbr":"WI","topics":["education","children","privacy","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-07-29","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Wisconsin's education department released 22-page guidance for K-12 classrooms and libraries covering core AI concepts, ethics/data policy, security, professional development, and curriculum integration.","summary_technical":"Wisconsin's education department released 22-page guidance for K-12 classrooms and libraries covering core AI concepts, ethics/data policy, security, professional development, and curriculum integration.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI)","citation":"Empowering Lifelong Learning: AI Guidance for Enhancing K-12 and Library Education","source_url":"https://dpi.wi.gov/news/dpi-connected/dpi-releases-ai-guidance-schools-and-libraries","source_title":"DPI Releases AI Guidance for Schools and Libraries | Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ms-state-education-dept-mississippi-department-of-education-mde-artificial-intelligence-gu","title":"Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) — Artificial Intelligence: Guidance for K-12 Classrooms","short_title":"Artificial Intelligence: Guidance for K-12 Classrooms","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Mississippi Department of Education (MDE)","state_abbr":"MS","topics":["education","children","privacy","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-05","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Mississippi's education department published procedural guidance and instructional strategies for district and school leaders and teachers on appropriate AI use, including definitions, classroom impact, and policy-development considerations.","summary_technical":"Mississippi's education department published procedural guidance and instructional strategies for district and school leaders and teachers on appropriate AI use, including definitions, classroom impact, and policy-development considerations.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Mississippi Department of Education (MDE)","citation":"Artificial Intelligence: Guidance for K-12 Classrooms","source_url":"https://www.mdek12.org/sites/default/files/Offices/MDE/OTSS/DL/ai_guidance_final.pdf","source_title":"Artificial Intelligence Guidance for K-12 Classrooms (Mississippi Department of Education)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ny-school-district-chappaqua-central-school-district-ny-policy-5110-ccsd-policy-on-generat","title":"Chappaqua Central School District, NY — Policy 5110 - CCSD Policy on Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Integration","short_title":"Policy 5110 - CCSD Policy on Generative Artificial Intellige","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chappaqua Central School District, NY","state_abbr":"NY","city":"Chappaqua Central School District, NY","topics":["education","children","privacy","automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-29","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Chappaqua CSD's board-adopted GenAI policy prohibits district users from inputting FERPA-protected student data or Education Law 2-d protected information into AI systems, requires use of only Ed Law 2-d compliant approved tools with students, and mandates transparency about how AI is used.","summary_technical":"Chappaqua CSD's board-adopted GenAI policy prohibits district users from inputting FERPA-protected student data or Education Law 2-d protected information into AI systems, requires use of only Ed Law 2-d compliant approved tools with students, and mandates transparency about how AI is used.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Chappaqua Central School District, NY","citation":"Policy 5110 - CCSD Policy on Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Integration","source_url":"https://www.chappaquaschools.org/board-of-education/policies-and-regulations/policies-regulations-details/~board/all-policies/post/5110-ccsd-policy-on-generative-artificial-intelligence-ai-integration","source_title":"5110 - CCSD Policy on Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Integration | Chappaqua Central School District","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ut-school-district-washington-county-school-district-ut-district-policy-3750-artificial-in","title":"Washington County School District, UT — District Policy 3750 - Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use","short_title":"District Policy 3750 - Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Washington County School District, UT","state_abbr":"UT","county":"Washington County School District, UT","topics":["education","children","privacy","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-09-08","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Washington County (UT) School District's board policy frames AI as a teacher assistant requiring human oversight, generally prohibits using confidential or FERPA-protected student data with AI tools, and bars students from using AI to plagiarize, generate deepfakes, or bypass security filters.","summary_technical":"Washington County (UT) School District's board policy frames AI as a teacher assistant requiring human oversight, generally prohibits using confidential or FERPA-protected student data with AI tools, and bars students from using AI to plagiarize, generate deepfakes, or bypass security filters.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Washington County School District, UT","citation":"District Policy 3750 - Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use","source_url":"https://procedure.washk12.org/policy/3000/3750","source_title":"3750 - Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use - District Policy | Washington County School District","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"wa-school-district-peninsula-school-district-wa-peninsula-school-district-ai-guidance-prin","title":"Peninsula School District, WA — Peninsula School District AI Guidance (Principles and Beliefs for AI Use)","short_title":"Peninsula School District AI Guidance (Principles and Belief","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Peninsula School District, WA","state_abbr":"WA","city":"Peninsula School District, WA","topics":["education","children","privacy","automated-decisions","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-07-15","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"One of the first US districts to publish AI guidance, Peninsula SD (WA) sets principles requiring staff to be diligent custodians of student data, cautions against unreliable AI detection tools, and mandates transparency and human oversight in all AI use.","summary_technical":"One of the first US districts to publish AI guidance, Peninsula SD (WA) sets principles requiring staff to be diligent custodians of student data, cautions against unreliable AI detection tools, and mandates transparency and human oversight in all AI use.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Peninsula School District, WA","citation":"Peninsula School District AI Guidance (Principles and Beliefs for AI Use)","source_url":"https://www.psd401.net/ai","source_title":"Peninsula School District - Artificial Intelligence","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ny-state-education-dept-new-york-state-education-department-commissioner-s-determination-p","title":"New York State Education Department — Commissioner's Determination Prohibiting Facial Recognition Technology in Schools","short_title":"Commissioner's Determination Prohibiting Facial Recognition ","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York State Education Department","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["education","children","facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-09-27","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"NYSED Commissioner Betty Rosa issued a statewide determination prohibiting all New York public and nonpublic schools from purchasing or using facial recognition technology, while leaving other biometric tools to local discretion subject to privacy and civil-rights review.","summary_technical":"NYSED Commissioner Betty Rosa issued a statewide determination prohibiting all New York public and nonpublic schools from purchasing or using facial recognition technology, while leaving other biometric tools to local discretion subject to privacy and civil-rights review.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"New York State Education Department","citation":"Commissioner's Determination Prohibiting Facial Recognition Technology in Schools","source_url":"https://www.nysed.gov/news/2023/state-education-department-issues-determination-biometric-identifying-technology-schools","source_title":"State Education Department Issues Determination on Biometric Identifying Technology in Schools | NYSED","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ny-school-district-lockport-city-school-district-ny-new-york-biometric-surveillance-in-sch","title":"Lockport City School District, NY — New York Biometric Surveillance in Schools Moratorium (halting Lockport CSD facial recognition system)","short_title":"New York Biometric Surveillance in Schools Moratorium (halti","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lockport City School District, NY","state_abbr":"NY","city":"Lockport City School District, NY","topics":["education","children","facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2020-12-22","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"A first-in-the-nation state moratorium signed December 2020 halted the $2.7 million facial-recognition surveillance system that the Lockport City School District had activated in January 2020, pending a state privacy and demographic-accuracy review.","summary_technical":"A first-in-the-nation state moratorium signed December 2020 halted the $2.7 million facial-recognition surveillance system that the Lockport City School District had activated in January 2020, pending a state privacy and demographic-accuracy review.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Lockport City School District, NY","citation":"New York Biometric Surveillance in Schools Moratorium (halting Lockport CSD facial recognition system)","source_url":"https://www.nyclu.org/press-release/new-york-creates-first-nation-moratorium-facial-recognition-schools","source_title":"New York Creates First-in-the-Nation Moratorium on Facial Recognition in Schools | NYCLU","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"pa-school-district-central-bucks-school-district-pa-central-bucks-school-district-goguardi","title":"Central Bucks School District, PA — Central Bucks School District GoGuardian Beacon Student Monitoring Trial","short_title":"Central Bucks School District GoGuardian Beacon Student Moni","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Central Bucks School District, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Central Bucks School District, PA","topics":["education","children","privacy","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-03-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Central Bucks SD (PA) authorized a district-wide trial of GoGuardian Beacon to conduct 24/7 AI monitoring of middle- and high-school students' online activity on district devices, with a potential $114,000+ subscription pending trial-data review.","summary_technical":"Central Bucks SD (PA) authorized a district-wide trial of GoGuardian Beacon to conduct 24/7 AI monitoring of middle- and high-school students' online activity on district devices, with a potential $114,000+ subscription pending trial-data review.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Central Bucks School District, PA","citation":"Central Bucks School District GoGuardian Beacon Student Monitoring Trial","source_url":"https://whyy.org/articles/central-bucks-school-district-goguardian-student-surveillance/","source_title":"Central Bucks School District will begin monitoring students' online activity, 24/7 | WHYY","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"tx-school-district-fort-bend-independent-school-district-tx-fort-bend-isd-goguardian-web-c","title":"Fort Bend Independent School District, TX — Fort Bend ISD GoGuardian Web Content Filter and Student Monitoring Procurement","short_title":"Fort Bend ISD GoGuardian Web Content Filter and Student Moni","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Fort Bend Independent School District, TX","state_abbr":"TX","county":"Fort Bend Independent School District, TX","topics":["education","children","privacy","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Fort Bend ISD's board approved a procurement of GoGuardian web content filtering and monitoring modules not to exceed $1.6 million over five years, part of a wave of Houston-area districts (including Humble ISD and Cypress-Fairbanks ISD) deploying AI-driven student-device monitoring.","summary_technical":"Fort Bend ISD's board approved a procurement of GoGuardian web content filtering and monitoring modules not to exceed $1.6 million over five years, part of a wave of Houston-area districts (including Humble ISD and Cypress-Fairbanks ISD) deploying AI-driven student-device monitoring.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Fort Bend Independent School District, TX","citation":"Fort Bend ISD GoGuardian Web Content Filter and Student Monitoring Procurement","source_url":"https://www.fox26houston.com/news/houston-area-districts-confirm-ai-monitoring-tools-student-devices-privacy-questions-grow","source_title":"Houston-area districts confirm A.I. monitoring tools on student devices as privacy questions grow | FOX 26 Houston","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"wa-school-district-vancouver-public-schools-wa-vancouver-public-schools-gaggle-safety-mana","title":"Vancouver Public Schools, WA — Vancouver Public Schools Gaggle Safety Management Student Monitoring Contract","short_title":"Vancouver Public Schools Gaggle Safety Management Student Mo","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Vancouver Public Schools, WA","state_abbr":"WA","city":"Vancouver Public Schools, WA","topics":["education","children","privacy","automated-decisions","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Vancouver Public Schools (WA) signed a $328,036 three-year Gaggle Safety Management contract to run AI monitoring of 24,000+ students' typing on district devices at school and at home to flag violence, self-harm, and safety concerns.","summary_technical":"Vancouver Public Schools (WA) signed a $328,036 three-year Gaggle Safety Management contract to run AI monitoring of 24,000+ students' typing on district devices at school and at home to flag violence, self-harm, and safety concerns.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Vancouver Public Schools, WA","citation":"Vancouver Public Schools Gaggle Safety Management Student Monitoring Contract","source_url":"https://www.knkx.org/education/2025-04-18/washington-state-school-districts-vancouver-highline-ai-monitoring-gaggle-students-claire-bryan-laptops-privacy-safety","source_title":"WA school districts monitoring thousands of students 24/7 | KNKX Public Radio","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"co-school-district-cheyenne-mountain-school-district-12-co-cheyenne-mountain-sd-12-verkada","title":"Cheyenne Mountain School District 12, CO — Cheyenne Mountain SD 12 Verkada AI Facial-Recognition Camera Surveillance System","short_title":"Cheyenne Mountain SD 12 Verkada AI Facial-Recognition Camera","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cheyenne Mountain School District 12, CO","state_abbr":"CO","city":"Cheyenne Mountain School District 12, CO","topics":["education","children","facial-recognition","biometrics","law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2022-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Cheyenne Mountain SD 12 (Colorado Springs) deployed nearly 400 Verkada AI-enabled cameras with facial recognition to identify 'persons of interest,' installed before Colorado's 2022 statewide facial-recognition moratorium and allowed to continue under the grandfather provision.","summary_technical":"Cheyenne Mountain SD 12 (Colorado Springs) deployed nearly 400 Verkada AI-enabled cameras with facial recognition to identify 'persons of interest,' installed before Colorado's 2022 statewide facial-recognition moratorium and allowed to continue under the grandfather provision.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Cheyenne Mountain School District 12, CO","citation":"Cheyenne Mountain SD 12 Verkada AI Facial-Recognition Camera Surveillance System","source_url":"https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/some-colorado-schools-implement-controversial-ai-surveillance","source_title":"Some Colorado Schools Implement Controversial AI Surveillance | GovTech","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ny-state-education-dept-new-york-state-education-law-biometrics-ban-new-york-biometrics-in","title":"New York State (Education Law / biometrics ban) — New York Biometrics in Schools Ban (statewide prohibition on facial recognition purchase/use)","short_title":"New York Biometrics in Schools Ban (statewide prohibition on","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York State (Education Law / biometrics ban)","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["education","children","facial-recognition","biometrics","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Effective September 2023 following the NYSED Commissioner determination, all New York schools are prohibited from purchasing or using facial recognition technology, making NY the first state with such a comprehensive school ban.","summary_technical":"Effective September 2023 following the NYSED Commissioner determination, all New York schools are prohibited from purchasing or using facial recognition technology, making NY the first state with such a comprehensive school ban.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"New York State (Education Law / biometrics ban)","citation":"New York Biometrics in Schools Ban (statewide prohibition on facial recognition purchase/use)","source_url":"https://www.k12dive.com/news/new-york-facial-recognition-ban-schools/695465/","source_title":"New York bans facial recognition technology in schools | K-12 Dive","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ca-university-system-university-of-california-uc-system-uc-responsible-ai-principles-and-a","title":"University of California (UC System) — UC Responsible AI Principles and AI Council governance framework","short_title":"UC Responsible AI Principles and AI Council governance frame","level":"state","jurisdiction":"University of California (UC System)","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["education","automated-decisions","transparency","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2021-10-06","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"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.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"University of California (UC System)","citation":"UC Responsible AI Principles and AI Council governance framework","source_url":"https://www.ucop.edu/ethics-compliance-audit-services/compliance/aicouncil/index.html","source_title":"UC Office of the President — UC AI Council","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ca-university-system-california-state-university-csu-system-csu-ai-empowered-university-sy","title":"California State University (CSU System) — CSU AI-Empowered University System initiative and systemwide ChatGPT Edu deployment","short_title":"CSU AI-Empowered University System initiative and systemwide","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California State University (CSU System)","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["education","public-sector","children","automated-decisions","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-02-04","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"CSU announced a first-in-the-nation systemwide AI initiative giving all 23 campuses' 460,000+ students and 63,000+ faculty/staff access to ChatGPT Edu plus AI Commons training and academic-use resources.","summary_technical":"CSU announced a first-in-the-nation systemwide AI initiative giving all 23 campuses' 460,000+ students and 63,000+ faculty/staff access to ChatGPT Edu plus AI Commons training and academic-use resources.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"California State University (CSU System)","citation":"CSU AI-Empowered University System initiative and systemwide ChatGPT Edu deployment","source_url":"https://campustechnology.com/articles/2025/02/05/california-state-university-launches-systemwide-chatgpt-edu-deployment.aspx","source_title":"California State University Launches Systemwide ChatGPT Edu Deployment -- Campus Technology","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ny-university-system-state-university-of-new-york-suny-suny-systemwide-artificial-intellig","title":"State University of New York (SUNY) — SUNY Systemwide Artificial Intelligence Policy","short_title":"SUNY Systemwide Artificial Intelligence Policy","level":"state","jurisdiction":"State University of New York (SUNY)","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["education","automated-decisions","privacy","public-sector","transparency","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-04-30","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"SUNY's Board of Trustees approved a systemwide AI policy requiring all 64 campuses to adopt AI governance, bias evaluation, data-privacy safeguards, and heightened oversight of high-risk systems affecting students by December 31, 2026.","summary_technical":"SUNY's Board of Trustees approved a systemwide AI policy requiring all 64 campuses to adopt AI governance, bias evaluation, data-privacy safeguards, and heightened oversight of high-risk systems affecting students by December 31, 2026.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"State University of New York (SUNY)","citation":"SUNY Systemwide Artificial Intelligence Policy","source_url":"https://www.insidehighered.com/news/student-success/academic-life/2026/05/04/suny-sets-systemwide-ai-policy","source_title":"SUNY Sets Systemwide AI Policy (Inside Higher Ed)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ny-university-system-state-university-of-new-york-suny-suny-generative-ai-education-initia","title":"State University of New York (SUNY) — SUNY generative-AI education initiative (Empire AI / systemwide AI chatbot program)","short_title":"SUNY generative-AI education initiative (Empire AI / systemw","level":"state","jurisdiction":"State University of New York (SUNY)","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["education","public-sector","privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-05-09","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"New York and SUNY launched a systemwide generative-AI education program described as the largest LLM-enabled education system, providing customized tutoring while pledging to protect privacy and academic integrity.","summary_technical":"New York and SUNY launched a systemwide generative-AI education program described as the largest LLM-enabled education system, providing customized tutoring while pledging to protect privacy and academic integrity.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"State University of New York (SUNY)","citation":"SUNY generative-AI education initiative (Empire AI / systemwide AI chatbot program)","source_url":"https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-steps-advance-artificial-intelligence-capability-suny-and-make-new","source_title":"Governor Hochul Announces Steps to Advance Artificial Intelligence Capability at SUNY","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"tx-university-system-texas-a-m-university-system-texas-a-m-system-regulation-29-01-05-arti","title":"Texas A&M University System — Texas A&M System Regulation 29.01.05, Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"Texas A&M System Regulation 29.01.05, Artificial Intelligenc","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Texas A&M University System","state_abbr":"TX","topics":["education","automated-decisions","privacy","public-sector","transparency","biometrics"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-12-10","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Texas A&M University System's AI regulation governs all AI activities system-wide, requiring AI inventories, data classification, bias audits, safeguards against algorithmic discrimination, and academic-integrity citation rules.","summary_technical":"The Texas A&M University System's AI regulation governs all AI activities system-wide, requiring AI inventories, data classification, bias audits, safeguards against algorithmic discrimination, and academic-integrity citation rules.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Texas A&M University System","citation":"Texas A&M System Regulation 29.01.05, Artificial Intelligence","source_url":"https://www.cyber.tamus.edu/policy/guidelines/ai/","source_title":"Artificial Intelligence | Texas A&M System Cybersecurity","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ga-university-system-university-system-of-georgia-usg-board-of-regents-policy-6-28-use-of-","title":"University System of Georgia (USG) — Board of Regents Policy 6.28, Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Academic Contexts","short_title":"Board of Regents Policy 6.28, Use of Artificial Intelligence","level":"state","jurisdiction":"University System of Georgia (USG)","state_abbr":"GA","topics":["education","automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency","children"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-04-16","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The USG Board of Regents adopted a policy requiring all 26 institutions to establish ethical, responsible, and secure AI-use policies integrated into their academic-integrity codes.","summary_technical":"The USG Board of Regents adopted a policy requiring all 26 institutions to establish ethical, responsible, and secure AI-use policies integrated into their academic-integrity codes.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"University System of Georgia (USG)","citation":"Board of Regents Policy 6.28, Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Academic Contexts","source_url":"https://frontpage.gcsu.edu/sites/default/files/uploadedfiles/Supplement_PresidentsReport_BORPolicy6.28.pdf","source_title":"Board of Regents Policy Manual - New Policy on Artificial Intelligence (USG Policy 6.28)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"tn-university-system-university-of-tennessee-system-ut-system-policy-it0002-procedure-acce","title":"University of Tennessee System — UT System Policy IT0002 / procedure, Acceptable Use of Generative AI","short_title":"UT System Policy IT0002 / procedure, Acceptable Use of Gener","level":"state","jurisdiction":"University of Tennessee System","state_abbr":"TN","topics":["education","privacy","public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-03-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The University of Tennessee System's acceptable-use policy for generative AI bars entering FERPA/HIPAA-protected and confidential data into AI tools and requires independent verification and disclosure of AI-generated content.","summary_technical":"The University of Tennessee System's acceptable-use policy for generative AI bars entering FERPA/HIPAA-protected and confidential data into AI tools and requires independent verification and disclosure of AI-generated content.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"University of Tennessee System","citation":"UT System Policy IT0002 / procedure, Acceptable Use of Generative AI","source_url":"https://policy.tennessee.edu/procedure/gp-004-02-acceptable-use-of-generative-ai/","source_title":"Acceptable Use of Generative AI - UT System Policies","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ca-university-system-california-community-colleges-chancellor-s-office-ccc-systemwide-ai-g","title":"California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office — CCC systemwide AI guidance and HUMANS responsible-AI framework","short_title":"CCC systemwide AI guidance and HUMANS responsible-AI framewo","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["education","automated-decisions","privacy","public-sector","transparency","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"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.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office","citation":"CCC systemwide AI guidance and HUMANS responsible-AI framework","source_url":"https://ai.cccco.edu/guidance-and-policy/","source_title":"Guidance and Policy - CCCCO AI (California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"pa-university-system-pennsylvania-state-university-penn-state-penn-state-systemwide-genera","title":"Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) — Penn State systemwide Generative AI Guidelines","short_title":"Penn State systemwide Generative AI Guidelines","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Pennsylvania State University (Penn State)","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["education","privacy","automated-decisions","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Penn State's systemwide AI guidelines set responsible-use rules covering FERPA/HIPAA compliance, output verification, accessibility review of AI tools, disclosure, and restrictions on AI-assisted grading across its multi-campus system.","summary_technical":"Penn State's systemwide AI guidelines set responsible-use rules covering FERPA/HIPAA compliance, output verification, accessibility review of AI tools, disclosure, and restrictions on AI-assisted grading across its multi-campus system.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Pennsylvania State University (Penn State)","citation":"Penn State systemwide Generative AI Guidelines","source_url":"http://ai.psu.edu/resources/guidelines","source_title":"Guidelines - AI at Penn State","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"mn-university-system-minnesota-state-minnesota-state-colleges-and-universiti-minnesota-sta","title":"Minnesota State (Minnesota State Colleges and Universities) — Minnesota State systemwide Generative AI guidance and approved-tools policy","short_title":"Minnesota State systemwide Generative AI guidance and approv","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Minnesota State (Minnesota State Colleges and Universities)","state_abbr":"MN","topics":["education","privacy","public-sector","data-centers","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-03","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Minnesota State issues systemwide generative-AI guidance authorizing secured tools like Microsoft Copilot, blocking services such as Otter.AI and Fireflies.AI for security, and ensuring system data is not used to train external AI models.","summary_technical":"Minnesota State issues systemwide generative-AI guidance authorizing secured tools like Microsoft Copilot, blocking services such as Otter.AI and Fireflies.AI for security, and ensuring system data is not used to train external AI models.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Minnesota State (Minnesota State Colleges and Universities)","citation":"Minnesota State systemwide Generative AI guidance and approved-tools policy","source_url":"https://services.mnsu.edu/TDClient/30/Portal/KB/Article/1264/Using-Generative-AI-at-Minnesota-State-Guidance-and-Approved-Tools","source_title":"Using Generative AI at Minnesota State: Guidance and Approved Tools","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"ny-transit-authority-new-york-metropolitan-transportation-authority-mta-mta-ai-video-analy","title":"New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) — MTA AI Video Analytics Solicitation for Subway Camera Monitoring (Suspicious/Problematic Behavior Detection)","short_title":"MTA AI Video Analytics Solicitation for Subway Camera Monito","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["public-sector","law-enforcement","automated-decisions","privacy","facial-recognition"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The MTA solicited vendors for AI computer-vision software to analyze feeds from its 15,000+ subway cameras to flag weapons, unattended items, and dangerous behavior, while stating facial recognition will not be used.","summary_technical":"The MTA solicited vendors for AI computer-vision software to analyze feeds from its 15,000+ subway cameras to flag weapons, unattended items, and dangerous behavior, while stating facial recognition will not be used.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)","citation":"MTA AI Video Analytics Solicitation for Subway Camera Monitoring (Suspicious/Problematic Behavior Detection)","source_url":"https://www.planetizen.com/news/2026/01/136743-new-york-mta-wants-use-ai-detect-weapons-and-other-threats-transit-system","source_title":"New York MTA Wants to Use AI to Detect Weapons and Other Threats on Transit System | Planetizen News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ca-transit-authority-los-angeles-county-metropolitan-transportation-authorit-la-metro-ai-w","title":"Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) — LA Metro AI Weapons-Detection Pilot Expansion (Evolv/pillar scanners plus AI-CCTV mobile detection)","short_title":"LA Metro AI Weapons-Detection Pilot Expansion (Evolv/pillar ","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro)","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["public-sector","law-enforcement","automated-decisions","biometrics"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-02-27","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"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.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro)","citation":"LA Metro AI Weapons-Detection Pilot Expansion (Evolv/pillar scanners plus AI-CCTV mobile detection)","source_url":"https://laist.com/news/transportation/metro-to-expand-its-weapons-detection-pilot-program","source_title":"Metro to expand its weapons detection pilot program | LAist","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"pa-transit-authority-southeastern-pennsylvania-transportation-authority-sept-septa-zeroeye","title":"Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) — SEPTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Pilot Program","short_title":"SEPTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Pilot Program","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA)","state_abbr":"PA","topics":["public-sector","law-enforcement","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2022-11-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"SEPTA's board approved a ZeroEyes AI gun-detection pilot layered on its 30,000+ cameras to flag brandished firearms within seconds, but the year-long pilot was ended after the aging analog camera infrastructure proved incompatible.","summary_technical":"SEPTA's board approved a ZeroEyes AI gun-detection pilot layered on its 30,000+ cameras to flag brandished firearms within seconds, but the year-long pilot was ended after the aging analog camera infrastructure proved incompatible.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA)","citation":"SEPTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Pilot Program","source_url":"https://wwww.septa.org/news/septa-board-approves-zeroeyes-artificial-intelligence-gun-detection-pilot-program/","source_title":"SEPTA Board Approves ZeroEyes Artificial Intelligence Gun Detection Pilot Program - SEPTA","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"il-transit-authority-chicago-transit-authority-cta-cta-zeroeyes-ai-gun-detection-contract-","title":"Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) — CTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Contract Expansion (250 to 1,500 cameras)","short_title":"CTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Contract Expansion (250 to 1,5","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chicago Transit Authority (CTA)","state_abbr":"IL","city":"Chicago Transit Authority (CTA)","topics":["public-sector","law-enforcement","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-24","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The CTA board approved a $1.2M contract to expand ZeroEyes AI gun-detection software from 250 to 1,500 platform cameras by mid-2026, over civil-liberties objections about public input and effectiveness.","summary_technical":"The CTA board approved a $1.2M contract to expand ZeroEyes AI gun-detection software from 250 to 1,500 platform cameras by mid-2026, over civil-liberties objections about public input and effectiveness.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Chicago Transit Authority (CTA)","citation":"CTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Contract Expansion (250 to 1,500 cameras)","source_url":"https://zeroeyes.com/chicago-transit-authority-approves-expansion-of-zeroeyes-contract/","source_title":"Chicago Transit Authority Approves Expansion of ZeroEyes Contract | ZeroEyes","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"nv-transit-authority-regional-transportation-commission-of-southern-nevada-r-rtc-of-southe","title":"Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) — RTC of Southern Nevada Wide-Scale ZeroEyes AI Weapons-Detection Deployment","short_title":"RTC of Southern Nevada Wide-Scale ZeroEyes AI Weapons-Detect","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC)","state_abbr":"NV","county":"Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC)","topics":["public-sector","law-enforcement","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-06-19","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The RTC became the first US transit agency to deploy wide-scale ZeroEyes AI gun-detection analytics across its transit-center cameras, later expanding the program by over 300% to all eight transit centers.","summary_technical":"The RTC became the first US transit agency to deploy wide-scale ZeroEyes AI gun-detection analytics across its transit-center cameras, later expanding the program by over 300% to all eight transit centers.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC)","citation":"RTC of Southern Nevada Wide-Scale ZeroEyes AI Weapons-Detection Deployment","source_url":"https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rtc-adopts-zeroeyes-to-become-first-us-transit-agency-to-deploy-wide-scale-weapons-detection-analytics-302176543.html","source_title":"RTC Adopts ZeroEyes to Become First US Transit Agency to Deploy Wide-Scale Weapons Detection Analytics | PR Newswire","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ca-transit-authority-san-francisco-municipal-transportation-agency-sfmta-mun-san-francisco","title":"San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA/Muni) — San Francisco Acquisition of Surveillance Technology Ordinance (facial-recognition ban covering Muni/SFMTA)","short_title":"San Francisco Acquisition of Surveillance Technology Ordinan","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA/Muni)","state_abbr":"CA","city":"San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA/Muni)","topics":["public-sector","facial-recognition","privacy","transparency","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2019-05-14","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"San Francisco's Surveillance Technology Ordinance bans city departments including the SFMTA/Muni from using facial recognition and requires surveillance-impact reports and annual use reports for surveillance tech.","summary_technical":"San Francisco's Surveillance Technology Ordinance bans city departments including the SFMTA/Muni from using facial recognition and requires surveillance-impact reports and annual use reports for surveillance tech.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA/Muni)","citation":"San Francisco Acquisition of Surveillance Technology Ordinance (facial-recognition ban covering Muni/SFMTA)","source_url":"https://insider.govtech.com/california/news/san-francisco-bans-muni-operated-facial-recognition-tech.html","source_title":"San Francisco Bans Muni-Operated Facial Recognition Tech | Government Technology","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"nj-transit-authority-new-jersey-transit-nj-transit-nj-transit-ai-video-analytics-grade-cro","title":"New Jersey Transit (NJ TRANSIT) — NJ TRANSIT AI Video-Analytics Grade-Crossing Safety System (federal grant with Rutgers CAIT)","short_title":"NJ TRANSIT AI Video-Analytics Grade-Crossing Safety System (","level":"state","jurisdiction":"New Jersey Transit (NJ TRANSIT)","state_abbr":"NJ","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-04-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"NJ TRANSIT received a $1.6M USDOT grant to develop, with Rutgers CAIT, a deep-learning video-analytics system that monitors light-rail grade crossings to detect safety events and trespassers.","summary_technical":"NJ TRANSIT received a $1.6M USDOT grant to develop, with Rutgers CAIT, a deep-learning video-analytics system that monitors light-rail grade crossings to detect safety events and trespassers.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"New Jersey Transit (NJ TRANSIT)","citation":"NJ TRANSIT AI Video-Analytics Grade-Crossing Safety System (federal grant with Rutgers CAIT)","source_url":"https://www.njtransit.com/press-releases/nj-transit-receives-federal-grant-develop-artificial-intelligence-system-grade","source_title":"NJ TRANSIT Receives Federal Grant to Develop Artificial Intelligence System for Grade Crossing Safety | NJ TRANSIT","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ny-transit-authority-metropolitan-transportation-authority-nypd-subway-weapo-mta-nypd-evol","title":"Metropolitan Transportation Authority / NYPD subway weapons scanners — MTA/NYPD Evolv AI Weapons-Detection Scanner Pilot in NYC Subway","short_title":"MTA/NYPD Evolv AI Weapons-Detection Scanner Pilot in NYC Sub","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Metropolitan Transportation Authority / NYPD subway weapons scanners","state_abbr":"NY","topics":["public-sector","law-enforcement","automated-decisions","biometrics"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The MTA and NYPD piloted Evolv AI-powered gun-detection scanners at NYC subway stations; a monthlong test of 3,000+ searches at 20 stations found no guns and over 100 false positives.","summary_technical":"The MTA and NYPD piloted Evolv AI-powered gun-detection scanners at NYC subway stations; a monthlong test of 3,000+ searches at 20 stations found no guns and over 100 false positives.","who_is_protected":"People subject to this body's AI/surveillance systems.","who_must_comply":"Metropolitan Transportation Authority / NYPD subway weapons scanners","citation":"MTA/NYPD Evolv AI Weapons-Detection Scanner Pilot in NYC Subway","source_url":"https://statescoop.com/nypd-ai-gun-detection-scanners-subway/","source_title":"NYPD to test AI-powered gun-detection scanners in subway system | StateScoop","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"al-birmingham-hyperscale-data-center-zoning-ordinance-20-point-commun-2026","title":"Birmingham, AL — Hyperscale Data Center Zoning Ordinance (20-point community protections)","short_title":"Hyperscale Data Center Zoning Ordinance (20-point community ","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Birmingham, AL","state_abbr":"AL","city":"Birmingham","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-09","last_verified_date":"2026-08-20","summary_plain":"Birmingham City Council adopted a comprehensive zoning ordinance imposing 20 conditions on hyperscale data centers, including setbacks, closed-loop cooling, and noise mitigation.","summary_technical":"Birmingham City Council adopted a comprehensive zoning ordinance imposing 20 conditions on hyperscale data centers, including setbacks, closed-loop cooling, and noise mitigation.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Hyperscale Data Center Zoning Ordinance (20-point community protections)","source_url":"https://www.birminghamal.gov/news/city-birmingham-approves-alabamas-toughest-zoning-ordinance-establishing-20-point-community-protections-data-center-development","source_title":"City of Birmingham approves Alabama's toughest zoning ordinance establishing 20-point community protections for data center development","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"al-leeds-one-year-moratorium-on-new-data-center-development-ordi-2026","title":"Leeds, AL — One-Year Moratorium on New Data Center Development (Ordinance 2026-06-02)","short_title":"One-Year Moratorium on New Data Center Development (Ordinanc","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Leeds, AL","state_abbr":"AL","city":"Leeds","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-08","last_verified_date":"2026-08-20","summary_plain":"Leeds City Council approved a one-year moratorium pausing acceptance, processing, and approval of new data center development applications while it studies regulations.","summary_technical":"Leeds City Council approved a one-year moratorium pausing acceptance, processing, and approval of new data center development applications while it studies regulations.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"One-Year Moratorium on New Data Center Development (Ordinance 2026-06-02)","source_url":"https://www.wbrc.com/2026/06/09/city-leeds-passes-one-year-moratorium-data-center-development/","source_title":"City of Leeds passes one-year moratorium on data center development","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"al-homewood-temporary-moratorium-on-new-data-center-applications-2026","title":"Homewood, AL — Temporary Moratorium on New Data Center Applications","short_title":"Temporary Moratorium on New Data Center Applications","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Homewood, AL","state_abbr":"AL","city":"Homewood","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-22","last_verified_date":"2026-08-20","summary_plain":"Homewood City Council approved a temporary moratorium on new data center development applications to give the city time to evaluate impacts and prepare regulations.","summary_technical":"Homewood City Council approved a temporary moratorium on new data center development applications to give the city time to evaluate impacts and prepare regulations.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Temporary Moratorium on New Data Center Applications","source_url":"https://abc3340.com/news/local/alabama-homewood-city-council-approves-temporary-moratorium-on-new-data-center-applications","source_title":"Homewood City Council Puts Pause on New Data Center Projects","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"al-cullman-one-year-moratorium-on-data-centers-2026","title":"Cullman, AL — One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers","short_title":"One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cullman, AL","state_abbr":"AL","city":"Cullman","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-22","last_verified_date":"2026-08-20","summary_plain":"Cullman City Council unanimously approved a one-year moratorium on data center development, with penalties for violations while the city drafts regulations.","summary_technical":"Cullman City Council unanimously approved a one-year moratorium on data center development, with penalties for violations while the city drafts regulations.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers","source_url":"https://www.cullmantribune.com/2026/06/23/cullman-city-council-imposes-temporary-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Cullman City Council imposes temporary moratorium on data centers","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"al-bessemer-zoning-amendment-allowing-data-centers-as-industrial-us-2025","title":"Bessemer, AL — Zoning Amendment Allowing Data Centers as Industrial Use","short_title":"Zoning Amendment Allowing Data Centers as Industrial Use","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Bessemer, AL","state_abbr":"AL","city":"Bessemer","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-10-07","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Bessemer City Council amended its zoning laws to include data centers as an allowable use within the city's industrial zoning classification despite public opposition.","summary_technical":"Bessemer City Council amended its zoning laws to include data centers as an allowable use within the city's industrial zoning classification despite public opposition.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Zoning Amendment Allowing Data Centers as Industrial Use","source_url":"https://alabamareflector.com/2025/10/12/bessemer-changes-its-laws-to-accommodate-data-centers-despite-stiff-opposition/","source_title":"Bessemer changes its laws to accommodate data centers despite stiff opposition","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ak-anchorage-ordinance-restricting-municipal-use-of-facial-recogniti-2023","title":"Anchorage, AK — Ordinance Restricting Municipal Use of Facial Recognition Technology (AO 2023-35)","short_title":"Ordinance Restricting Municipal Use of Facial Recognition Te","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Anchorage, AK","state_abbr":"AK","city":"Anchorage","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-04-19","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Anchorage Assembly voted 10-1 to bar the municipality from acquiring or using facial recognition technology for surveillance, with limited exceptions requiring Assembly approval.","summary_technical":"The Anchorage Assembly voted 10-1 to bar the municipality from acquiring or using facial recognition technology for surveillance, with limited exceptions requiring Assembly approval.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Ordinance Restricting Municipal Use of Facial Recognition Technology (AO 2023-35)","source_url":"https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/anchorage/2023/04/19/anchorage-assembly-restricts-city-use-of-facial-recognition-technology/","source_title":"Anchorage Assembly restricts city use of facial recognition technology","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ar-little-rock-industrial-zoning-ordinance-regulating-data-centers-2026","title":"Little Rock, AR — Industrial Zoning Ordinance Regulating Data Centers","short_title":"Industrial Zoning Ordinance Regulating Data Centers","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Little Rock, AR","state_abbr":"AR","city":"Little Rock","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-03","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Little Rock's Board of Directors unanimously amended industrial zoning ordinances to regulate data centers, requiring water-use reports and setting noise limits, after declining to enact a moratorium.","summary_technical":"Little Rock's Board of Directors unanimously amended industrial zoning ordinances to regulate data centers, requiring water-use reports and setting noise limits, after declining to enact a moratorium.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Industrial Zoning Ordinance Regulating Data Centers","source_url":"https://mhobserver.com/arkansas-largest-city-approves-new-data-center-ordinance/","source_title":"Arkansas' largest city approves new data center ordinance","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ar-pulaski-county-proposed-12-month-data-center-moratorium-failed-to-pass-2026","title":"Pulaski County, AR — Proposed 12-Month Data Center Moratorium (failed to pass)","short_title":"Proposed 12-Month Data Center Moratorium (failed to pass)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Pulaski County, AR","state_abbr":"AR","county":"Pulaski County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-09-14","summary_plain":"A proposed one-year emergency moratorium on new data centers in Pulaski County was initially reported as passing but a review found the vote fell short of the required two-thirds and did not pass.","summary_technical":"A proposed one-year emergency moratorium on new data centers in Pulaski County was initially reported as passing but a review found the vote fell short of the required two-thirds and did not pass.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Proposed 12-Month Data Center Moratorium (failed to pass)","source_url":"https://www.kark.com/news/politics/pulaski-county-clerk-data-center-moratorium-did-not-pass/","source_title":"Pulaski County Clerk: Data center moratorium did not pass, votes miscounted","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"de-new-castle-county-data-center-land-use-regulations-buffer-setback-decommi-2026","title":"New Castle County, DE — Data Center Land-Use Regulations (buffer, setback, decommissioning, cooling)","short_title":"Data Center Land-Use Regulations (buffer, setback, decommiss","level":"county","jurisdiction":"New Castle County, DE","state_abbr":"DE","county":"New Castle County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-03-19","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"New Castle County enacted regulations requiring new data centers to keep 1,000-foot residential setbacks, use closed-loop cooling and energy-efficient generators, and set aside decommissioning funds.","summary_technical":"New Castle County enacted regulations requiring new data centers to keep 1,000-foot residential setbacks, use closed-loop cooling and energy-efficient generators, and set aside decommissioning funds.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Data Center Land-Use Regulations (buffer, setback, decommissioning, cooling)","source_url":"https://spotlightdelaware.org/2026/03/19/new-data-center-regulations-go-into-effect-but-not-for-del-city-proposal/","source_title":"New data center regulations go into effect, but not for Delaware City proposal","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ms-jackson-proposed-183-day-moratorium-on-data-center-construction-2026","title":"Jackson, MS — 183-Day Moratorium on Hyperscale Data Centers (Approved July 14, 2026; Expires Jan. 13, 2027)","short_title":"Proposed 183-day moratorium on data center construction and ","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Jackson, MS","state_abbr":"MS","city":"Jackson","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-14","enacted_date":"2026-07-14","expires_date":"2027-01-13","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"The Jackson City Council tabled a proposed 183-day moratorium on data center construction and permitting authored by Council President Brian Grizzell, with legal review requiring a public hearing before any zoning ordinance vote.","summary_technical":"The Jackson City Council tabled a proposed 183-day moratorium on data center construction and permitting authored by Council President Brian Grizzell, with legal review requiring a public hearing before any zoning ordinance vote.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Proposed 183-day moratorium on data center construction and permitting (tabled pending public hearing)","source_url":"https://www.wlbt.com/2026/10/06/sparks-fly-city-council-meeting-residents-again-speak-out-against-data-centers/","source_title":"Sparks fly at city council meeting as residents again speak out against data centers — WLBT (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"mo-weston-board-of-aldermen-cancels-flock-automated-license-plate-2026","title":"Weston, MO — Board of Aldermen cancels Flock automated license-plate reader (ALPR) camera contract after resident opposition","short_title":"Board of Aldermen cancels Flock automated license-plate read","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Weston, MO","state_abbr":"MO","city":"Weston","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-05-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Weston Board of Aldermen canceled a $45,000 contract for two Flock ALPR cameras roughly five months after approving it, following sustained resident privacy opposition, with no money paid.","summary_technical":"The Weston Board of Aldermen canceled a $45,000 contract for two Flock ALPR cameras roughly five months after approving it, following sustained resident privacy opposition, with no money paid.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Board of Aldermen cancels Flock automated license-plate reader (ALPR) camera contract after resident opposition","source_url":"https://www.kcur.org/news/2026-06-29/automated-license-plate-readers-alpr-kansas-city-lenexa-weston-police","source_title":"Missouri and Kansas police use cameras to track license plates, but residents resist surveillance (KCUR)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"mo-columbia-police-surveillance-technology-ordinance-requiring-annu-2025","title":"Columbia, MO — Police surveillance technology ordinance requiring annual public surveillance reports (Code Sec. 21-61)","short_title":"Police surveillance technology ordinance requiring annual pu","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Columbia, MO","state_abbr":"MO","city":"Columbia","topics":["law-enforcement","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Columbia's surveillance technology ordinance (Code of Ordinances Article IV, Sec. 21-61) requires the police department to document and publicly report its use of surveillance technology to the City Council each year, including data-sharing, complaints, and audit results.","summary_technical":"Columbia's surveillance technology ordinance (Code of Ordinances Article IV, Sec. 21-61) requires the police department to document and publicly report its use of surveillance technology to the City Council each year, including data-sharing, complaints, and audit results.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Police surveillance technology ordinance requiring annual public surveillance reports (Code Sec. 21-61)","source_url":"https://www.como.gov/police/surveillance-technology-report-2025/","source_title":"2025 Annual Surveillance Technology Report - City of Columbia Missouri","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"mt-missoula-city-council-delays-ai-capable-park-security-camera-pur-2026","title":"Missoula, MT — City Council delays AI-capable park security camera purchase pending a surveillance policy","short_title":"City Council delays AI-capable park security camera purchase","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Missoula, MT","state_abbr":"MT","city":"Missoula","topics":["law-enforcement","facial-recognition","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Missoula City Council delayed a $366,390 park security camera upgrade contract over resident concerns about AI features like facial recognition, directing the administration to draft a surveillance policy before any purchase.","summary_technical":"The Missoula City Council delayed a $366,390 park security camera upgrade contract over resident concerns about AI features like facial recognition, directing the administration to draft a surveillance policy before any purchase.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"City Council delays AI-capable park security camera purchase pending a surveillance policy","source_url":"https://montanafreepress.org/2026/06/26/missoula-delays-decision-on-security-cameras-due-to-ai-concerns/","source_title":"Missoula delays decision on security cameras due to AI concerns (Montana Free Press)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ne-otoe-county-one-year-moratorium-on-new-data-center-permits-interim--2026","title":"Otoe County, NE — One-year moratorium on new data center permits (Interim Ordinance 26-2)","short_title":"One-year moratorium on new data center permits (Interim Ordi","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Otoe County, NE","state_abbr":"NE","county":"Otoe County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-05-20","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Otoe County commissioners adopted a one-year moratorium suspending permits needed for new data centers to give officials time to update the county's comprehensive development plan.","summary_technical":"Otoe County commissioners adopted a one-year moratorium suspending permits needed for new data centers to give officials time to update the county's comprehensive development plan.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"One-year moratorium on new data center permits (Interim Ordinance 26-2)","source_url":"https://www.1011now.com/2026/05/20/otoe-county-commissioners-pass-moratorium-data-center-or-not/","source_title":"Otoe County commissioners pass moratorium, data center or not (1011 Now)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ne-gage-county-planning-and-zoning-commission-recommends-18-month-data-2026","title":"Gage County, NE — County Board REPLACES Its 8-Month Data Center Moratorium With a 12-MONTH Moratorium on Data Center Permits (September 16, 2026), Settling Between the Planning Commission’s 18-Month Recommendation and the Board’s Original 8 Months","short_title":"Gage County NE 12-month data center moratorium (Sept 16, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Gage County, NE","state_abbr":"NE","county":"Gage County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-16","enacted_date":"2026-08-05","expires_date":"2027-09-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-17","summary_plain":"The Gage County Board of Supervisors approved a 12-MONTH moratorium on data center permits on September 16, 2026, while the county works to develop regulations specifically for these facilities. This REPLACES the eight-month moratorium the county already had in place. The county has now landed on its third number: the Gage County Planning and Zoning Commission recommended 18 months in June 2026, the Board adopted 8 months on August 5, and in September the Board settled on 12. Supervisor Emily Haxby put the reason plainly: “We don’t have any regulations in place currently for data centers, and we do need to take the time to make sure we have them in place prior to receiving a permit.” Supervisor Rex Adams pressed the other way, favouring 12 over 18 because he wants the county to actually finish the regulations rather than let the process drag: “I believe the soonest we get regulations in place, the better off we are and not drag it out.” That exchange is worth recording, because it is the clearest statement in this dataset of the real tradeoff behind moratorium length — a longer pause buys drafting time but reduces the pressure to use it.","summary_technical":"Gage County, Neb. Board of Supervisors — 12-MONTH MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTER PERMITS approved WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2026, SUPERSEDING the 8-month moratorium the board adopted August 5, 2026. THE DURATION HISTORY IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS ENTRY AND RUNS IN THREE STEPS: (1) the GAGE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED 18 MONTHS in June 2026; (2) the BOARD ADOPTED 8 MONTHS on August 5, 2026, less than half the recommendation; (3) the BOARD SETTLED ON 12 MONTHS on September 16, 2026. The source states expressly that “The county already had an eight-month moratorium in place, while the Gage County Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended an 18-month moratorium,” and that “Supervisors ultimately landed on 12 months.” SCOPE AS NOW REPORTED IS PERMITS — the August posture recorded here was the halting of acceptance and processing of CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SPECIAL USE PERMITS; the September reporting says “data center permits” without re-enumerating, and NO CHANGE IN SCOPE IS ASSERTED. STATED RATIONALE, Supervisor EMILY HAXBY: “We don’t have any regulations in place currently for data centers, and we do need to take the time to make sure we have them in place prior to receiving a permit” — the code-silence diagnosis recorded at wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026, oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026, ca-palm-springs-dc-moratorium-2026 and nc-newport-dc-moratorium-2026. COUNTER-ARGUMENT ON THE RECORD, Supervisor REX ADAMS, favouring the shorter term: “I believe the soonest we get regulations in place, the better off we are and not drag it out.” THAT IS THE MORATORIUM-LENGTH TRADEOFF STATED BY A DECISION-MAKER: additional months buy drafting capacity but dilute the deadline pressure that forces drafting to conclude. It is the counterweight to the statutory-ceiling analysis recorded elsewhere in this dataset (Minn. Stat. § 462.355 subd. 4 and § 394.34, 12 months; Wisconsin 12 plus one 6-month extension; Cal. Gov. Code § 65858, 45 days plus 10mo15d plus 1 year), where the question is whether a term is TOO LONG to defend. Gage County is the case where the board argued a term could be too long to be USEFUL. expires_date 2027-09-16 IS COMPUTED as 12 months from the September 16 approval and is NOT stated in the source; whether the 12 months runs from September 16 or from the August 5 original adoption IS NOT STATED and the later date is used as the conservative reading.","who_is_protected":"Gage County, NE residents from unregulated data center development during the moratorium period","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking conditional or special use permits in Gage County, NE","citation":"Gage County, Neb. — 12-month moratorium on data center permits, approved September 16, 2026, superseding the 8-month moratorium adopted August 5, 2026","source_url":"https://www.klkntv.com/gage-county-approves-12-month-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Gage County approves 12-month data center moratorium — KLKN-TV (Lincoln, NE)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ne-seward-county-12-month-moratorium-on-data-center-construction-permits-2026","title":"Seward County, NE — 12-month moratorium on data center construction, permits, and special use conditions","short_title":"12-month moratorium on data center construction, permits, an","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Seward County, NE","state_abbr":"NE","county":"Seward County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-30","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Seward County commissioners unanimously approved a 12-month moratorium on all data center construction, permits, and special use conditions to allow time to develop regulations before new projects proceed.","summary_technical":"Seward County commissioners unanimously approved a 12-month moratorium on all data center construction, permits, and special use conditions to allow time to develop regulations before new projects proceed.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"12-month moratorium on data center construction, permits, and special use conditions","source_url":"https://www.ksnblocal4.com/2026/06/30/seward-county-approves-one-year-pause-data-center-permits-construction/","source_title":"Seward County approves one-year pause on data center permits and construction (KSNB Local4)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"nh-nottingham-nottingham-planning-board-pursuing-a-local-data-center--2026","title":"Nottingham, NH — Nottingham Planning Board pursuing a local data center moratorium","short_title":"Nottingham Planning Board pursuing a local data center morat","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Nottingham, NH","state_abbr":"NH","city":"Nottingham","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"After backlash to a proposed warehouse-to-data-center conversion on Route 4, Nottingham's planning board held a June 3, 2026 workshop to move toward a local moratorium and regulation of data centers.","summary_technical":"After backlash to a proposed warehouse-to-data-center conversion on Route 4, Nottingham's planning board held a June 3, 2026 workshop to move toward a local moratorium and regulation of data centers.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Nottingham Planning Board pursuing a local data center moratorium","source_url":"https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2026-06-02/nottingham-data-center-proposal-nh-stand-data-centers-laws-regulations-ai","source_title":"As Nottingham continues to address backlash to data center proposal, what does NH law say? (New Hampshire Public Radio)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"nd-morton-county-morton-county-moratorium-on-data-centers-and-cryptocurr-2024","title":"Morton County, ND — Morton County moratorium on data centers and cryptocurrency mining facilities","short_title":"Morton County moratorium on data centers and cryptocurrency ","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Morton County, ND","state_abbr":"ND","county":"Morton County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2024-09-12","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Morton County adopted a moratorium barring permitting of data centers and crypto-mining facilities until the county develops siting and performance standards, which it is still drafting as of mid-2026.","summary_technical":"Morton County adopted a moratorium barring permitting of data centers and crypto-mining facilities until the county develops siting and performance standards, which it is still drafting as of mid-2026.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Morton County moratorium on data centers and cryptocurrency mining facilities","source_url":"https://www.mortonnd.gov/?SEC=1E3E56EB-551B-4CE1-B5D6-A9165291C20C&Type=B_BASIC","source_title":"News and Project Information - Morton County, North Dakota","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"nd-oliver-county-oliver-county-180-day-data-center-construction-moratori-2026","title":"Oliver County, ND — Oliver County 180-day data center construction moratorium (repealed)","short_title":"Oliver County 180-day data center construction moratorium (r","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Oliver County, ND","state_abbr":"ND","county":"Oliver County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"expired","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Oliver County commissioners adopted a 180-day moratorium on data center development in March 2026 but repealed it at a May 1, 2026 special meeting, clearing the way for Applied Digital's rezoning application.","summary_technical":"Oliver County commissioners adopted a 180-day moratorium on data center development in March 2026 but repealed it at a May 1, 2026 special meeting, clearing the way for Applied Digital's rezoning application.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Oliver County 180-day data center construction moratorium (repealed)","source_url":"https://www.kfyrtv.com/2026/05/01/oliver-county-commissioners-repeal-moratorium-data-centers/","source_title":"Oliver County Commissioners repeal moratorium on data centers (KFYR-TV)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ok-oklahoma-city-oklahoma-city-council-approves-police-facial-recognitio-2025","title":"Oklahoma City, OK — Oklahoma City Council approves police facial-recognition contract","short_title":"Oklahoma City Council approves police facial-recognition con","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Oklahoma City, OK","state_abbr":"OK","city":"Oklahoma City","topics":["facial-recognition","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-15","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Oklahoma City Council voted 7-2 on July 15, 2025 to approve integrating facial-recognition technology into the police department despite privacy objections.","summary_technical":"The Oklahoma City Council voted 7-2 on July 15, 2025 to approve integrating facial-recognition technology into the police department despite privacy objections.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Oklahoma City Council approves police facial-recognition contract","source_url":"https://reclaimthenet.org/oklahoma-city-approves-facial-recognition-police-use","source_title":"Oklahoma City Approves Controversial Facial Recognition Deal Despite Privacy Concerns (Reclaim The Net)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ok-oklahoma-city-oklahoma-city-council-to-vote-on-renewing-flock-safety--2026","title":"Oklahoma City, OK — Oklahoma City Council to vote on renewing Flock Safety ALPR contract","short_title":"Oklahoma City Council to vote on renewing Flock Safety ALPR ","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Oklahoma City, OK","state_abbr":"OK","city":"Oklahoma City","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Oklahoma City Council is set to vote around July 7, 2026 on a third renewal of its Flock Safety automated license-plate-reader contract amid criticism that the department lacks a published ALPR policy.","summary_technical":"The Oklahoma City Council is set to vote around July 7, 2026 on a third renewal of its Flock Safety automated license-plate-reader contract amid criticism that the department lacks a published ALPR policy.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Oklahoma City Council to vote on renewing Flock Safety ALPR contract","source_url":"https://www.kgou.org/politics-and-government/2026-07-01/surveillance-or-safety-okc-city-council-to-consider-automated-license-plate-reader-contract-renewal","source_title":"Surveillance or safety? OKC City Council to consider automated license plate reader contract renewal (KGOU)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ri-smithfield-smithfield-town-council-data-center-zoning-ban-ordinanc-2026","title":"Smithfield, RI — Smithfield Town Council data center zoning ban ordinance","short_title":"Smithfield Town Council data center zoning ban ordinance","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Smithfield, RI","state_abbr":"RI","city":"Smithfield","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-04","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"The Smithfield Town Council voted 4-1 to adopt a zoning amendment listing data centers as a 'not permitted' use in every zoning district, taking effect 30 days after the vote.","summary_technical":"The Smithfield Town Council voted 4-1 to adopt a zoning amendment listing data centers as a 'not permitted' use in every zoning district, taking effect 30 days after the vote.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Smithfield Town Council data center zoning ban ordinance","source_url":"https://www.oceanstatemedia.org/technology/proposed-data-center-still-looms-over-smithfield-even-after-town-council-enacts-ban","source_title":"Proposed data center still looms over Smithfield, even after town council enacts ban - Ocean State Media","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ri-warwick-city-of-warwick-ordinance-regulating-alpr-technology-sy-2022","title":"Warwick, RI — City of Warwick ordinance regulating ALPR technology systems (Chapter 52)","short_title":"City of Warwick ordinance regulating ALPR technology systems","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Warwick, RI","state_abbr":"RI","city":"Warwick","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2022-10-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Warwick adopted an ordinance restricting automated license plate reader use to official law enforcement purposes, capping data retention at 30 days and barring sale or sharing of ALPR data with non-law-enforcement third parties.","summary_technical":"Warwick adopted an ordinance restricting automated license plate reader use to official law enforcement purposes, capping data retention at 30 days and barring sale or sharing of ALPR data with non-law-enforcement third parties.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"City of Warwick ordinance regulating ALPR technology systems (Chapter 52)","source_url":"https://www.warwickri.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif12206/f/agendas/pco-6-22_sub_a-_ord_regulating_alpr_technology_systems.pdf","source_title":"PCO-6-22 SUB A - The City of Warwick, State of Rhode Island - Ordinance Regulating ALPR Technology Systems","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official"},{"id":"sc-colleton-county-ordinance-imposing-a-moratorium-on-land-use-and-develop-2026","title":"Colleton County, SC — Ordinance imposing a moratorium on land use and development approvals for data centers","short_title":"Ordinance imposing a moratorium on land use and development ","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Colleton County, SC","state_abbr":"SC","county":"Colleton County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Colleton County Council voted unanimously on first reading to approve a six-month moratorium on special exceptions, conditional use and other land use approvals for data centers while it updates its Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code.","summary_technical":"Colleton County Council voted unanimously on first reading to approve a six-month moratorium on special exceptions, conditional use and other land use approvals for data centers while it updates its Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Ordinance imposing a moratorium on land use and development approvals for data centers","source_url":"https://www.aol.com/articles/south-carolina-county-passes-first-090447896.html","source_title":"South Carolina county passes first reading on data center moratorium - AOL","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"sc-spartanburg-county-one-year-moratorium-on-new-data-center-applications-2026","title":"Spartanburg County, SC — One-year moratorium on new data center applications","short_title":"One-year moratorium on new data center applications","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Spartanburg County, SC","state_abbr":"SC","county":"Spartanburg County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-22","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Spartanburg County Council passed first reading of a one-year data center moratorium and invoked the pending-ordinance doctrine to immediately freeze new applications, pending the second and third readings required for final adoption.","summary_technical":"Spartanburg County Council passed first reading of a one-year data center moratorium and invoked the pending-ordinance doctrine to immediately freeze new applications, pending the second and third readings required for final adoption.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"One-year moratorium on new data center applications","source_url":"https://www.foxcarolina.com/2026/06/22/spartanburg-county-votes-pause-data-center-applications-one-year/","source_title":"Spartanburg County votes to pause data center applications for one year - FOX Carolina","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ut-box-elder-county-box-elder-county-temporary-data-center-moratorium-2026","title":"Box Elder County, UT — Box Elder County temporary data center moratorium","short_title":"Box Elder County temporary data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Box Elder County, UT","state_abbr":"UT","county":"Box Elder County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-11","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Box Elder County commissioners unanimously approved a 180-day moratorium pausing new data center development for research and policy work, with the Stratos project exempted.","summary_technical":"Box Elder County commissioners unanimously approved a 180-day moratorium pausing new data center development for research and policy work, with the Stratos project exempted.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Box Elder County temporary data center moratorium","source_url":"https://www.ksl.com/article/news/utah/counties/northern/box-elder-county-commissioners-approve-data-center-moratorium-stratos-project-exempt/51509683","source_title":"Box Elder County Commissioners approve data-center moratorium; Stratos project exempt - KSL.com","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ut-iron-county-iron-county-180-day-moratorium-on-new-data-center-appli-2026","title":"Iron County, UT — Iron County 180-day moratorium on new data center applications","short_title":"Iron County 180-day moratorium on new data center applicatio","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Iron County, UT","state_abbr":"UT","county":"Iron County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-05-26","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Iron County Commission adopted an ordinance imposing a 180-day moratorium on accepting and processing new or incomplete land use applications for data centers, data center power plants and solar plants.","summary_technical":"The Iron County Commission adopted an ordinance imposing a 180-day moratorium on accepting and processing new or incomplete land use applications for data centers, data center power plants and solar plants.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Iron County 180-day moratorium on new data center applications","source_url":"https://www.sltrib.com/news/2026/05/26/iron-county-bans-approval-new-data/","source_title":"Iron County bans new data center applications for 180 days - The Salt Lake Tribune","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"wv-monongalia-county-monongalia-county-commission-approves-flock-safety-auto-2025","title":"Monongalia County, WV — Monongalia County Commission approves Flock Safety automated license plate reader (ALPR) surveillance program","short_title":"Monongalia County Commission approves Flock Safety automated","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Monongalia County, WV","state_abbr":"WV","county":"Monongalia County","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-12-10","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Monongalia County Commission voted on December 10, 2025 to approve a three-year contract using $60,000 in opioid settlement funds for 20 Flock Safety automated license plate reader cameras, over resident privacy objections.","summary_technical":"The Monongalia County Commission voted on December 10, 2025 to approve a three-year contract using $60,000 in opioid settlement funds for 20 Flock Safety automated license plate reader cameras, over resident privacy objections.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Monongalia County Commission approves Flock Safety automated license plate reader (ALPR) surveillance program","source_url":"https://wvpublic.org/story/government/monongalia-county-commission-faces-privacy-concerns-over-new-surveillance-technology/","source_title":"Monongalia County Commission Faces Privacy Concerns Over New Surveillance Technology - West Virginia Public Broadcasting","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"hi-city-and-county-of-honolulu-honolulu-police-department-honolulu-police-department-automated-license-plate-read-2025","title":"City and County of Honolulu (Honolulu Police Department), HI — Honolulu Police Department Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Policy","short_title":"Honolulu Police Department Automated License Plate Reader (A","level":"city","jurisdiction":"City and County of Honolulu (Honolulu Police Department), HI","state_abbr":"HI","city":"City and County of Honolulu (Honolulu Police Department)","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Honolulu Police Department maintains an official ALPR policy limiting use to law enforcement purposes, requiring a 90-day data purge, FBI-certified offsite storage, logged access, and Chief-of-Police approval for any non-law-enforcement sharing.","summary_technical":"The Honolulu Police Department maintains an official ALPR policy limiting use to law enforcement purposes, requiring a 90-day data purge, FBI-certified offsite storage, logged access, and Chief-of-Police approval for any non-law-enforcement sharing.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Honolulu Police Department Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Policy","source_url":"https://www.honolulupd.org/policy/policy-automated-license-plate-reader/","source_title":"Automated License Plate Reader - Honolulu Police Department","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"hi-city-and-county-of-honolulu-resolution-to-expand-surveillance-cameras-in-public-par-2025","title":"City and County of Honolulu, HI — Resolution to expand surveillance cameras in public parks (one-year pilot)","short_title":"Resolution to expand surveillance cameras in public parks (o","level":"city","jurisdiction":"City and County of Honolulu, HI","state_abbr":"HI","city":"City and County of Honolulu","topics":["law-enforcement","public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-06-04","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Honolulu City Council approved Resolution 3332 on June 4, 2025 launching a one-year pilot to expand public-park surveillance cameras from about 16 to roughly 45 parks, with 30-day footage retention and a required HPD effectiveness report to the Council.","summary_technical":"The Honolulu City Council approved Resolution 3332 on June 4, 2025 launching a one-year pilot to expand public-park surveillance cameras from about 16 to roughly 45 parks, with 30-day footage retention and a required HPD effectiveness report to the Council.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Resolution to expand surveillance cameras in public parks (one-year pilot)","source_url":"https://www.civilbeat.org/2025/06/honolulu-wants-to-put-more-cameras-in-public-parks-to-reduce-crime/","source_title":"Honolulu Wants To Put More Cameras In Public Parks To Reduce Crime - Honolulu Civil Beat","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"id-city-of-twin-falls-twin-falls-police-department-twin-falls-police-department-automated-license-plate-re-2023","title":"City of Twin Falls (Twin Falls Police Department), ID — Twin Falls Police Department Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) program and policy","short_title":"Twin Falls Police Department Automated License Plate Reader ","level":"city","jurisdiction":"City of Twin Falls (Twin Falls Police Department), ID","state_abbr":"ID","city":"City of Twin Falls (Twin Falls Police Department)","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-12-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Since December 2023 the Twin Falls Police Department has operated 40 ALPR cameras under a published policy that captures only rear plates, purges data after 30 days unless tied to an investigation, restricts and logs access, and limits use to misdemeanor and felony cases.","summary_technical":"Since December 2023 the Twin Falls Police Department has operated 40 ALPR cameras under a published policy that captures only rear plates, purges data after 30 days unless tied to an investigation, restricts and logs access, and limits use to misdemeanor and felony cases.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Twin Falls Police Department Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) program and policy","source_url":"https://www.tfid.org/899/Automated-License-Plate-Reader-ALPR","source_title":"Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) | Twin Falls, ID - Official Website","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ia-linn-county-data-center-zoning-ordinance-for-unincorporated-linn-co-2026","title":"Linn County, IA — Data center zoning ordinance for unincorporated Linn County","short_title":"Data center zoning ordinance for unincorporated Linn County","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Linn County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Linn County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-02-18","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Linn County Board of Supervisors adopted one of the nation's most comprehensive local data-center zoning ordinances on February 18, 2026, requiring water studies and water-use agreements, 1,000-foot residential setbacks, noise and light limits, and infrastructure-damage compensation.","summary_technical":"The Linn County Board of Supervisors adopted one of the nation's most comprehensive local data-center zoning ordinances on February 18, 2026, requiring water studies and water-use agreements, 1,000-foot residential setbacks, noise and light limits, and infrastructure-damage compensation.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Data center zoning ordinance for unincorporated Linn County","source_url":"https://www.planetizen.com/news/2026/03/137049-iowa-county-passes-restrictive-data-center-ordinance","source_title":"Iowa County Passes Restrictive Data Center Ordinance | Planetizen News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ia-dubuque-county-12-month-moratorium-on-data-centers-2026","title":"Dubuque County, IA — 12-month moratorium on data centers","short_title":"12-month moratorium on data centers","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Dubuque County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Dubuque County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-05-26","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Dubuque County Board of Supervisors voted 2-1 on May 26, 2026 to enact a 12-month moratorium on data centers while staff research and develop county zoning regulations for such facilities.","summary_technical":"The Dubuque County Board of Supervisors voted 2-1 on May 26, 2026 to enact a 12-month moratorium on data centers while staff research and develop county zoning regulations for such facilities.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"12-month moratorium on data centers","source_url":"https://www.kcrg.com/2026/05/26/dubuque-county-passes-12-month-moratorium-data-centers/","source_title":"Dubuque County approves 12-month moratorium on data centers","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ks-harvey-county-moratorium-on-data-center-construction-in-unincorporate-2026","title":"Harvey County, KS — Moratorium on data center construction in unincorporated Harvey County","short_title":"Moratorium on data center construction in unincorporated Har","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Harvey County, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Harvey County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-13","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Harvey County Commission unanimously approved a resolution on January 13, 2026 halting data-processing and data-storage facility construction in unincorporated areas through the end of 2028 while planning and zoning staff draft regulations.","summary_technical":"The Harvey County Commission unanimously approved a resolution on January 13, 2026 halting data-processing and data-storage facility construction in unincorporated areas through the end of 2028 while planning and zoning staff draft regulations.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Moratorium on data center construction in unincorporated Harvey County","source_url":"https://www.kwch.com/2026/01/13/harvey-county-commission-places-moratorium-data-center-construction/","source_title":"Harvey County Commission places moratorium on data center construction","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ks-saline-county-temporary-moratorium-on-data-centers-nuclear-and-hydrog-2026","title":"Saline County, KS — Temporary moratorium on data centers, nuclear and hydrogen facilities in unincorporated areas","short_title":"Temporary moratorium on data centers, nuclear and hydrogen f","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Saline County, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Saline County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-03-17","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Saline County Commission voted 4-0 on March 17, 2026 to adopt a moratorium on new data center, nuclear power, and hydrogen facility applications in unincorporated areas, effective until March 1, 2029, to allow time to draft development regulations.","summary_technical":"The Saline County Commission voted 4-0 on March 17, 2026 to adopt a moratorium on new data center, nuclear power, and hydrogen facility applications in unincorporated areas, effective until March 1, 2029, to allow time to draft development regulations.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Temporary moratorium on data centers, nuclear and hydrogen facilities in unincorporated areas","source_url":"https://salinapost.com/posts/72efeb72-d4d2-4a40-bb06-f445635cd6d4","source_title":"Saline County Commissioner discusses three year moratorium on data centers and energy facilities","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ks-sedgwick-county-interim-moratorium-pausing-data-center-applications-2026","title":"Sedgwick County, KS — Interim moratorium pausing data center applications","short_title":"Interim moratorium pausing data center applications","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Sedgwick County, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Sedgwick County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-14","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Sedgwick County Commission first adopted an interim moratorium pausing new data center applications in January 2026 and has since extended it multiple times (most recently by 90 days to September 11) while planning staff develop zoning rules amid water, traffic, and public-safety concerns.","summary_technical":"The Sedgwick County Commission first adopted an interim moratorium pausing new data center applications in January 2026 and has since extended it multiple times (most recently by 90 days to September 11) while planning staff develop zoning rules amid water, traffic, and public-safety concerns.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Interim moratorium pausing data center applications","source_url":"https://www.kwch.com/2026/05/06/sedgwick-county-commission-extends-moratorium-data-centers-90-more-days/","source_title":"Sedgwick County Commission extends moratorium on data centers for 90 more days","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ky-lexington-fayette-urban-county-moratorium-on-data-center-permits-development-plans-and-2026","title":"Lexington-Fayette Urban County, KY — Moratorium on data center permits, development plans and zone changes","short_title":"Moratorium on data center permits, development plans and zon","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lexington-Fayette Urban County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","city":"Lexington-Fayette Urban County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-09","expires_date":"2027-10-31","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council unanimously enacted a moratorium pausing data center permits, development-plan acceptances and zone changes through October 31, 2026, while it drafts a zoning ordinance text amendment for data centers.","summary_technical":"The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council unanimously enacted a moratorium pausing data center permits, development-plan acceptances and zone changes through October 31, 2026, while it drafts a zoning ordinance text amendment for data centers.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Moratorium on data center permits, development plans and zone changes","source_url":"https://www.lex18.com/news/covering-kentucky/lexington-city-council-passes-moratorium-on-data-center-development","source_title":"Lexington City Council unanimously passes a moratorium on new data center approvals","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ky-cave-city-one-year-moratorium-on-data-center-development-2026","title":"Cave City, KY — One-year moratorium on data center development","short_title":"One-year moratorium on data center development","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cave City, KY","state_abbr":"KY","city":"Cave City","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-05-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Cave City, a small community near Mammoth Cave National Park, passed a one-year moratorium on data center development after being approached by a developer.","summary_technical":"Cave City, a small community near Mammoth Cave National Park, passed a one-year moratorium on data center development after being approached by a developer.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"One-year moratorium on data center development","source_url":"https://kentuckylantern.com/2026/06/08/some-kentucky-counties-and-cities-are-hitting-pause-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Some Kentucky counties and cities are hitting pause on data centers","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"ky-allen-county-24-month-moratorium-on-data-center-construction-2026","title":"Allen County, KY — 24-month moratorium on data center construction","short_title":"24-month moratorium on data center construction","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Allen County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Allen County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"Allen County passed a 24-month moratorium on data center construction citing noise and lifestyle concerns observed in neighboring Simpson County.","summary_technical":"Allen County passed a 24-month moratorium on data center construction citing noise and lifestyle concerns observed in neighboring Simpson County.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"24-month moratorium on data center construction","source_url":"https://www.kentuckynewera.com/news/state/article_07cbfb24-3ff8-5906-bc50-dffee09f0aab.html","source_title":"More Kentucky counties hit pause on data centers","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"la-new-orleans-temporary-moratorium-on-new-data-centers-2026","title":"New Orleans, LA — Temporary moratorium on new data centers","short_title":"Temporary moratorium on new data centers","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New Orleans, LA","state_abbr":"LA","city":"New Orleans","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-28","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The New Orleans City Council imposed a temporary moratorium of up to two years on new data centers, server farms and cryptocurrency mining facilities and directed the Planning Commission to draft a data center zoning classification.","summary_technical":"The New Orleans City Council imposed a temporary moratorium of up to two years on new data centers, server farms and cryptocurrency mining facilities and directed the Planning Commission to draft a data center zoning classification.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Temporary moratorium on new data centers","source_url":"https://www.nola.com/news/business/new-orleans-east-data-center/article_b7397cf1-85d4-4dbc-8675-1da346539fd2.html","source_title":"City Council eyes rules for data centers after New Orleans East project dies","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"la-st-charles-parish-first-data-center-zoning-regulations-2026","title":"St. Charles Parish, LA — First data center zoning regulations","short_title":"First data center zoning regulations","level":"county","jurisdiction":"St. Charles Parish, LA","state_abbr":"LA","county":"St. Charles Parish","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-02","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The St. Charles Parish Council unanimously approved the parish's first data center zoning regulations, adding a definition and requiring 300-foot buffers from residential areas, landscape buffers, noise limits and generator-testing restrictions.","summary_technical":"The St. Charles Parish Council unanimously approved the parish's first data center zoning regulations, adding a definition and requiring 300-foot buffers from residential areas, landscape buffers, noise limits and generator-testing restrictions.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"First data center zoning regulations","source_url":"https://www.heraldguide.com/featured/parish-council-unanimously-approves-first-data-center-regulations/","source_title":"Parish Council unanimously approves first data center regulations","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"me-sanford-91-day-pause-on-data-center-development-2026","title":"Sanford, ME — 91-day pause on data center development","short_title":"91-day pause on data center development","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Sanford, ME","state_abbr":"ME","city":"Sanford","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Sanford City Council voted to institute a 91-day pause on data center development, stalling a proposed 1,000-acre project and creating a task force to recommend municipal regulations.","summary_technical":"The Sanford City Council voted to institute a 91-day pause on data center development, stalling a proposed 1,000-acre project and creating a task force to recommend municipal regulations.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"91-day pause on data center development","source_url":"https://www.route-fifty.com/infrastructure/2026/05/local-maine-officials-look-pause-data-center-development-after-state-moratorium-veto/413662/","source_title":"Local Maine officials look to pause data center development after state moratorium veto","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"mi-lenox-township-data-center-moratorium-4-months-with-extension-option-2026","title":"Lenox Township, MI — Data center moratorium (4 months with extension option)","short_title":"Data center moratorium (4 months with extension option)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lenox Township, MI","state_abbr":"MI","city":"Lenox Township","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-02-02","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Charter Township of Lenox adopted a moratorium on new data center development effective February 2, 2026, to review zoning, infrastructure capacity and land-use impacts.","summary_technical":"The Charter Township of Lenox adopted a moratorium on new data center development effective February 2, 2026, to review zoning, infrastructure capacity and land-use impacts.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"Data center moratorium (4 months with extension option)","source_url":"https://www.wkar.org/wkar-news/2026-02-27/michigan-data-center-tracker-moratoria-legislation-and-grid-impact","source_title":"Michigan Data Center Tracker: Moratoria, Legislation, and Grid Impact","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"mi-springfield-township-180-day-data-center-moratorium-2025","title":"Springfield Township, MI — 180-day data center moratorium","short_title":"180-day data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Springfield Township, MI","state_abbr":"MI","city":"Springfield Township","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-12-01","last_verified_date":"2026-07-01","summary_plain":"The Springfield Township Board of Trustees approved a 180-day moratorium barring data center plans from being accepted or approved and directing the planning commission to amend the zoning ordinance.","summary_technical":"The Springfield Township Board of Trustees approved a 180-day moratorium barring data center plans from being accepted or approved and directing the planning commission to amend the zoning ordinance.","who_is_protected":"Local residents subject to the measure.","who_must_comply":"Local government / regulated operators.","citation":"180-day data center moratorium","source_url":"https://www.govtech.com/artificial-intelligence/michigan-township-passes-temporary-data-center-moratorium","source_title":"Michigan Township Passes Temporary Data Center Moratorium","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary"},{"id":"cherokee-nation-dc-hyperscale-ban-2026","title":"Cherokee Nation — Hyperscale Data Center Ban on Tribally Owned and Trust Lands (August 2026)","short_title":"Cherokee Nation hyperscale data center ban (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Cherokee Nation (OK)","state_abbr":"OK","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-10","enacted_date":"2026-08-10","last_verified_date":"2026-10-03","summary_plain":"The Cherokee Nation — the largest federally recognized tribe in the United States, with more than 475,000 citizens — banned hyperscale data center development on tribally owned and trust lands in August 2026, following a Data Center Task Force Report released August 5, 2026. The task force surveyed 1,593 Cherokee Nation citizens and found approximately 64% opposed hyperscale construction within the reservation, with 14% in favor and 22% unsure. The task force defined hyperscale data centers as facilities often spanning more than 10,000 square feet and requiring more than 100 megawatts of power. The report cited concerns about energy use, water consumption, air quality, noise, light pollution, and cultural resource protection. For land within the Cherokee Nation Reservation that is not tribally owned or held in trust, the Nation announced it will not consider supporting a hyperscale data center project unless developers consult with the tribe early, address cultural and natural resource concerns, and include meaningful community input.","summary_technical":"Cherokee Nation Data Center Task Force Report (released August 5, 2026); Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. policy direction issued approximately August 10, 2026 implementing the report's recommendations. TWO-TIER POLICY: (1) TRIBALLY OWNED AND TRUST LANDS — full ban on hyperscale data center development. (2) OTHER RESERVATION LAND — no tribal support for a hyperscale project unless: (a) early developer consultation with the Cherokee Nation; (b) cultural and natural resource concerns addressed; and (c) meaningful community input. Hyperscale definition adopted: facilities often >10,000 sq ft AND requiring >100 MW of power. Citizen survey: 1,593 respondents — 64% opposed, 14% in favor, 22% unsure. Also noted: Oklahoma lacks a consistent method for tracking new or proposed data center projects, and hyperscale facilities typically employ only ~100 workers once operational. DISAMBIGUATION: this entry records the August 2026 data center policy ban, which is separate from cherokee-nation-ai-policy-2025 (the August 2025 IT AI governance policy) and cherokee-nation-eo-2024-07-cth-data-sovereignty (the July 2024 Data Sovereignty & Governance Task Force EO).","who_is_protected":"Cherokee Nation citizens and the land, water, air, and cultural resources of the Cherokee Nation Reservation in northeastern Oklahoma.","who_must_comply":"Any entity seeking to develop hyperscale data centers on Cherokee Nation tribally owned or trust lands; any developer seeking tribal support for hyperscale projects on other reservation land.","citation":"Cherokee Nation Data Center Task Force Report (Aug. 5, 2026); Principal Chief directive (approx. Aug. 10, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.cherokeephoenix.org/news/cherokee-nation-issues-data-center-task-force-report-new-policy-actions/article_9fe8dc40-2907-4c00-8606-33d735ffc51f.html","source_title":"Cherokee Nation issues Data Center Task Force Report, new policy actions — Cherokee Phoenix","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Cherokee Nation tribal government / Principal Chief's office","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Tribal government will not authorize or support prohibited development; contract and tribal law enforcement powers apply to tribal and trust lands."},{"id":"hualapai-tribe-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Hualapai Tribe — Moratorium on Hyperscale Data Center Development on Hualapai Reservation (September 2026)","short_title":"Hualapai Tribe (AZ) hyperscale data center moratorium (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Hualapai Tribe (AZ)","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-14","enacted_date":"2026-09-14","last_verified_date":"2026-10-03","summary_plain":"The Hualapai Tribal Council in northern Arizona enacted a moratorium on hyperscale data center development within the Hualapai Reservation in September 2026, building on an opposition resolution passed approximately August 20, 2026. The Hualapai Nation controls nearly one million acres and shares a 108-mile border with the Colorado River. The Tribal Council stated that hyperscale data centers — which power AI and can consume hundreds of millions of gallons of water annually — pose 'a direct and severe threat to the tribe's sacred water, lands, environment and way of life.' The moratorium asserts that no outside entity or private developer may use, damage, or compromise tribal resources without the tribe's free, prior, and informed consent. Chairman Duane Clarke stated: 'Moving forward, we will always protect our air. We will always protect our land, and we will always protect our water.' The Colorado River Basin is facing critical water shortages, which the Tribal Council cited as a primary driver of the action.","summary_technical":"Hualapai Tribal Council resolution enacted September 2026 (precise date confirmed as approximately September 14 per KJZZ, KUNC, KSUT, Wyoming Public Media, Utah Public Radio reporting). TWO-STAGE ACTION: (1) Opposition resolution: adopted approximately August 20, 2026 (KNAU article August 24, 2026 reports 'Hualapai Tribal Council passes opposition resolution to data centers on the reservation'); (2) Formal moratorium: enacted September 2026. The moratorium prohibits 'irresponsible development of hyperscale data centers' on the Hualapai Reservation. Key operative provision: 'no outside entity or private developer may use, damage or compromise' tribal resources 'without the tribe's free, prior and informed consent.' Grounds: Colorado River Basin critical water shortages; light pollution; wastewater and related environmental and community impacts; cultural resources. Tribal geography: Hualapai Reservation, Mohave and Coconino Counties, Arizona; approximately 1 million acres; 108-mile Colorado River border; Grand Canyon South Rim border. Chairman Duane Clarke.","who_is_protected":"Hualapai tribal members and the tribe's water, land, environment, and cultural resources along the Colorado River corridor in northwestern Arizona.","who_must_comply":"Any entity seeking to develop hyperscale data centers on or adjacent to Hualapai Reservation lands.","citation":"Hualapai Tribal Council resolution (approx. September 2026; prior opposition resolution approx. August 20, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kjzz.org/tribal-natural-resources/2026-09-14/hualapai-tribe-enacts-moratorium-to-halt-irresponsible-development-of-hyperscale-data-centers","source_title":"Hualapai Tribe enacts moratorium to halt 'irresponsible development of hyperscale data centers' — KJZZ (Phoenix NPR)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Hualapai Tribal Council / Hualapai tribal government","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Tribal government will not authorize prohibited development; free prior and informed consent required; tribal law enforcement powers apply on reservation lands."},{"id":"pr-ley-105-2026-ai-elections","title":"Puerto Rico Law 105-2026 — AI Disclosure in Political Propaganda","short_title":"PR Ley 105-2026 (AI Elections)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Puerto Rico","state_abbr":"PR","topics":["elections","deepfakes","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-10","enacted_date":"2026-06-10","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Puerto Rico's Law 105-2026 amends the Electoral Code to require clear disclosure on any political ad created or materially modified by AI — text, image, audio, or video. Signed by Governor Jenniffer González on June 10, 2026. First standalone AI law on the books in PR.","summary_technical":"Ley Núm. 105-2026 (P. del S. 101, author Sen. Carmelo Ríos) amends Puerto Rico's Código Electoral to mandate prominent AI-disclosure labels on political propaganda and electoral communications produced or altered 'wholly or partially' by generative AI. Covers text, images, audio, and video. Signed June 10, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Puerto Rico voters","who_must_comply":"Candidates, political parties, PACs, and ad sponsors operating in Puerto Rico elections","citation":"Ley Núm. 105-2026 (P. del S. 101)","source_url":"https://www.lexjuris.com/lexlex/Leyes2026/lexl2026105.htm","source_title":"Gobernadora firma ley que regula uso de inteligencia artificial en propaganda y comunicaciones electorales — Metro PR","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Comisión Estatal de Elecciones (CEE)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Electoral-Code remedies; specific penalty schedule per CEE rule"},{"id":"pr-ps-441-image-rights-deepfakes","title":"Puerto Rico Ley 163-2026 (P. del S. 441) — Right to One's Own Image vs. AI Deepfakes","short_title":"PR Ley 163-2026 / P. del S. 441 (Image Rights)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Puerto Rico","state_abbr":"PR","topics":["deepfakes","ai-images","ncii","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-03","enacted_date":"2026-08-03","last_verified_date":"2026-08-08","summary_plain":"Puerto Rico Law 163-2026 (P. del S. 441) expands the island's right-of-image statute (Law 139-2011) to expressly cover AI-generated deepfakes and voice clones. Creates civil causes of action when someone's appearance, voice, gestures, movements, or other identifiable attributes are synthetically generated, cloned, simulated, or altered without consent. Signed by Governor Jenniffer González Colón on August 3, 2026.","summary_technical":"Ley 163-2026 (P. del S. 441, 19th Legislative Assembly) amends PR's right-of-publicity / image-rights statute (Law 139-2011) to expressly cover AI-generated or AI-cloned depictions of a person's likeness, voice, gestures, movements, and other identifiable attributes. Senate vote June 25, 2025; House vote January 6, 2026. Conference reconciliation completed; signed by Governor Jenniffer González Colón August 3, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Puerto Rico residents whose likeness or voice is generated/manipulated by AI without consent","who_must_comply":"Anyone creating or distributing AI-generated likenesses or voice clones of Puerto Rico residents","citation":"Ley 163-2026 (P. del S. 441, 19th Leg. Assembly); signed August 3, 2026","source_url":"https://www.metro.pr/noticias/2026/08/03/gobernadora-firma-ley-que-amplia-la-proteccion-del-derecho-a-la-propia-imagen-frente-a-la-inteligencia-artificial/","source_title":"Gobernadora firma ley que amplía la protección del derecho a la propia imagen frente a la inteligencia artificial — Metro Puerto Rico","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Civil remedy via PR Courts","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil damages (statutory schedule per bill text)"},{"id":"pr-ps-68-ai-government-framework","title":"Puerto Rico P. del S. 68 — AI Law for the Government of Puerto Rico","short_title":"PR P. del S. 68 (Gov AI Framework)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Puerto Rico","state_abbr":"PR","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Senate bill creating a Chief AI Officer position at PR Innovation and Technology Service (PRITS) plus an AI Advisory Committee. Would govern PR government use of AI, require non-discrimination assessments, and mandate annual reports. Cleared Senate; pending House vote.","summary_technical":"P. del S. 68 establishes a Chief AI Officer of the Government of Puerto Rico under the Puerto Rico Innovation and Technology Service (PRITS), plus an AI Advisory Committee. Charges them with oversight of agency AI systems, non-discrimination assessments, annual reporting, and policy recommendations. Senate voted April 7, 2025; pending House action.","who_is_protected":"Puerto Rico residents whose interactions with PR government agencies involve AI","who_must_comply":"Puerto Rico government agencies under the Executive Branch","citation":"P. del S. 68 (20th Legislative Assembly, 2025-2028)","source_url":"https://sutra.oslpr.org/medidas/152457","source_title":"SUTRA (Puerto Rico Legislative Services) — P. del S. 68","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"PRITS / Chief AI Officer (proposed)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pr-ps-622-ai-interaction-disclosure","title":"Puerto Rico Ley 116-2026 — Right to Know When Interacting with AI in Government Services (P. del S. 622)","short_title":"PR Ley 116-2026 (AI Bot Disclosure in Gov. Services)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Puerto Rico","state_abbr":"PR","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-18","enacted_date":"2026-06-18","last_verified_date":"2026-08-15","summary_plain":"Puerto Rico's Ley 116-2026 (P. del S. 622) requires PR Executive Branch agencies to notify citizens when they are interacting with an AI system, chatbot, or automated system instead of a human, and guarantees citizens the right to request human intervention at any time. Senate approved June 24, 2025; House approved June 1, 2026; signed into law by Governor Jenniffer González Colón on June 18, 2026. Puerto Rico's second enacted AI-specific law in 2026.","summary_technical":"Ley Núm. 116-2026 (P. del S. 622, 19th Leg. Assembly) requires Puerto Rico Executive Branch agencies and government entities to disclose to citizens when interactions are handled by bots, AI, or automated systems, and to guarantee citizens' right to request human intervention at any time. Senate vote: June 24, 2025. House vote: June 1, 2026. Governor signed: June 18, 2026. Enforcement through PRITS (Puerto Rico Innovation and Technology Service).","who_is_protected":"Puerto Rico residents using government services","who_must_comply":"Puerto Rico Executive Branch agencies and government entities deploying AI or automated systems in citizen-facing services","citation":"Ley Núm. 116-2026 (P. del S. 622, 19th Leg. Assembly); signed June 18, 2026","source_url":"https://www.plateapr.com/que-saber/proyectos-de-ley-regulacion-inteligencia-artificial-puerto-rico","source_title":"Proyectos de ley para regulación de inteligencia artificial en Puerto Rico — Platea PR","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"PRITS (Puerto Rico Innovation and Technology Service)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pr-ps-348-ai-schools","title":"Puerto Rico P. del S. 348 — AI as Instructional Tool in Public Schools","short_title":"PR P. del S. 348 (AI in Schools)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Puerto Rico","state_abbr":"PR","topics":["education","public-sector","children"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Bill (Sen. Brenda Pérez Soto) establishing an ethical framework for AI integration in PR Department of Education classrooms — including pilot programs in two schools per region and supports for special-education students. Cleared both chambers; in Conference Committee.","summary_technical":"P. del S. 348 directs the PR Department of Education to adopt an ethical AI-integration framework for teachers and students, run regional pilot programs, and provide tailored supports for students with academic delays and special-education needs. Senate vote June 9, 2025; House vote Jan. 27, 2026; in Conference Committee.","who_is_protected":"Puerto Rico K-12 students and teachers","who_must_comply":"Puerto Rico Department of Education and public schools","citation":"P. del S. 348 (19th Leg. Assembly)","source_url":"https://senado.pr.gov/article.cfm?nwsid=2870","source_title":"Visto bueno al uso de inteligencia artificial en las escuelas públicas — NotiCel","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Departamento de Educación de Puerto Rico","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pr-pc-347-ai-policy-vetoed","title":"Puerto Rico P. de la C. 347 — Government AI Public Policy and PRITS Fines (POCKET VETOED Jan. 2026)","short_title":"PR P. de la C. 347 (pocket vetoed 2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Puerto Rico","state_abbr":"PR","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"vetoed","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"House Bill 347 of Puerto Rico's 2025-2028 Legislative Assembly would have amended the Puerto Rico Innovation and Technology Service law (Law 75-2019) to set public policy on how government agencies develop and use artificial intelligence. It would have required agencies already using AI to report that use to PRITS within 90 days and let PRITS fine agencies up to $10,000, and an agency head or chief technology officer up to $2,500, for breaking the AI rules. It passed the House 51-0 on June 19, 2025 and the Senate 23-3 on November 12, 2025, was sent to Governor Jenniffer González on December 8, 2025, and was pocket vetoed on January 7, 2026, so it did not become law.","summary_technical":"P. de la C. 347 (2025-2028 cuatrienio; filed Feb. 21, 2025) amends Arts. 2, 3, 6, 8, 12 and 13 of Law No. 75-2019 (Puerto Rico Innovation and Technology Service Act) to declare public policy on government development and use of AI capabilities. Enrolled text: agencies using AI at approval must file an AI Utilization Report with PRITS within 90 days of the law's effective date; PRITS may impose administrative fines, after promulgating regulations with due-process protections, capped at $10,000 per agency and $2,500 for an appointing authority or agency chief technology officer; effective immediately upon approval. History (SUTRA): House final vote June 19, 2025 (51-0, 2 absent); Senate final vote Nov. 12, 2025 without amendments (23-3, 2 absent); signed by the House and Senate presidents Nov. 18 and Nov. 20, 2025; sent to the Governor Dec. 8, 2025; pocket veto recorded Jan. 7, 2026.","who_is_protected":"(Would have protected) Puerto Rico residents affected by government AI use — not in effect","who_must_comply":"(Would have applied to) Puerto Rico government agencies, their appointing authorities and chief technology officers — not in effect","citation":"P. de la C. 347 (Leg. Assembly 2025-2028), amending Law No. 75-2019; pocket vetoed Jan. 7, 2026","source_url":"https://sutra.oslpr.org/medidas/153927","source_title":"SUTRA (Puerto Rico Office of Legislative Services) — Proyecto de la Cámara 347 (2025-2028)","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"N/A (pocket vetoed); would have been PRITS","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None (not enacted). Would have allowed PRITS administrative fines up to $10,000 per agency and $2,500 per appointing authority or chief technology officer."},{"id":"pr-rc-s-1-ai-registry","title":"Puerto Rico R.C. del S. 1 — Public Registry of AI Companies","short_title":"PR R.C. del S. 1 (AI Registry)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Puerto Rico","state_abbr":"PR","topics":["transparency","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Joint Senate Resolution directing PRITS to maintain a public registry of companies developing or deploying AI in Puerto Rico, broken down by sector. First transparency-registry measure of its kind for a US jurisdiction. In Conference Committee.","summary_technical":"R.C. del S. 1 (19th Leg. Assembly) directs PRITS to create and maintain a public registry of companies developing or deploying AI in Puerto Rico, with sectoral classification. In Conference Committee as of mid-2025.","who_is_protected":"Puerto Rico public","who_must_comply":"Companies developing or deploying AI systems in Puerto Rico","citation":"R.C. del S. 1 (19th Leg. Assembly)","source_url":"https://www.senado.pr.gov/document_vault/legislative_measures/5068/document/rcs0001-25.doc","source_title":"Proyectos de ley para regulación de inteligencia artificial en Puerto Rico — Platea PR","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"PRITS (proposed)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pr-pc-877-candidate-deepfake-protection","title":"Puerto Rico P. de la C. 877 — Candidate Protections Against AI Attack Ads","short_title":"PR P. de la C. 877 (Deepfake Attacks)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Puerto Rico","state_abbr":"PR","topics":["elections","deepfakes"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-03","summary_plain":"House bill establishing a reporting and remedies process for political candidates targeted by AI-generated attack ads or deepfake disinformation. Public hearing March 10, 2025; no further action since.","summary_technical":"P. de la C. 877 (19th Leg. Assembly) establishes reporting procedures and civil/administrative remedies for candidates targeted by AI-generated electoral attack content. Public hearing held March 10, 2025.","who_is_protected":"Puerto Rico political candidates","who_must_comply":"Persons creating or distributing AI-generated attack content in PR elections","citation":"P. de la C. 877 (19th Leg. Assembly)","source_url":"https://www.plateapr.com/que-saber/proyectos-de-ley-regulacion-inteligencia-artificial-puerto-rico","source_title":"Proyectos de ley para regulación de inteligencia artificial en Puerto Rico — Platea PR","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Comisión Estatal de Elecciones (proposed)","private_right_of_action":true},{"id":"gu-pl-38-77-ai-task-force","title":"Guam Public Law 38-77 — Artificial Intelligence Regulatory Task Force","short_title":"Guam P.L. 38-77 (AI Task Force)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Guam","state_abbr":"GU","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-12-16","enacted_date":"2025-12-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-19","summary_plain":"Guam's first AI law. Creates the Guam AI Regulatory Task Force charged with developing an ethical and accountable framework for AI across government, education, public safety, and the economy. Signed by Acting Governor Joshua Tenorio December 16, 2025.","summary_technical":"Bill 64-38 (COR) → P.L. 38-77 (Sen. Telo Taitague): establishes the Guam Artificial Intelligence Regulatory Task Force with a mandate to develop AI policy covering bias mitigation, transparency, testing, human review/redress, and a Guam Economic Development Authority (GEDA) voting seat. Signed Dec. 16, 2025.","who_is_protected":"Guam residents whose interactions with government agencies, schools, or public safety involve AI","who_must_comply":"Guam executive-branch agencies and other entities placed under the Task Force's developed framework","citation":"P.L. 38-77 (Bill 64-38 (COR)), 38th Guam Leg. (Dec. 16, 2025)","source_url":"https://guamlegislature.gov/38th_Guam_Legislature/Bills_Introduced_38th/Bill%20No.%2064-38%20(COR).pdf","source_title":"Bill No. 64-38 (COR) — AI Regulatory Task Force, 38th Guam Legislature","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Guam AI Regulatory Task Force","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"gu-bill-171-38-ncii-deepfakes","title":"Guam Bill 171-38 — Nonconsensual Intimate Depictions Act","short_title":"Guam Bill 171-38 (NCII / Deepfakes)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Guam","state_abbr":"GU","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","children"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-03","summary_plain":"Bill criminalizing creating, possessing, disclosing, or threatening to disclose nonconsensual intimate depictions — including AI-generated deepfakes. Third-degree felony baseline; escalates if the subject is a minor, for financial gain/extortion, or against 5+ victims. Public hearing October 15, 2025.","summary_technical":"Bill 171-38 (COR), sponsored by Sens. William Parkinson and Shelly Calvo, criminalizes creating, possessing, disclosing, or threatening to disclose NCII including AI-generated deepfake imagery. Baseline third-degree felony; escalates to second/first-degree felony for minor subjects, financial gain or extortion, or 5+ victims. Public hearing Oct. 15, 2025.","who_is_protected":"Guam residents (especially minors) depicted in NCII / synthetic intimate imagery","who_must_comply":"Anyone creating, possessing, distributing, or threatening to distribute NCII or deepfake intimate imagery in Guam","citation":"Bill 171-38 (COR), 38th Guam Leg.","source_url":"https://guamlegislature.gov/38th_Guam_Legislature/Bills_Introduced_38th/Bill%20No.%20171-38%20(COR).pdf","source_title":"Bill No. 171-38 (COR) — Nonconsensual Intimate Depictions Act of 2025","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of the Attorney General of Guam","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Third-degree felony baseline; up to first-degree felony for aggravating factors"},{"id":"gu-bill-209-38-election-deepfakes","title":"Guam Bill 209-38 — Artificial Intelligence Deepfake Election Regulation Act","short_title":"Guam Bill 209-38 / AI Deepfake Election Regulation Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Guam","state_abbr":"GU","topics":["elections","deepfakes"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-03-16","enacted_date":"2026-03-16","last_verified_date":"2026-10-03","summary_plain":"Bill prohibiting creation or distribution of materially deceptive media produced by generative AI in connection with Guam elections. Allows clearly labeled AI-generated content. Opposed by Guam Homeland Security on First Amendment grounds.","summary_technical":"Bill 209-38 (COR), sponsored by Sen. Tina Muna Barnes, adds Article 6 to Chapter 8, Title 3 of the Guam Code prohibiting materially deceptive generative-AI media in election communications, with a labeling safe harbor. Opposed by Guam Homeland Security on constitutional grounds.","who_is_protected":"Guam voters and political candidates","who_must_comply":"Anyone creating or distributing AI-generated electoral content in Guam","citation":"Guam Artificial Intelligence Deepfake Election Regulation Act (Bill 209-38 (COR), 38th Guam Leg.); enacted before March 16, 2026; PL# not confirmed","source_url":"https://guamlegislature.gov/38th_Guam_Legislature/Bills_Introduced_38th/Bill%20No.%20209-38%20(COR)%20Referred%20Version.pdf","source_title":"Bill targets AI and deepfakes to protect election integrity — Post Guam","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Guam Election Commission / AG","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Per bill text"},{"id":"gu-5gca-ch14-electronic-data-protection","title":"Guam Electronic Data Protection Act — 5 GCA Ch. 14","short_title":"Guam EDPA (5 GCA Ch. 14)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Guam","state_abbr":"GU","topics":["privacy","public-sector","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2012-01-01","enacted_date":"2012-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Guam's baseline statute on government use of personal data — predates the AI wave but is the foundation any AI system using citizen data must comply with. Governs collection, use, and protection of personal data by Guam executive-branch agencies.","summary_technical":"5 G.C.A. ch. 14 (Electronic Data Protection Act, 2012): governs collection, use, retention, and protection of personal data held by Guam executive-branch agencies; foundational law for any AI/automated decision system processing Guam-resident data.","who_is_protected":"Guam residents whose personal data is held by government agencies","who_must_comply":"Guam executive-branch agencies","citation":"5 G.C.A. ch. 14","source_url":"https://law.justia.com/codes/guam/title-5/division-1/chapter-14/","source_title":"5 GCA Ch. 14 — Electronic Data Protection (Justia)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of the Attorney General of Guam","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Per chapter; civil remedies"},{"id":"gu-9gca-ch48-breach-notification","title":"Guam Notification of Breaches of Personal Information — 9 GCA Ch. 48","short_title":"Guam Breach Notification (9 GCA Ch. 48)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Guam","state_abbr":"GU","topics":["privacy","data-retention","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2009-01-01","enacted_date":"2009-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Guam's data breach notification statute. Requires entities holding personal information to notify affected residents of breaches. Relevant to AI systems processing personal data because any compromise must trigger notice.","summary_technical":"9 G.C.A. ch. 48 (Notification of Breaches of Personal Information, 2009) requires persons and entities holding personal information of Guam residents to notify affected individuals after a security breach.","who_is_protected":"Guam residents whose personal data is held by covered entities","who_must_comply":"Persons and entities holding personal information of Guam residents","citation":"9 G.C.A. ch. 48","source_url":"https://law.justia.com/codes/guam/title-9/chapter-48/","source_title":"9 GCA Ch. 48 — Notification of Breaches of Personal Information (Justia)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of the Attorney General of Guam","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties per chapter"},{"id":"vi-act-8797-real-time-crime-center","title":"US Virgin Islands Act 8797 — Real-Time Crime Center","short_title":"USVI Act 8797 (RTCC)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"US Virgin Islands","state_abbr":"VI","topics":["law-enforcement","biometrics","facial-recognition","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2023-12-19","enacted_date":"2023-12-19","last_verified_date":"2026-06-21","summary_plain":"USVI Act 8797 establishes a centralized Real-Time Crime Center in the VI Police Department. Statutorily authorizes gunshot detection, a surveillance camera network, automated license plate readers, and fingerprint biometrics — putting AI-adjacent surveillance tech on a legal footing rather than restricting it. $2.5M appropriated.","summary_technical":"V.I. Act No. 8797 (Bill 35-0131, 35th Legislature), codified at 3 V.I.C. § 263(a), establishes a centralized Real-Time Crime Center within the V.I. Police Department; explicitly contemplates AI-adjacent surveillance — gunshot detection, surveillance cameras, ALPRs, and fingerprint biometrics. $2.5M appropriated. Sponsored by Sen. Diane Capeheart.","who_is_protected":"(Public-safety purpose) USVI residents — but the law authorizes rather than restricts surveillance","who_must_comply":"Virgin Islands Police Department and any contractors operating RTCC technology","citation":"V.I. Act No. 8797 (2023); 3 V.I.C. § 263(a)","source_url":"https://www.vi.gov/governor-bryan-acts-on-bills-passed-by-35th-legislature-in-its-december-19th-session/","source_title":"Governor Bryan Acts on Bills Passed by 35th Legislature in its December 19th Session — Government of the USVI","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Virgin Islands Police Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ncai-kan-18-011-indigenous-data-sovereignty","title":"NCAI Resolution KAN-18-011 — Indigenous Data Sovereignty","short_title":"NCAI Res. KAN-18-011 (IDS)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"National Congress of American Indians","state_abbr":"DC","topics":["privacy","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2018-06-04","enacted_date":"2018-06-04","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"NCAI Resolution #KAN-18-011 (Mid-Year Session, Kansas City, June 2018) endorses Indigenous data sovereignty as the inherent authority of tribes over data about their citizens, lands, and resources; calls for tribal inclusion in any broad federal data-governance principles that affect Native data. Cited throughout subsequent NCAI digital-sovereignty resolutions.","who_is_protected":"AI/AN individuals and U.S. tribal nations whose data is collected by researchers, federal agencies, or AI systems","who_must_comply":"Federal agencies, researchers, and other entities collecting or processing Indigenous data (advisory; not directly binding)","citation":"NCAI Resolution #KAN-18-011 (2018)","source_url":"https://archive.ncai.org/resources/resolutions/support-of-us-indigenous-data-sovereignty-and-inclusion-of-tribes-in-the-development-of-tribal-data","source_title":"Support of US Indigenous Data Sovereignty (Resolution KAN-18-011) — NCAI","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NCAI (advocacy); enforcement requires tribal/federal action","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ncai-sac-22-026-emerging-tech-data-protocols","title":"NCAI Resolution SAC-22-026 — Emerging Technologies & Tribal Data Protocols","short_title":"NCAI Res. SAC-22-026 (Emerging Tech)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"National Congress of American Indians","state_abbr":"DC","topics":["automated-decisions","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2022-11-04","enacted_date":"2022-11-04","last_verified_date":"2026-06-21","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"NCAI Resolution #SAC-22-026 (Sacramento Annual Convention, 2022) addresses how emerging technologies — explicitly including AI — can circumvent tribal data collection protocols without proper consent, and reinforces tribal authority over data flowing through AI systems. Cited in NCAI's 2025 federal AI RFI submission.","who_is_protected":"U.S. tribal nations and AI/AN individuals","who_must_comply":"Federal agencies, researchers, and AI developers using or potentially using Indigenous data","citation":"NCAI Resolution #SAC-22-026 (2022)","source_url":"https://files.nitrd.gov/90-fr-9088/NCAI-AI-RFI-2025.pdf","source_title":"NCAI Response to NITRD AI RFI (2025) — cites Resolution SAC-22-026","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"NCAI (advocacy)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ncai-nc-24-008-digital-sovereignty","title":"NCAI Resolution NC-24-008 — Tribal Digital Sovereignty","short_title":"NCAI Res. NC-24-008 (Digital Sovereignty)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"National Congress of American Indians","state_abbr":"DC","topics":["privacy","automated-decisions","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-11-15","enacted_date":"2024-11-15","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"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.","summary_technical":"NCAI Resolution #NC-24-008 (81st Annual Convention, 2024) defines 'digital sovereignty' as tribes' sovereign authority over physical and virtual network infrastructure and data acquisition, storage, transmission, access, and use. Explicitly addresses how AI tools can 'circumvent Tribal data collection protocols' and asserts tribal authority over AI inputs and outputs derived from Indigenous data.","who_is_protected":"U.S. tribal nations, their citizens, and Indigenous data subjects","who_must_comply":"Federal agencies, researchers, AI developers using Indigenous data","citation":"NCAI Resolution #NC-24-008 (2024)","source_url":"https://files.nitrd.gov/90-fr-9088/NCAI-AI-RFI-2025.pdf","source_title":"NCAI Response to NITRD AI RFI (2025) — cites Resolution NC-24-008","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"NCAI (advocacy)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"cherokee-nation-ai-policy-2025","title":"Cherokee Nation IT Artificial Intelligence Policy","short_title":"Cherokee Nation AI Policy","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Cherokee Nation (OK)","state_abbr":"OK","topics":["public-sector","transparency","automated-decisions","ai-images"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-08-21","enacted_date":"2025-08-21","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Cherokee Nation's first AI policy. Governs responsible and ethical AI use across tribal government, protects Cherokee language and cultural content, and requires AI vendor questionnaires before deployment in tribal systems. Signed by Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr.","summary_technical":"Cherokee Nation Information Technology — Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy (Aug. 21, 2025), companion to Executive Order 2024-07-CTH. Establishes governance for tribal AI use including bias/fairness review, mandatory vendor risk questionnaires, protection of Cherokee language and cultural content from AI training without authorization, and employee training requirements.","who_is_protected":"Cherokee Nation citizens and Cherokee language/cultural content","who_must_comply":"Cherokee Nation government agencies, departments, employees, and AI vendors","citation":"Cherokee Nation IT AI Policy (Aug. 21, 2025); companion to Cherokee Nation EO 2024-07-CTH","source_url":"https://www.cherokee.org/media/fo4pcqvz/cherokee-nation-information-technology-artificial-intelligence-ai-policy.pdf","source_title":"Cherokee Nation Information Technology — Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Cherokee Nation Office of Information Technology","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Internal disciplinary; contract enforcement against vendors"},{"id":"cherokee-nation-eo-2024-07-cth-data-sovereignty","title":"Cherokee Nation EO 2024-07-CTH — Data Sovereignty & Governance Task Force","short_title":"Cherokee Nation EO 2024-07-CTH","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Cherokee Nation (OK)","state_abbr":"OK","topics":["privacy","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2024-07-01","enacted_date":"2024-07-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Executive order from Principal Chief Hoskin establishing the Data Sovereignty and Governance Task Force. Charged with anticipating emerging technologies, safeguarding citizens' sensitive personal data, and defining Cherokee Nation data sovereignty. Produced the AI/data sovereignty/cybersecurity report that led to the 2025 AI policy.","summary_technical":"Cherokee Nation Executive Order 2024-07-CTH (July 2024) establishes the Cherokee Nation Data Sovereignty and Governance Task Force, charged with anticipating emerging technologies (including AI), safeguarding citizen data, and defining tribal data sovereignty policy. Produced the report underlying the 2025 Cherokee Nation AI Policy.","who_is_protected":"Cherokee Nation citizens whose personal data is held by tribal government","who_must_comply":"Cherokee Nation government departments handling citizen data","citation":"Cherokee Nation Executive Order 2024-07-CTH","source_url":"https://www.cherokee.org/our-government/executive-branch/task-forces/data-sovereignty-and-governance-task-force/","source_title":"Data Sovereignty and Governance Task Force — Cherokee Nation","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Cherokee Nation Data Sovereignty & Governance Task Force","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"seminole-nation-ok-data-center-genai-moratorium","title":"Seminole Nation of Oklahoma — Data Center & Generative AI Moratorium","short_title":"Seminole Nation (OK) Data Center / GenAI Moratorium","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Seminole Nation of Oklahoma","state_abbr":"OK","topics":["data-centers","public-sector","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-03-07","enacted_date":"2026-03-07","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"First tribal council in the United States to fully bar inquiries, discussions, and development of any data center or generative AI hyperscale infrastructure within Seminole Nation territory. Unanimous (24-0) vote citing water-contamination and sovereignty concerns.","summary_technical":"Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Tribal Council Resolution (Mar. 7, 2026), passed unanimously 24-0, bars inquiry, discussion, and development of any data center or hyperscale generative-AI infrastructure within Seminole Nation territory. Cited water-contamination and tribal-sovereignty concerns as primary basis.","who_is_protected":"Seminole Nation citizens, lands, and water resources","who_must_comply":"Tribal government, prospective data-center developers, and any entity seeking development on Seminole Nation territory","citation":"Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Tribal Council Resolution (Mar. 7, 2026)","source_url":"https://nativenewsonline.net/sovereignty/seminole-nation-of-oklahoma-passes-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Passes Moratorium on Data Centers — Native News Online","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Seminole Nation Tribal Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Per tribal council enforcement powers"},{"id":"sault-tribe-mi-ai-data-center-moratorium","title":"Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians — AI Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"Sault Tribe (MI) AI Data Center Moratorium","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians","state_abbr":"MI","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-04-07","enacted_date":"2026-04-07","last_verified_date":"2026-09-26","summary_plain":"Sault Tribe Board of Directors voted unanimously to halt any AI data center development on tribal lands indefinitely, citing strain on local resources and uncertain economic benefit. Came after dozens of community members spoke at public comment.","summary_technical":"Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Board of Directors Resolution (Apr. 7, 2026), passed unanimously, imposes indefinite moratorium on AI data center development on tribal lands. Cited resource strain, long-term land-use impacts, and uncertain economic benefit.","who_is_protected":"Sault Tribe members and Sault Tribe lands in the eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan","who_must_comply":"Tribal government and any developers seeking data-center development on Sault Tribe lands","citation":"Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Board Resolution (Apr. 7, 2026)","source_url":"https://michiganadvance.com/2026/04/10/community-pushback-prompts-sault-tribe-leadership-to-adopt-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Community pushback prompts Sault Tribe leadership to adopt moratorium on data centers — Michigan Advance","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Sault Tribe Board of Directors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Per tribal enforcement powers"},{"id":"ebci-ordinance-158-data-center-moratorium","title":"Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Ordinance 158 — Data Center Moratorium","short_title":"EBCI Ord. 158 (Data Center Moratorium)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians","state_abbr":"NC","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-05-07","enacted_date":"2026-05-07","last_verified_date":"2026-09-26","summary_plain":"Indefinite moratorium on data center development on the Qualla Boundary. Dinilawigi (Tribal Council) voted 11-0 to amend the Cherokee Code Chapter 47E, finding that high-impact digital infrastructure 'presents a clear and present danger to the lands and people' of the EBCI.","summary_technical":"EBCI Ordinance No. 158 (2026), Cherokee Code ch. 47E, adopted May 7, 2026 by 11-0 Dinilawigi vote. Bars data-center development on the Qualla Boundary indefinitely; codifies finding that high-impact digital infrastructure presents a clear and present danger to EBCI lands and people.","who_is_protected":"EBCI tribal members and the Qualla Boundary","who_must_comply":"Anyone seeking data-center development on EBCI lands","citation":"EBCI Ordinance No. 158, Cherokee Code ch. 47E (May 7, 2026)","source_url":"https://library.municode.com/tribes_and_tribal_nations/eastern_band_of_cherokee_indians/codes/code_of_ordinances","source_title":"Dinilawigi approves indefinite moratorium on data centers — Cherokee One Feather","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Dinilawigi (EBCI Tribal Council) / EBCI Office of the Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Per Cherokee Code enforcement provisions"},{"id":"tohono-oodham-research-code-13-165","title":"Tohono O'odham Nation Research Code — Resolution 13-165","short_title":"Tohono O'odham Research Code","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Tohono O'odham Nation","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["privacy","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2013-05-23","enacted_date":"2013-05-23","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Tohono O'odham Nation's research code establishes a tribal IRB with sole authority to control publication of all research, disclosures, and findings on tribal land. Vests ownership of all research-derived work product and copyrights — including AI/data products — with the Nation.","summary_technical":"Resolution No. 13-165 (May 23, 2013), codified at 17 Tohono O'odham Code ch. 8 (Research Code), establishes the Tohono O'odham Nation IRB with sole authority to control publication of all research, disclosures, and findings concerning the Nation; vests ownership of all research-derived work product (including data and copyrights) with the Nation. Applies to any AI/data project using Tohono O'odham data or operating on tribal land.","who_is_protected":"Tohono O'odham Nation, its members, and tribal data and cultural knowledge","who_must_comply":"Researchers, AI developers, and data collectors working with Tohono O'odham data or on tribal land","citation":"17 Tohono O'odham Code ch. 8 (Resolution No. 13-165, May 23, 2013)","source_url":"https://www.tonation-nsn.gov/ton-irb/","source_title":"Tohono O'odham Nation IRB — Research Code","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Tohono O'odham Nation IRB","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Per Code enforcement provisions; civil action by the Nation"},{"id":"navajo-nation-privacy-act","title":"Navajo Nation Privacy and Access to Information Act","short_title":"Navajo Nation Privacy Act","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Navajo Nation","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["privacy","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2005-01-01","enacted_date":"2005-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Navajo Nation's foundational privacy law. Regulates access to records held by Navajo government offices, enumerates 22 categories of public records, and establishes privacy protections governing release of citizen and government data — the legal backbone for any AI system processing Navajo citizen data.","summary_technical":"Navajo Nation Privacy and Access to Information Act, codified at 2 N.N.C. § 81 et seq., regulates access to records held by Navajo Nation government; enumerates 22 categories of public records; establishes privacy protections governing release of citizen and government data. Any AI system processing Navajo citizen data must comply.","who_is_protected":"Navajo Nation citizens whose personal data is held by tribal government","who_must_comply":"Navajo Nation government offices and contractors","citation":"2 N.N.C. § 81 et seq.","source_url":"https://www.dpm.navajo-nsn.gov/procedures/NN_Privacy_Act.pdf","source_title":"Navajo Nation Privacy and Access to Information Act (DPM PDF)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Navajo Nation Department of Personnel Management / Office of the Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Per Code; civil remedies"},{"id":"navajo-nation-human-research-review-board","title":"Navajo Nation Human Research Review Board (NNHRRB)","short_title":"Navajo NNHRRB","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Navajo Nation","state_abbr":"AZ","topics":["privacy","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"1996-01-01","enacted_date":"1996-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-27","summary_plain":"The Navajo Nation Human Research Review Board (NNHRRB), established in March 1996 under the Navajo Nation Human Research Code (13 N.N.C. §§ 3251-3271), reviews and must approve health and health-related research involving the Navajo Nation and its people before it proceeds or is published.","summary_technical":"The Navajo Nation Human Research Review Board (NNHRRB), established in March 1996 under the Navajo Nation Human Research Code (13 N.N.C. §§ 3251-3271), reviews and must approve health and health-related research involving the Navajo Nation and its people before it proceeds or is published.","who_is_protected":"Navajo Nation citizens as research subjects and data subjects","who_must_comply":"Researchers, institutions, and AI developers conducting human-subjects or data-driven work on Navajo Nation territory or with Navajo data","citation":"Navajo Nation Human Research Code, 13 N.N.C. §§ 3251-3271 (NNHRRB est. March 1996)","source_url":"https://nnhrrb.navajo-nsn.gov/aboutNNHRRB.html","source_title":"Navajo Nation Human Research Review Board — About NNHRRB","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Navajo Nation Human Research Review Board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Denial of research permission; civil action by the Nation"},{"id":"plateau-peoples-tk-bc-labels","title":"Plateau Peoples' Web Portal — TK & BC Labels Implementation","short_title":"Plateau Peoples TK/BC Labels","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Plateau Peoples' Web Portal (Multi-Tribal)","state_abbr":"WA","topics":["privacy","transparency","ai-images","copyright"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2015-01-01","enacted_date":"2015-01-01","last_verified_date":"2026-06-16","summary_plain":"Six Plateau tribes — Colville, Umatilla, Warm Springs, Yakama, Spokane, and Coeur d'Alene — jointly implement Local Contexts Traditional Knowledge and Biocultural Labels on digital cultural-heritage collections. A working Indigenous data sovereignty mechanism applicable to AI training data: labels travel with the data and assert community-defined access and use rules.","summary_technical":"Plateau Peoples' Web Portal (hosted at Washington State University) implements Local Contexts TK and BC Labels on digital cultural-heritage collections from Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Spokane Tribe, and Coeur d'Alene Tribe. Labels assert community-defined rules on access, attribution, and reuse — including for AI training datasets.","who_is_protected":"Plateau tribal communities and their cultural heritage data","who_must_comply":"Researchers, data stewards, and AI developers accessing Portal materials (advisory + adoption-based)","citation":"Plateau Peoples' Web Portal — multi-tribal TK/BC Labels initiative","source_url":"https://localcontexts.org/plateau-peoples-web-portal-tk-labels/","source_title":"Plateau Peoples' Web Portal — Local Contexts","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Participating tribes and Washington State University Libraries","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"pr-ps-760-ai-ncii-deepfake","title":"Puerto Rico P. del S. 760 — AI-Generated Intimate Images as Crime (Deepfake NCII)","short_title":"PR P. del S. 760 (AI Deepfake NCII)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Puerto Rico","state_abbr":"PR","topics":["ncii","deepfakes","children"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-03","summary_plain":"Puerto Rico Senate bill amending the island's anti-revenge-pornography law (Law 21 of 2021) to make AI-generated nonconsensual intimate imagery (deepfake NCII) a crime. Unauthorized disclosure is a serious felony carrying a fixed 3-year prison sentence (up to 8 years with aggravating circumstances); threats to disclose are a lesser offense. Senate-approved; pending House Judiciary Commission hearing as of mid-2026.","summary_technical":"P. del S. 760 (19th Leg. Assembly), sponsored by Senators Ada Álvarez Conde and Ángel Toledo López, amends Law 21 of 2021 (Puerto Rico's Anti-Revenge Pornography Law) to expressly criminalize the unauthorized creation, disclosure, and publication of AI-generated intimate or sexual content ('deepfake' NCII). Unauthorized disclosure: serious felony, fixed 3-year sentence (mitigating circumstances can reduce to 1 year). Unauthorized threats to disclose: less-serious offense. Cleared the Senate; referred to the House Judiciary Commission — no public hearings held or committee report filed as of April 2026. Last_action_date set to approximate House referral date.","who_is_protected":"Puerto Rico residents depicted in AI-generated nonconsensual intimate imagery without consent","who_must_comply":"Anyone creating, disclosing, or threatening to disclose AI-generated intimate imagery of another person without consent in Puerto Rico","citation":"P. del S. 760 (19th Leg. Assembly)","source_url":"https://senado.pr.gov/senado-de-puerto-rico-cierra-la-segunda-sesin-ordinaria-con-80-de-productividad-legislativa-y-ms-de-mil-medidas-trabajadas","source_title":"Impulsan cárcel de hasta 8 años por contenido íntimo con IA en Puerto Rico — NotiUno","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Puerto Rico Department of Justice (proposed)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Serious felony: fixed 3-year sentence (reducible to 1 year for mitigating circumstances); threat to disclose: less-serious crime. Aggravating circumstances can extend to 8 years."},{"id":"pr-hb-824-law-140-2026-ai-gov-cybersecurity-training","title":"Puerto Rico Law 140-2026 — AI Inclusion in Government Cybersecurity Training (H.B. 824)","short_title":"PR Ley 140-2026 (Gov AI Cybersecurity Training)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Puerto Rico","state_abbr":"PR","topics":["public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-23","enacted_date":"2026-07-23","last_verified_date":"2026-07-25","summary_plain":"Puerto Rico Law 140-2026 amends the Puerto Rico Government Cybersecurity Law to require that its continuing-education program for government information officers and public servants include artificial intelligence — alongside privacy, systems security, data management, cyberattack prevention, and responsible use of new technologies. Signed by Governor Jenniffer González Colón on July 23, 2026. Puerto Rico's third enacted AI-specific law in 2026.","summary_technical":"Ley Núm. 140-2026 (H.B. 824, 19th Leg. Assembly): amends Puerto Rico's Government Cybersecurity Law virtual continuing-education requirement for public information officers and employees to add AI use as a mandatory topic alongside privacy, systems security, data management, cyberattack prevention, and responsible use of new technologies. The Office of Government Ethics endorsed the measure. Signed by Governor Jenniffer González Colón, July 23, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Puerto Rico government employees and the public they serve","who_must_comply":"Puerto Rico government agencies administering the Cybersecurity Law continuing-education program","citation":"Ley Núm. 140-2026 (H.B. 824, 19th Leg. Assembly); signed July 23, 2026","source_url":"https://www.metro.pr/noticias/2026/07/24/jenniffer-gonzalez-firma-leyes-sobre-inteligencia-artificial-agricultura-y-beneficios-para-familias-de-policias/","source_title":"Jenniffer González firma leyes sobre inteligencia artificial, agricultura y beneficios para familias de policías — Metro PR","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"PRITS (Puerto Rico Innovation and Technology Service) / Office of Government Ethics","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ar-independence-county-dc-moratorium-5yr-2026","title":"Independence County, Arkansas — Quorum Court Places a FIVE-YEAR Moratorium on Data Centers, the Longest Local Pause Recorded in This Dataset by a Factor of Two (August 2026)","short_title":"Independence County AR five-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Independence County, AR","state_abbr":"AR","county":"Independence County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-11","enacted_date":"2026-08-11","expires_date":"2031-08-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-22","summary_plain":"The Independence County Quorum Court placed a FIVE-YEAR MORATORIUM on data centers, reported on August 11, 2026. Five years is extraordinary. The overwhelming majority of local pauses in this dataset run six to eighteen months; the previous longest recorded here was two years, in Lawrence County, Illinois and in a Nash County-area North Carolina measure. Independence County has adopted a pause two and a half times the usual ceiling. That length is worth flagging carefully rather than celebrating. Moratorium defensibility generally turns on reasonableness and on the municipality showing it is actively working toward permanent regulations — the longer the pause, the harder both are to sustain, because at some point a 'temporary' measure becomes a de facto prohibition adopted without the process a prohibition requires. Several states cap the term by statute precisely for this reason: Minnesota at twelve months, Wisconsin at twelve plus one six-month extension, California at two years in aggregate, Maine at renewable 180-day periods. Arkansas county government operates through the Quorum Court under Amendment 55 to the state constitution, and no equivalent express statutory ceiling on county moratoria is asserted here. No challenge is reported. This entry is recorded because a five-year pause is a real measure with real effect, and because it marks the outer edge of what local governments are currently attempting.","summary_technical":"Independence County, Ark. (county seat Batesville) — FIVE-YEAR MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTERS placed by the QUORUM COURT, reported 2026-08-11. DURATION IS THE DEFINING FEATURE AND THE PRINCIPAL ANALYTICAL POINT. Indexed comparators: in-steuben-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (6 months), ne-gage-county (12), ks-marysville-dc-moratorium-2026 (12), fl-marion-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (365 days), co-loveland-dc-moratorium-2026 (12 or less), wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (18), nc-cary-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026 (18), il-lawrence-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (24), md-hurlock-dc-moratorium-3yr-2026 (36, this wave). AT SIXTY MONTHS, INDEPENDENCE COUNTY IS ROUGHLY 2.5x THE NEXT LONGEST AND AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE BEYOND THE 45-DAY CALIFORNIA INTERIM ORDINANCES. THE LEGAL CAUTION, RECORDED AS ANALYSIS AND NOT AS A DEFECT FOUND BY ANY COURT: the defensibility of a development moratorium ordinarily turns on (a) reasonableness of duration relative to the study it enables and (b) evidence that the adopting body is actively progressing toward permanent regulations. Both propositions strain across a five-year horizon, and at sufficient length a 'temporary' pause is vulnerable to characterisation as a DE FACTO PROHIBITION enacted without the findings, notice and substantive justification a prohibition would require. Several states cap the term expressly for that reason — Minn. Stat. § 462.355 subd. 4 and § 394.34 (12 months); Wisconsin practice (12 plus one 6-month extension); Cal. Gov. Code § 65858 (45 days + 10mo15d + 1 year, two years aggregate); 30-A M.R.S. § 4356 (renewable 180-day periods). ARKANSAS COUNTY GOVERNMENT operates through the QUORUM COURT under Amendment 55 to the Arkansas Constitution; NO EQUIVALENT EXPRESS STATUTORY CEILING on county moratoria is asserted here, and none was researched. NO CHALLENGE TO THIS ORDINANCE IS REPORTED. expires_date 2031-08-11 IS COMPUTED as five years from the reported date and is NOT stated in the source. THE OPERATIVE SCOPE IS NOT ESTABLISHED: whether the moratorium bars applications, permits, rezonings, construction or all of them is not reported, nor is any size or megawatt threshold, nor whether unincorporated areas only are covered.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Independence County, Arkansas","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Independence County during the five-year moratorium","citation":"Independence County, Ark. — Quorum Court five-year moratorium on data centers (2026)","source_url":"https://www.whiterivernow.com/2026/08/11/independence-county-quorum-court-places-5-year-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Independence County Quorum Court places 5-year moratorium on data centers — White River Now (Batesville, AR)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Independence County Quorum Court; county planning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"md-hurlock-dc-moratorium-3yr-2026","title":"Hurlock, Maryland — Town Approves a THREE-YEAR Moratorium on Data Centers, One of the Longest Local Pauses on Record and Part of a Dense Eastern Shore Cluster (August 2026)","short_title":"Hurlock MD three-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Hurlock, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Dorchester County","city":"Hurlock","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-10","enacted_date":"2026-08-10","expires_date":"2029-08-10","last_verified_date":"2026-09-22","summary_plain":"The Town of Hurlock approved a THREE-YEAR MORATORIUM on data centers at an August 2026 meeting. Three years places Hurlock among the longest local pauses recorded in this dataset — behind only Independence County, Arkansas at five years, and ahead of the two-year measures in Lawrence County, Illinois and elsewhere. For a town of Hurlock's size on Maryland's Eastern Shore, a three-year horizon is less an interim study period than a decision to keep the question closed for the foreseeable future. That is worth stating plainly rather than treating a three-year 'temporary' measure as equivalent to a six-month one. Hurlock sits in a notably active corner of Maryland. This dataset separately records Cambridge, also in Dorchester County, adopting a one-year moratorium in August, and Federalsburg described in reporting as the first Eastern Shore community to act. Prince George's County has a two-year moratorium indexed. Maryland is also the state whose Governor, Wes Moore, said in September 2026 that he would 'absolutely sign' a statewide data center moratorium if one reached his desk in 2027 — so the local measures are accumulating in a state where the executive has signalled he would ratify them at the state level.","summary_technical":"Hurlock, Md. (Dorchester County, Eastern Shore) — THREE-YEAR MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTERS approved by the town at an AUGUST 2026 meeting. DURATION: at 36 months this is the second-longest local pause indexed, behind ar-independence-county-dc-moratorium-5yr-2026 (60 months, this wave) and ahead of il-lawrence-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (24). THE SAME DURATION CAUTION APPLIES AS ON THE INDEPENDENCE COUNTY ENTRY and is recorded as analysis rather than as any adjudicated defect: moratorium defensibility generally turns on reasonableness of duration and on demonstrable progress toward permanent regulations, and a multi-year term strains both, inviting characterisation as a de facto prohibition adopted without the process a prohibition requires. MARYLAND HAS NO EXPRESS STATUTORY MORATORIUM CEILING ASSERTED HERE, and none was researched; compare the express caps recorded elsewhere (Minn. Stat. § 462.355 subd. 4; Cal. Gov. Code § 65858; 30-A M.R.S. § 4356). NO CHALLENGE IS REPORTED. MARYLAND CLUSTER, WHICH IS DENSE ON THE EASTERN SHORE: Cambridge (Dorchester County) approved a one-year moratorium on the 24th of a month in 2026 (also in the unwritten queue); Federalsburg is described in queued reporting as 'the first Eastern Shore community' to act; Easton (Talbot County) is deferred as 'to draft' a one-year moratorium; pgc-md-dc-2yr-moratorium-2026 records Prince George's County's two-year measure. STATE CONTEXT: Gov. WES MOORE said on 2026-09-17 he would 'absolutely sign' a statewide data center moratorium if one reached his desk in 2027 — recorded in the triage ledger, with the express caution that NOTHING HAS BEEN SIGNED AND NO BILL EXISTS. The Maryland picture is therefore one of accumulating local pauses under an executive who has signalled he would ratify a statewide measure. OPERATIVE SCOPE NOT ESTABLISHED: whether the moratorium bars applications, permits, rezonings or construction is not reported, nor is any threshold, nor the vote.","who_is_protected":"Residents of the Town of Hurlock, Dorchester County, Maryland","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Hurlock during the three-year moratorium","citation":"Hurlock, Md. — three-year moratorium on data centers (August 2026)","source_url":"https://www.stardem.com/news/dorchester/hurlock-imposes-three-year-data-center-moratorium/article","source_title":"Hurlock imposes three-year data center moratorium — The Star Democrat (Easton, MD)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Hurlock","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"oh-green-township-all-development-moratorium-2026","title":"Green Township, Ohio — Trustees Pass a Moratorium on ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT, of Any Kind, Expressly to Prevent Additional AI Data Center Projects From Starting in the Township (2026)","short_title":"Green Township OH moratorium on all new development (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Green Township, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Jefferson County","city":"Green Township","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-30","summary_plain":"Green Township's trustees passed a moratorium on ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT — not data centers specifically, but every kind of new development — expressly to prevent additional AI data center projects from starting in the township. This is the most sweeping instrument recorded anywhere in this dataset, and the reason it takes that form is almost certainly a limitation of Ohio township authority rather than a desire to halt all construction. Ohio townships have narrower zoning powers than municipalities, and a township without a data-center-specific definition in its resolution may have no clean way to single the use out. Halting everything reaches the target without needing a definition at all. That sidesteps the definitional problem this dataset records repeatedly — Poway trying to ban 'AI data centers' as a workload category, Marysville needing an enumerated list plus a server-room exclusion, a Port Angeles councilmember arguing the whole definitional exercise should be abandoned in favour of regulating impacts. It also carries an obvious cost that no other entry here carries: a blanket development moratorium stops housing, retail and every unrelated project too. Breadth is what makes it effective and also what makes it hardest to defend, since a measure justified by concern about one use but applied to all uses is exposed to the argument that it is not reasonably tailored to its purpose. No challenge is reported. Ohio is the most active state in the country on this question, with at least 138 municipalities and townships holding active data center moratoriums as of September 2026.","summary_technical":"Green Township, Ohio — MORATORIUM ON ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT passed by the BOARD OF TRUSTEES, with the express purpose, per the source, 'to prevent additional AI data center projects from starting in the township.' SCOPE IS THE DEFINING FEATURE AND IT IS UNIQUE IN THIS DATASET. Every other moratorium indexed here is use-specific — data centers, or data centers plus crypto mining (mn-bemidji-dc-moratorium-2026), or data centers plus solar and on-site generation (pa-west-mahanoy-township-curative-amendment-dc-solar-2026), or data centers plus battery energy storage (Leominster MA, Elkhart IN). GREEN TOWNSHIP PAUSED EVERY USE. THE PROBABLE REASON IS INSTRUMENTAL, and it is recorded as inference: Ohio TOWNSHIPS exercise zoning authority under R.C. Chapter 519, which is narrower than the municipal authority under Chapter 713, and a township whose zoning resolution contains no data center definition may lack a clean mechanism to single the use out. A BLANKET DEVELOPMENT PAUSE REACHES THE TARGET WITHOUT REQUIRING A DEFINITION. That neatly sidesteps the definitional failure mode recorded across this dataset: ca-poway-ai-dc-ban-2026 (workload-based 'AI data center' prohibition, definition not obtained, recharacterisation risk); ks-marysville-dc-moratorium-2026 (enumerated inclusion list plus express server-room exclusion needed to be administrable); oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026 (a data center admissible as a warehouse-type use under an undefined code); wa-port-angeles-dc-moratorium-2026 (Councilmember Schwab arguing the city should stop defining 'data center' and regulate the impacts of large resource users instead). THE COUNTERVAILING EXPOSURE IS EQUALLY DISTINCTIVE: a moratorium justified by concern about ONE use but applied to ALL uses halts housing, retail, agriculture-adjacent and every unrelated project, and is correspondingly vulnerable to the argument that it is not reasonably related to its stated purpose — the tailoring objection. It is also the measure most likely to generate an aggrieved applicant with no connection to data centers at all, which is the profile of plaintiff that produced the litigation recorded at litig-raeden-v-gibraltar-mi-moratorium-challenge-2026 and the capitulation at inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06. NO CHALLENGE IS REPORTED. OHIO CONTEXT: at least 138 Ohio municipalities and townships had active data center moratoriums as of 2026-09-17, with 23 effective bans — the most extensive local response in the country, of which this dataset indexes only a handful. NOT ESTABLISHED: THE TERM LENGTH (no duration is reported, which for a blanket development moratorium is the single most important missing fact), the vote, the date, the resolution number, and WHICH GREEN TOWNSHIP — Ohio has several, and the reporting outlet (WTOV9, Steubenville) points to the eastern Ohio / Ohio Valley area.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Green Township, Ohio","who_must_comply":"All parties seeking to undertake new development in Green Township during the moratorium, not only data center developers","citation":"Green Township, Ohio — trustees' moratorium on all new development, adopted to prevent additional AI data center projects (2026)","source_url":"https://wtov9.com/news/local/green-township-trustees-approve-moratorium-on-new-development","source_title":"Green Township trustees approve moratorium on new development — WTOV9 (Steubenville, OH)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Green Township Board of Trustees","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"mn-plymouth-dc-interim-ordinance-50k-sqft-2026","title":"Plymouth, Minnesota — City Council Unanimously Approves an Interim Ordinance Prohibiting the LOCATION, ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION of Data Centers Larger Than 50,000 Square Feet Within the City (2026)","short_title":"Plymouth MN interim ordinance, data centers over 50,000 sq ft (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Plymouth, MN","state_abbr":"MN","county":"Hennepin County","city":"Plymouth","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","expires_date":"2027-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"The Plymouth City Council UNANIMOUSLY approved an interim ordinance prohibiting the LOCATION, ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION of data centers LARGER THAN 50,000 SQUARE FEET within the city. Two details are worth drawing out. The first is the three-verb formulation. Most pauses bar applications or approvals; prohibiting location, establishment AND OPERATION reaches further, since 'operation' language on its face touches conduct rather than only permitting. The second is the threshold. At 50,000 square feet Plymouth sits between the two poles this dataset records: Bemidji, Minnesota caught data centers above 10,000 square feet, and Eureka, California directed staff to permit only those at or below 20,000. Plymouth admits substantially larger facilities than either before its prohibition bites — which is a deliberate calibration rather than an oversight, and it means ordinary commercial server facilities remain possible while hyperscale development does not. Plymouth is a substantial Minneapolis suburb in Hennepin County, and it joins Bemidji and Inver Grove Heights among the Minnesota measures recorded here. The Inver Grove Heights record is the cautionary one: that city's interim ordinance was amended under a developer lawsuit to exclude the project it targeted, after the city calculated at least $20 million of exposure against $1 million of liability coverage. Minnesota's interim ordinance statute caps the term at twelve months.","summary_technical":"Plymouth, Minn. (Hennepin County) — INTERIM ORDINANCE approved UNANIMOUSLY by the City Council, 'prohibiting the LOCATION, ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION of data centers LARGER THAN 50,000 SQUARE FEET within [the] city'. OPERATIVE FORMULATION: the three verbs — location, establishment, operation — are broader than the accept/process/approve formulations recorded elsewhere (ks-marysville-dc-moratorium-2026; oh-mcdonald-village-dc-moratorium-2026; ca-arcata-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026). 'OPERATION' ON ITS FACE REACHES CONDUCT RATHER THAN ONLY PERMITTING, which is a materially wider prohibition, though whether it is intended to reach any existing facility is NOT established and should not be assumed. THRESHOLD CALIBRATION: at 50,000 SQ FT Plymouth sits above the indexed comparators — mn-bemidji-dc-moratorium-2026 (10,000 sq ft, plus crypto mining at any size), ca-eureka-dc-interim-moratorium-and-20k-cap-direction-2026 (staff directed to permit only ≤20,000 sq ft), il-lawrence-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (10,000 sq ft). A 50,000 sq ft floor admits ordinary commercial and enterprise server facilities while capturing hyperscale development, which is a deliberate calibration and one that also avoids the over-inclusiveness problem Marysville had to solve with an express server-room exclusion. INSTRUMENT AND STATUTORY CEILING: 'interim ordinance' is the term of art in MINN. STAT. § 462.355 SUBD. 4, which authorises a municipality's GOVERNING BODY to adopt an interim ordinance for UP TO 12 MONTHS while conducting a study, and caps the total at that period. The council — the governing body — adopted it, which distinguishes this from mn-bemidji-dc-moratorium-2026, where a PLANNING BOARD vote was reported as the final action and that entry is held at needs-confirmation for exactly that reason. expires_date 2027-09-01 IS COMPUTED on the assumption of the statutory 12-month maximum and IS NOT STATED IN THE SOURCE. MINNESOTA CLUSTER AND ITS CAUTIONARY CASE: mn-bemidji-dc-moratorium-2026; inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06, where a one-year interim ordinance was AMENDED 3-1 to exclude the very project it targeted after developer QLevr sued in Dakota County District Court and the city computed at least $20 MILLION of exposure against a $1 MILLION insurance cap. THAT RECORD IS THE REASON A SUBURBAN MINNESOTA INTERIM ORDINANCE SHOULD NOT BE ASSUMED DURABLE MERELY BECAUSE IT WAS LAWFULLY ADOPTED. NOT ESTABLISHED: the term length (computed, not sourced), the adoption date, the ordinance number, whether any application was pending, and whether 'operation' is intended to reach existing facilities.","who_is_protected":"Plymouth residents in Hennepin County, Minnesota","who_must_comply":"Parties seeking to locate, establish or operate a data center larger than 50,000 square feet in Plymouth","citation":"Plymouth, Minn. — interim ordinance prohibiting the location, establishment and operation of data centers larger than 50,000 square feet (2026)","source_url":"https://www.hometownsource.com/sun_sailor/community/plymouth_medicinelake/plymouth-approves-moratorium","source_title":"Plymouth approves moratorium on large data centers — Sun Sailor / Hometown Source","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Plymouth City Council; city community development","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"co-rio-grande-county-hyperscale-prohibition-2026","title":"Rio Grande County, Colorado — Commissioners Adopt a Resolution PROHIBITING Any Large-Scale or Hyperscale Data Centers in the County, Choosing a Size-Defined Prohibition Over a Pause (August 2026)","short_title":"Rio Grande County CO hyperscale data center prohibition (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Rio Grande County, CO","state_abbr":"CO","county":"Rio Grande County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-08-08","enacted_date":"2026-08-08","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Rio Grande County's commissioners adopted a RESOLUTION PROHIBITING ANY LARGE-SCALE, OR HYPERSCALE, DATA CENTERS IN THE COUNTY. This is a prohibition, not a pause, and the distinction matters: the county did not buy time to write rules, it decided the question. What makes the drafting interesting is that the prohibition is SIZE-DEFINED rather than use-defined. Rio Grande County has not barred data centers; it has barred large ones. That threads a needle several other jurisdictions in this dataset have struggled with. A flat ban on 'data centers' risks catching the server room in a hospital or a bank — which is why Marysville, Kansas had to write an express exclusion for ordinary server rooms and incidental IT equipment into its ordinance. A ban on 'AI data centers', as Poway, California has attempted, invites an operator to recharacterise a facility as general-purpose colocation. Prohibiting by SCALE avoids both problems, because size is observable and not susceptible to relabelling. The weakness is the mirror image: 'large-scale' and 'hyperscale' are industry terms of art, not legal definitions, and unless the resolution fixes a number — square feet, megawatts, or acreage — the county has moved the definitional problem rather than solved it. Whether it does fix one is not established. Rio Grande County sits in Colorado's San Luis Valley, a water-scarce high-desert basin, and this dataset separately records Alamosa, in the same valley, adopting a one-year moratorium with some councillors pressing for a permanent ban.","summary_technical":"Rio Grande County, Colo. (San Luis Valley) — RESOLUTION PROHIBITING ANY LARGE-SCALE OR HYPERSCALE DATA CENTERS adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, reported 2026-08-08. INSTRUMENT CLASS: this is a PROHIBITION, not a moratorium — the county resolved the question rather than pausing it. Cohort: ca-irwindale-dc-ban-2026, monterey-park-ca-dc-ban-measure-ndc-2026, ri-cumberland-dc-zoning-prohibition-ord-26-22-2026, fl-edgewater-ai-dc-ban-2026, nj-jersey-city-dc-industrial-ban-ord-26-057, ca-los-angeles-county-dc-prohibition-unincorporated-2026. THE DEFINITIONAL STRUCTURE IS THE ANALYTICALLY USEFUL FEATURE AND IT IS SIZE-BASED, WHICH IS UNUSUAL AMONG THE PROHIBITIONS. The three approaches recorded in this dataset and their failure modes: (1) USE-BASED ('data centers') — over-inclusive absent an exclusion, which is why ks-marysville-dc-moratorium-2026 needed express language that the definition 'does not include ordinary server rooms or information-technology equipment incidental to the main use of a property'; (2) WORKLOAD-BASED ('AI data centers', ca-poway-ai-dc-ban-2026) — under-inclusive and defeasible, since an operator may characterise a facility as general-purpose colocation, and that entry flags the ordinance's own definition as unobtained and administrability as the critical open question; (3) SIZE-BASED (here) — resistant to both, because scale is observable and not susceptible to relabelling. THE SIZE-BASED APPROACH'S OWN WEAKNESS IS THAT 'LARGE-SCALE' AND 'HYPERSCALE' ARE INDUSTRY TERMS OF ART, NOT LEGAL DEFINITIONS. Unless the resolution fixes a measurable threshold — square footage, megawatts of peak demand, or acreage — the county has relocated the definitional problem rather than resolved it, and enforcement would turn on characterisation at the permitting stage. WHETHER THE RESOLUTION FIXES A THRESHOLD IS NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE SOURCE and is the most important open question on this entry. Compare wa-port-angeles-dc-moratorium-2026, where Councilmember Drew Schwab argued for abandoning the definitional exercise entirely in favour of regulating the IMPACTS of large resource users — an approach that would express the same intent in megawatts and gallons rather than in a label. INSTRUMENT CAUTION: the measure is a RESOLUTION of the board of county commissioners, not reported as a zoning ordinance amendment. In Colorado, county land-use regulation runs through the county zoning resolution adopted under C.R.S. Title 30, Article 28, and a bare policy resolution not incorporated into that framework would be weaker than a zoning amendment. THE SOURCE DOES NOT SAY WHICH THIS IS. GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT: the San Luis Valley is a high-desert closed basin with acute water-rights pressure and long-standing groundwater sustainability litigation and administration, which is material background to a hyperscale prohibition though the source does not state water as the rationale. Alamosa, in the same valley, adopted a unanimous one-year moratorium with councillors reportedly eager to ban data centers permanently (also in the unwritten queue). NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, the exact date, the resolution number, any threshold, the stated rationale, and whether unincorporated areas only are covered.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Rio Grande County, Colorado, and San Luis Valley water users","who_must_comply":"Developers of large-scale or hyperscale data centers, which may not be sited in Rio Grande County","citation":"Rio Grande County, Colo. — commissioners' resolution prohibiting large-scale or hyperscale data centers (2026)","source_url":"https://coyotegulch.blog/2026/08/08/rio-grande-commissioners-say-no-for-now-to-data-center/","source_title":"Rio Grande commissioners say no, for now, to data center — Coyote Gulch","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Rio Grande County Board of County Commissioners; county land use administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"mi-zeeland-township-dc-energy-moratorium-replacement-2026","title":"Zeeland Township, Michigan — Board Approves a New YEAR-LONG Moratorium on Data Centers AND Energy Facilities While REPEALING the Previous Moratorium at the Same Meeting, Restarting the Clock Rather Than Extending It (2026)","short_title":"Zeeland Township MI data center and energy facility moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Zeeland Township, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Ottawa County","city":"Zeeland Township","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","expires_date":"2027-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Zeeland Township approved a NEW YEAR-LONG MORATORIUM on data centers AND ENERGY FACILITIES, replacing a previous moratorium that the board REPEALED AT THE SAME TUESDAY MEETING. The mechanism is worth noticing. Most jurisdictions that need more time EXTEND an existing moratorium, which typically requires findings that the original problem persists and that the municipality has made good-faith progress. Zeeland Township instead repealed and re-enacted, which restarts the clock with a fresh instrument rather than adding time to an old one. Whether that is a deliberate way around the findings an extension would require, or simply the cleanest way to change the scope, is not established — and the scope did change, because the new measure covers ENERGY FACILITIES as well as data centers. That pairing is increasingly common and reflects something real: a hyperscale facility rarely arrives alone. It brings substation capacity, and often on-site generation or battery storage. A township that pauses data centers but not the generation plant that serves them has left the larger infrastructure unregulated. West Mahanoy Township, Pennsylvania made the same judgment when it declared its zoning ordinance invalid as to data centers, solar farms AND on-site power generation together, and Leominster, Massachusetts is reported to be combining a data center moratorium with one on battery energy storage systems.","summary_technical":"Zeeland Township, Mich. (Ottawa County) — NEW YEAR-LONG MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTERS AND ENERGY FACILITIES approved by the township board, 'replacing a previous moratorium the board REPEALED AT THE SAME TUESDAY MEETING.' THE REPEAL-AND-REPLACE MECHANISM IS THE PROCEDURALLY DISTINCTIVE FEATURE. The ordinary route to more time is EXTENSION, which in most frameworks requires affirmative findings — that the condition persists and that the adopting body has made good-faith progress toward permanent regulations (e.g. 30-A M.R.S. § 4356 renewals; Cal. Gov. Code § 65858 extensions, each requiring notice, hearing and a written report on measures taken to alleviate the condition; Wisconsin's 12-plus-one-6-month practice). REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING RESTARTS THE CLOCK WITH A FRESH INSTRUMENT RATHER THAN ADDING TIME TO AN OLD ONE, which may avoid the findings an extension would require. WHETHER THAT WAS THE PURPOSE IS NOT ESTABLISHED AND IS NOT ASSERTED — the scope also changed, and re-enactment is the natural vehicle for a scope change. Michigan townships adopt interim/temporary zoning under the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MCL 125.3101 et seq.); no express statutory ceiling is asserted here. SCOPE EXPANSION TO 'ENERGY FACILITIES' IS SUBSTANTIVE, NOT COSMETIC. A hyperscale data center is ordinarily accompanied by substation capacity and frequently by on-site generation or battery energy storage; a pause reaching the computing use but not the generating infrastructure leaves the larger and often more locally contentious build unregulated. The same judgment is recorded at pa-west-mahanoy-township-curative-amendment-dc-solar-2026, which declared the township's zoning ordinance invalid as to 'data centers, solar farms, ON-SITE POWER GENERATION, and accessory uses related thereto' in a single instrument, and at the Leominster MA measure reported to combine a one-year moratorium on BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS and data centers (in the unwritten queue). ca-irwindale-dc-ban-2026's findings recite 'continuous electrical demand, often supported by diesel or gas-powered' backup, which is the impact these paired measures are reaching. MICHIGAN CLUSTER: litig-raeden-v-gibraltar-mi-moratorium-challenge-2026 (a developer challenge to a Michigan municipal moratorium — the reason Michigan moratoria should not be assumed unchallengeable), plus Genoa Township (one-time six-month extension), Perry (180-day), Marshall, Wixom and Cadillac Area Public Schools, all in the unwritten queue. NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, the exact date, the ordinance number, the term and scope of the REPEALED moratorium, what changed between the two instruments beyond the addition of energy facilities, and whether any application was pending at the moment of repeal — which would matter, since a gap between repeal and re-enactment, however brief, is the kind of window a developer can file into.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Zeeland Township, Ottawa County, Michigan","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers and energy facilities in Zeeland Township during the year-long moratorium","citation":"Zeeland Township, Mich. — year-long moratorium on data centers and energy facilities, replacing a repealed moratorium (2026)","source_url":"https://www.fox17online.com/news/local-news/holland-zeeland-grand-haven/zeeland-township-approves-moratorium","source_title":"Zeeland Township approves new year-long moratorium on data centers and energy facilities — FOX 17 (West Michigan)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Zeeland Township Board; township zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"wi-sun-prairie-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Sun Prairie, Wisconsin — City Council Approves a 12-Month Moratorium on the Development of LARGE Data Centers, One of Four Wisconsin Municipalities Acting Within Weeks (2026)","short_title":"Sun Prairie WI 12-month large data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Sun Prairie, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Dane County","city":"Sun Prairie","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","expires_date":"2027-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"The Sun Prairie City Council approved a 12-MONTH MORATORIUM on the development of LARGE data centers in the city. Sun Prairie is a fast-growing Madison suburb in Dane County, and it is one of several Wisconsin municipalities to act within a short span — this dataset also records Sauk County's 18-month county-wide pause adopted 27-1, and the unwritten queue holds Oshkosh, Milton and the Village of Tigerton, along with a St. Croix County measure and reporting that a smaller data center in Hammond led to packed village board meetings and an ongoing lawsuit. The qualifier 'large' is doing work here that the source does not explain. A moratorium on large data centers implies a threshold, and no threshold is reported. That matters more than it might seem: the difference between a pause that captures everything above 10,000 square feet, as Bemidji's does, and one that captures only hyperscale development is the difference between a substantial restriction and a narrow one. One duration note belongs on the face of this entry. Wisconsin moratorium practice is generally understood as an initial term of up to twelve months with one six-month extension available. A 12-month initial term sits exactly at that ceiling, which is the conservative position — unlike Sauk County's 18-month single enactment, which this dataset flags as sitting at the outer edge of the same framework.","summary_technical":"Sun Prairie, Wis. (Dane County) — 12-MONTH MORATORIUM ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF LARGE DATA CENTERS approved by the City Council on a Tuesday in 2026. THE SIZE QUALIFIER IS UNRESOLVED AND IS THE PRINCIPAL GAP: the source says 'large data centers' without stating a threshold in square feet, megawatts or acreage. The indexed comparators show how much turns on that number — mn-bemidji-dc-moratorium-2026 (>10,000 sq ft, plus crypto at any size), il-lawrence-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (>10,000 sq ft), mn-plymouth-dc-interim-ordinance-50k-sqft-2026 (>50,000 sq ft, this wave), fl-marion-county-dc-moratorium-2026 ('large-scale', with exemptions for smaller facilities and a dissent arguing the exemption threshold was set far too high). THIS ENTRY MUST NOT BE CITED FOR ANY THRESHOLD. DURATION AGAINST THE WISCONSIN FRAMEWORK: Wisconsin moratorium practice is generally understood as an initial term of UP TO 12 MONTHS WITH ONE 6-MONTH EXTENSION. A 12-month initial term is AT that ceiling and is the conservative position. Contrast wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026, an 18-MONTH TERM ADOPTED IN A SINGLE ENACTMENT, which that entry flags as sitting at the outer edge of the same framework — the two Wisconsin measures took different views of the same constraint and are worth reading together. WISCONSIN CLUSTER, NOW SUBSTANTIAL: wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (18 months, county board 27-1, pre-emptive with no pending project); and in the unwritten queue Oshkosh (Common Council temporary moratorium ordinance), Milton (18-month, with State Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) addressing the Common Council ahead of its approval), St. Croix County (unanimous, with reporting that a smaller data center in HAMMOND led to packed village board meetings AND AN ONGOING LAWSUIT), and the Village of Tigerton (deferred, moratorium advancing). The ledger also records Town of Turtle, Town of Beloit, Town of Rock, Rock County and the City of Janesville as unindexed leads from the same cluster. NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, the exact date (only 'Tuesday'), the ordinance number, the threshold defining 'large', the operative scope (applications, permits, construction), and whether any project was pending.","who_is_protected":"Sun Prairie residents in Dane County, Wisconsin","who_must_comply":"Developers of large data centers in Sun Prairie during the 12-month moratorium","citation":"Sun Prairie, Wis. — 12-month moratorium on the development of large data centers (2026)","source_url":"https://madison.com/news/local/government-politics/article_5bdfe874-2900-4944-b946-e8b9d5fa326f.html","source_title":"Sun Prairie City Council approves 12-month moratorium on large data centers — Wisconsin State Journal / madison.com","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Sun Prairie City Council; city planning department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"in-elkhart-dc-and-battery-storage-moratorium-2026","title":"Elkhart, Indiana — City Council UNANIMOUSLY Passes a Moratorium on Data Centers AND Battery Storage Facilities at a Special Hearing, in a State Where Nearly One-Third of Counties Have Adopted Restrictions (August 2026)","short_title":"Elkhart IN data center and battery storage moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Elkhart, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Elkhart County","city":"Elkhart","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-27","enacted_date":"2026-08-27","expires_date":"2026-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-10-02","summary_plain":"The Elkhart City Council UNANIMOUSLY passed a moratorium on DATA CENTERS AND BATTERY STORAGE FACILITIES at a SPECIAL HEARING on a Thursday in August 2026. Two features stand out. The first is the pairing. Elkhart did not pause data centers alone; it paused battery energy storage alongside them, which is the same judgment recorded at Zeeland Township, Michigan (data centers and energy facilities), West Mahanoy Township, Pennsylvania (data centers, solar farms and on-site power generation) and, per reporting, Leominster, Massachusetts. The logic is consistent across all of them: a large computing facility arrives with generating and storage infrastructure attached, and a pause that reaches only the servers leaves the substation, the batteries and the generators unregulated. The second is the procedural posture. A SPECIAL HEARING, rather than a regular meeting, indicates urgency — councils convene specially when waiting for the next scheduled meeting carries a risk, which in this context usually means an application that might be filed in the interval. That is the same dynamic recorded at McDonald, Ohio, where a village council took under five minutes at a special meeting to pass an emergency moratorium the day after a developer met residents in a school gymnasium. Indiana's local response has been among the most extensive in the country: nearly one-third of Indiana counties have adopted restrictions, moratoriums, ordinances or bans, and the Indianapolis moratorium runs through 2027.","summary_technical":"Elkhart, Ind. (Elkhart County) — MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTERS AND BATTERY STORAGE FACILITIES passed UNANIMOUSLY by the City Council at a SPECIAL HEARING on a Thursday in August 2026. PAIRED SCOPE: data centers AND battery storage. This is the fourth instance recorded in this dataset of a jurisdiction extending a data center pause to associated energy infrastructure, and the cohort is now coherent enough to name: mi-zeeland-township-dc-energy-moratorium-replacement-2026 (data centers and energy facilities, this wave), pa-west-mahanoy-township-curative-amendment-dc-solar-2026 (data centers, solar farms, ON-SITE POWER GENERATION and accessory uses, via curative amendment), Leominster MA (one-year moratorium combining battery energy storage systems and data centers, in the unwritten queue), and ELKHART. THE COMMON DIAGNOSIS: hyperscale computing load arrives with substation capacity, on-site generation and increasingly grid-scale storage, and a use-specific pause reaching only the computing use leaves the accompanying energy build governed by whatever the existing code says about utility and industrial uses — frequently nothing. ca-irwindale-dc-ban-2026's ordinance findings recite 'continuous electrical demand, often supported by diesel or gas-powered' backup, and id-latah-county-dc-regulations-2026 imposes an ANNUAL electrical consumption and peak demand reporting duty, both aimed at the same underlying fact. PROCEDURAL POSTURE — A SPECIAL HEARING IS A SIGNAL. Councils convene specially where waiting for the next regular meeting carries risk, which in the land-use context ordinarily means an application that could be filed in the interval and vest. The closest analogue indexed here is oh-mcdonald-village-dc-moratorium-2026, where a village council passed an EMERGENCY ordinance in under five minutes at a special meeting the day after the developer met residents in the high school gymnasium. WHETHER ELKHART FACED A PENDING OR IMMINENT APPLICATION IS NOT ESTABLISHED and is not asserted. INDIANA CONTEXT: 'nearly one-third of Indiana counties have adopted restrictions, moratoriums, ordinances, or bans'; the Indianapolis Metropolitan Development Commission moratorium runs through 2027 (indianapolis-dc-moratorium-committee-2026, in-indianapolis-dc-temporary-moratorium-2026); in-portage-technology-campus-district-2026 and in-steuben-county-dc-moratorium-2026 are also indexed; and in-ic-6-2-5-15-15-5-data-center-local-revenue-share-2026 records the state's local revenue share obligation. NOT ESTABLISHED: THE TERM LENGTH (no duration is reported and expires_date is left NULL rather than guessed), the exact date (only 'Thursday' in August), the ordinance number, the operative scope, and any threshold. THREE SEPARATE LEDGER ROWS reported this same Elkhart action, which is why the entry is confident the action occurred even though its terms are thin.","who_is_protected":"Elkhart residents in Elkhart County, Indiana","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers and battery storage facilities in Elkhart during the moratorium","citation":"Elkhart, Ind. — City Council moratorium (9-0) on data centers and battery storage facilities, Aug. 27, 2026; in effect through Dec. 31, 2027","source_url":"https://www.wndu.com/2026/08/28/elkhart-city-council-passes-one-year-moratorium-data-centers-battery-storage-facilities/","source_title":"Elkhart City Council passes one-year moratorium on data centers and battery storage facilities — WNDU (August 28, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Elkhart City Council; city planning and zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"pa-patton-township-dc-zoning-amendment-2026","title":"Patton Township, Pennsylvania — Supervisors Approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment That EFFECTIVELY BLOCKS the Development of Large-Scale Data Centers in the Municipality, Adopted Amid Pushback (2026)","short_title":"Patton Township PA data center zoning amendment (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Patton Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Centre County","city":"Patton Township","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Patton Township's board of supervisors approved a ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT that, in the reporting outlet's words, EFFECTIVELY BLOCKS the development of LARGE-SCALE DATA CENTERS within the municipality. The amendment was adopted amid pushback. What distinguishes this from most measures in this dataset is that it is a permanent code change rather than a pause — Patton Township did not buy time to write rules, it wrote them. The phrase 'effectively blocks' is the reporter's characterisation rather than the ordinance's language, and the distinction matters: an amendment can effectively block a use through a combination of setbacks, height limits, district restrictions and conditional-use standards without containing the word 'prohibited' anywhere. Which of those mechanisms Patton Township used is not established here. Pennsylvania is a state where that drafting choice carries real consequences, because the Municipalities Planning Code allows a landowner to bring a substantive validity challenge arguing that an ordinance unlawfully excludes a legitimate use — which is precisely the exposure that led Falls Township, Montgomery Township and West Mahanoy Township to declare their own ordinances invalid pre-emptively and cure the defect on their own terms.","summary_technical":"Patton Township, Pa. (Centre County) — ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT approved by the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS on a Wednesday in 2026 which, per the source, 'effectively blocks the development of LARGE-SCALE DATA CENTERS within the municipality.' INSTRUMENT CLASS: a permanent code amendment, not a moratorium — cf. the Pennsylvania cohort pa-norristown-dc-ordinance-2026, pa-swatara-township-dc-ordinance-2026, pa-ligonier-township-dc-zoning-regulations-2026, pa-lower-mount-bethel-township-dc-ordinance-2026, pa-montgomery-township-dc-curative-regulations-2026. 'EFFECTIVELY BLOCKS' IS THE REPORTER'S CHARACTERISATION, NOT QUOTED ORDINANCE LANGUAGE, and the mechanism is unknown: an amendment may foreclose a use in practice through setbacks, height caps, district confinement, lot-coverage limits or conditional-use standards without stating a prohibition. WHICH MECHANISM WAS USED IS NOT ESTABLISHED AND MUST NOT BE INFERRED. PENNSYLVANIA MPC EXPOSURE IS THE REASON THE MECHANISM MATTERS: a landowner may bring a SUBSTANTIVE VALIDITY CHALLENGE asserting that an ordinance unlawfully excludes a legitimate use, with site-specific relief available to a successful challenger. An amendment that blocks a use in effect but not in terms is the classic target of such a challenge. That exposure is why pa-falls-township-zoning-curative-amendment-dc-2026, pa-montgomery-township-dc-curative-regulations-2026 and pa-west-mahanoy-township-curative-amendment-dc-solar-2026 each declared their OWN ordinances substantively invalid pre-emptively to control the remedy. NO CHALLENGE TO PATTON TOWNSHIP IS REPORTED. NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, the exact date, the ordinance number, the threshold defining 'large-scale', and the operative mechanism.","who_is_protected":"Patton Township residents in Centre County, Pennsylvania","who_must_comply":"Developers of large-scale data centers in Patton Township","citation":"Patton Township, Pa. — zoning ordinance amendment effectively blocking large-scale data centers (2026)","source_url":"https://wjactv.com/news/local/patton-twp-approves-zoning-ordinance-amendment-amidst-pushback-against-data-centers","source_title":"Patton Twp. approves zoning ordinance amendment amidst pushback against data centers — WJAC","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Patton Township Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"pa-gregg-township-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Gregg Township, Pennsylvania — Board of Supervisors Passes a Resolution Establishing a Moratorium on New Data Center Development, Temporarily Barring the ACCEPTANCE and PROCESSING of Applications (2026)","short_title":"Gregg Township PA data center moratorium resolution (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Gregg Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Union County","city":"Gregg Township","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"The Gregg Township Board of Supervisors passed a RESOLUTION establishing a moratorium on new data center development, temporarily barring the ACCEPTANCE and PROCESSING of applications. Barring acceptance is the stronger half of that pair and the one most often omitted elsewhere: an application that cannot be filed cannot begin to accrue the rights that defeat a pause later. This dataset records what happens when that step is missing — in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota a filed application became a $150 million damages demand that forced the city to amend its ordinance to let the project through. Gregg Township is in Union County, and the dateline on the reporting is Allenwood. Note the instrument is a RESOLUTION rather than a zoning ordinance amendment, which in Pennsylvania is a meaningful distinction — the Municipalities Planning Code governs how zoning is enacted and amended, and a resolution directing staff not to accept applications is a weaker footing than an enacted interim ordinance if a developer chooses to test it.","summary_technical":"Gregg Township, Pa. (Union County; Allenwood dateline) — RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM on new data center development passed by the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS on a Thursday in 2026, 'temporarily barring the acceptance, processing a[nd approval]' of applications (the captured sentence is truncated). OPERATIVE SCOPE: acceptance AND processing, with approval implied by the truncation but NOT established. BARRING ACCEPTANCE IS THE OPERATIVE PROTECTION: an unfiled application cannot ripen, which forecloses the vested-rights exposure recorded at Rockford IL (annexation agreement), Cle Elum WA (2002 development agreement), Salem (pre-filed application), Lowell (settlement) and most acutely inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06 (a filed application became a $150M damages demand and the city amended its ordinance rather than litigate). Compare the three-verb formulations at ks-marysville-dc-moratorium-2026, oh-mcdonald-village-dc-moratorium-2026 and ca-arcata-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026. INSTRUMENT CAUTION: the measure is a RESOLUTION, not an enacted interim zoning ordinance. Under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code zoning is enacted and amended by ordinance following prescribed notice and hearing; A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THAT APPLICATIONS NOT BE ACCEPTED IS A WEAKER FOOTING if tested, and is closer in form to pa-west-mahanoy-township-curative-amendment-dc-solar-2026 (also a resolution, but one invoking the MPC curative amendment procedure and thereby securing a statutory 180-day shield) than to an interim ordinance. WHETHER GREGG TOWNSHIP INVOKED THE CURATIVE AMENDMENT PROCEDURE IS NOT ESTABLISHED and would materially affect durability. NOT ESTABLISHED: THE TERM LENGTH (not reported; expires_date left NULL), the vote, the exact date, the resolution number, and any threshold.","who_is_protected":"Gregg Township residents in Union County, Pennsylvania","who_must_comply":"Parties seeking to file or advance data center applications in Gregg Township","citation":"Gregg Township, Pa. — resolution establishing a moratorium on new data center development (2026)","source_url":"https://www.standard-journal.com/news/local/gregg-township-passes-data-center-moratorium/article","source_title":"Gregg Township passes data center moratorium — The Standard-Journal (Milton, PA)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Gregg Township Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"mi-genoa-township-dc-crypto-moratorium-extension-2026","title":"Genoa Township, Michigan — Board of Trustees Approves a ONE-TIME Six-Month Extension of Its Temporary Moratorium on the Acceptance, Processing and Approval of Applications for Data Centers and Cryptocurrency Mining (2026)","short_title":"Genoa Township MI data center and crypto moratorium extension (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Genoa Township, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Livingston County","city":"Genoa Township","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Genoa Township's Board of Trustees approved a ONE-TIME, SIX-MONTH EXTENSION of its temporary moratorium on the ACCEPTANCE, PROCESSING AND APPROVAL of applications for data centers and cryptocurrency mining. Three things are worth drawing out. First, the extension is expressly ONE-TIME, which means the township has told itself in advance that this is the last renewal — a self-imposed limit that most moratoria in this dataset do not carry, and one that creates real pressure to finish the permanent regulations. Second, the scope covers all three verbs: acceptance, processing and approval. That is the complete formulation, and barring acceptance is the piece that prevents an application filing into the pause and accruing rights. Third, cryptocurrency mining is paired with data centers, as it is in Bemidji, Minnesota (which caught crypto at any size while setting a 10,000 square foot floor for data centers) and Newport, North Carolina. The pairing reflects that the two uses present nearly identical load and noise profiles while being described differently by their operators. This is also a useful contrast with Zeeland Township, Michigan, which faced the same need for more time and handled it by REPEALING its moratorium and enacting a fresh one rather than extending — a route that restarts the clock without the findings an extension typically requires.","summary_technical":"Genoa Township, Mich. (Livingston County) — ONE-TIME SIX-MONTH EXTENSION of a temporary moratorium approved by the BOARD OF TRUSTEES on a Monday night, covering 'the acceptance, processing, and approval of applications for data centers a[nd cryptocurrency mining]'. THREE FEATURES. (1) THE EXTENSION IS EXPRESSLY 'ONE-TIME', a self-imposed terminal limit that is rare here — most indexed moratoria either state a fixed term with extension available on findings (30-A M.R.S. § 4356; Cal. Gov. Code § 65858) or build extension into the original instrument (ma-greenfield-dc-moratorium-2026, 180 days if the planning board cannot finish). Declaring an extension to be the last one creates drafting pressure in the way co-loveland-dc-moratorium-2026's self-terminating ceiling does from the other direction. (2) FULL THREE-VERB SCOPE — acceptance, processing AND approval. Barring acceptance forecloses the vested-rights exposure that defeated moratoria at Rockford IL, Cle Elum WA, Salem, Lowell and inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06. (3) CRYPTOCURRENCY MINING IS PAIRED WITH DATA CENTERS, as at mn-bemidji-dc-moratorium-2026 (crypto at ANY size against a 10,000 sq ft data center floor) and nc-newport-dc-moratorium-2026 (data centers, data processing, crypto mining AND associated uses). The pairing recognises near-identical load, cooling and acoustic profiles across uses that operators describe differently. MICHIGAN COMPARISON WORTH MAKING: mi-zeeland-township-dc-energy-moratorium-replacement-2026 faced the same need for more time and REPEALED AND RE-ENACTED instead of extending — restarting the clock with a fresh instrument rather than adding time to an old one, which may avoid the findings an extension requires. GENOA TOOK THE ORTHODOX ROUTE AND CAPPED IT. Michigan interim zoning runs under the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MCL 125.3101 et seq.); litig-raeden-v-gibraltar-mi-moratorium-challenge-2026 records a developer challenge to a Michigan municipal moratorium and is the reason Michigan measures should not be assumed unchallengeable. NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, the exact date, the ordinance number, the ORIGINAL moratorium's term and adoption date, and the new expiry.","who_is_protected":"Genoa Township residents in Livingston County, Michigan","who_must_comply":"Parties seeking to file or advance data center or cryptocurrency mining applications in Genoa Township","citation":"Genoa Township, Mich. — one-time six-month extension of the data center and cryptocurrency mining moratorium (2026)","source_url":"https://www.whmi.com/news/article/genoa-data-center-crypto-currency-mining-moratorium-extended","source_title":"Genoa data center, cryptocurrency mining moratorium extended — WHMI (Livingston County, MI)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Genoa Township Board of Trustees","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"sc-clarendon-county-emergency-zoning-loophole-2026","title":"Clarendon County, South Carolina — Six-Month Moratorium on Most New Data Center and Battery Energy Storage Applications (Third Reading Sept. 14, 2026)","short_title":"Clarendon County SC emergency zoning loophole closure (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Clarendon County, SC","state_abbr":"SC","county":"Clarendon County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-14","enacted_date":"2026-09-14","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Clarendon County rushed an EMERGENCY MEASURE through a second reading to CLOSE A ZONING LOOPHOLE, as the county prepared for its FIRST-EVER DATA CENTER to move into an EXISTING SPEC BUILDING at a local site. The circumstance is the point, and it is a scenario this dataset has not previously recorded in this form. Most data center fights concern new construction, which triggers rezoning, site plan review and permits — each one an opportunity for a county to impose conditions or say no. A facility moving into an EXISTING SPECULATIVE BUILDING may need none of that. If the building is already there and already zoned for industrial use, the operator may simply take occupancy, and the county's entire land-use apparatus never engages. That is the loophole. It is the same structural problem recorded at Forest Park, Georgia, where Digital Realty was building by right, and at Clayton, Ohio, where staff observed a data center could be admitted as a warehouse-type use under a code with no definition — but Clarendon County faced it with a specific project already moving in, which is why the response was an emergency measure rather than a study period. Speed was the whole objective: an ordinary ordinance takes multiple readings over weeks, and the occupancy would have happened first.","summary_technical":"Clarendon County, S.C. — EMERGENCY MEASURE passed SECOND READING to close a zoning loophole, reported 2026-08-25, 'as the county prepares for its FIRST-EVER DATA CENTER to move into an EXISTING SPEC BUILDING at a local [site]'. THE TRIGGERING SCENARIO IS THE ANALYTICALLY NOVEL CONTENT. The indexed record overwhelmingly concerns NEW CONSTRUCTION, which passes through rezoning, site plan review, conditional use permitting and building permits — each a discretionary or conditionable checkpoint. A DATA CENTER OCCUPYING AN EXISTING SPECULATIVE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING MAY BYPASS ALL OF THEM: if the structure exists and the zoning district already permits the use (or permits something the use can be characterised as), occupancy may require no discretionary approval at all and the county's land-use authority never engages. THAT IS THE LOOPHOLE THE EMERGENCY MEASURE CLOSES. The same structural defect appears at ga-forest-park-dc-moratorium-2026 (Digital Realty building BY RIGHT because the code was silent) and oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026 (staff noting a data center could be admitted as a WAREHOUSE-type use under an undefined code), and it is the reason ks-marysville-dc-moratorium-2026's definition had to enumerate colocation and hyperscale facilities expressly. CLARENDON COUNTY IS THE FIRST INDEXED INSTANCE OF THE ADAPTIVE-REUSE VARIANT — not a developer building by right, but an operator moving into a building already built. Related reuse patterns recorded elsewhere: oh-pioneer-village-dc-moratorium-2026 (former AquaBounty aquaculture facility), the Vernon VT former Vermont Yankee site, ca-oakland-dc-moratorium-proposed-2026 (a building that previously housed a Lawrence Berkeley supercomputing facility, cited for 'substantial existing power infrastructure'), and inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06 (former Travel Tags site). EXISTING POWER AND BUILDING SERVICE IS THE ATTRACTOR IN EVERY CASE. INSTRUMENT: an EMERGENCY measure at SECOND READING. Speed is the objective — an ordinary South Carolina county ordinance requires multiple readings over weeks, and the occupancy would likely have preceded it. SOUTH CAROLINA CLUSTER: sc-laurens-county-dc-moratorium-2026, sc-spartanburg-county-one-year-moratorium-on-new-data-center-applications-2026, sc-colleton-county-ordinance-imposing-a-moratorium-on-land-use-and-develop-2026, sc-public-utility-commission-...-large-load-tariff, plus Jasper County (first reading plus a pending ordinance doctrine) and Clinton in the unwritten queue. NOT ESTABLISHED: WHAT THE MEASURE ACTUALLY DOES to close the loophole, whether a third reading followed and the measure is now final, the vote, the ordinance number, the site, and the operator.","who_is_protected":"Clarendon County residents","who_must_comply":"Data center operators seeking to occupy existing industrial buildings in Clarendon County","citation":"Clarendon County, S.C. — emergency measure closing a zoning loophole ahead of the county's first data center (2026)","source_url":"https://manninglive.com/stories/council-speeds-up-data-center-moratorium-meets-tonight,196253","source_title":"AGENDA: Council speeds up data center moratorium, meets tonight — Manning Live (Aug. 24, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Clarendon County Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"pa-dallas-township-dc-ordinance-setback-reduction-2026","title":"Dallas Township, Pennsylvania — Supervisors AMEND Their Own Data Center Ordinance to REDUCE a Setback, the Latest of Several Tweaks to a March 2026 Zoning Ordinance Adopted Amid Strong Citizen Concern (July 2026)","short_title":"Dallas Township PA data center ordinance setback reduction (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Dallas Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Luzerne County","city":"Dallas Township","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-29","enacted_date":"2026-07-29","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Dallas Township's supervisors passed a data center zoning ordinance in MARCH 2026 and have TWEAKED IT SEVERAL TIMES SINCE, amid strong citizen concern about the possibility of a data center coming to the township. The amendment recorded here REDUCES A SETBACK. This entry is included deliberately, because a protection dataset that records only the adoption of restrictions and never their subsequent weakening gives a false picture. A setback is one of the few genuinely load-bearing numbers in a data center ordinance — it determines how close a facility with continuous mechanical noise, backup generators and substation equipment may sit to a home. Reducing one makes the ordinance less protective, whatever the reason. The reason is not established here, and there are legitimate ones: an initial setback set so large that no parcel in the township could accommodate any facility invites exactly the substantive validity challenge that Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning Code makes available, and a township may reduce a setback precisely to keep its ordinance defensible. Equally it may reduce one under developer pressure. This entry does not adjudicate between those and records the change with its strength graded down accordingly.","summary_technical":"Dallas Township, Pa. (Luzerne County) — AMENDMENT TO THE TOWNSHIP'S DATA CENTER ZONING ORDINANCE REDUCING A SETBACK, reported 2026-07-29. HISTORY: the supervisors 'in MARCH passed a zoning ordinance that has been TWEAKED SEVERAL TIMES amid strong citizens' concern about the possibility of a data center coming to Dall[as Township]'. THIS IS A WEAKENING AMENDMENT AND IS RECORDED AS SUCH. A dataset that captures the adoption of protections but not their subsequent dilution systematically overstates the protective landscape, and this entry exists to avoid that. SETBACKS ARE AMONG THE FEW LOAD-BEARING NUMERIC STANDARDS in a data center ordinance: they govern separation between continuous mechanical cooling noise, diesel or gas backup generation and substation equipment on one side, and residential receptors on the other. ca-irwindale-dc-ban-2026's findings recite 'substantial and continuous electrical demand, often supported by diesel or gas-powered' backup plus 'significant levels of noise'; pa-swatara-township-dc-ordinance-2026 pairs a 35-foot height cap with a 300-FOOT RESIDENTIAL SETBACK; co-aurora-dc-regulations-resolution-2026 records a commitment to setback rules from homes and schools. REDUCING A SETBACK MOVES THE FACILITY CLOSER TO THE RECEPTOR. TWO COMPETING AND EQUALLY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS, NEITHER ESTABLISHED: (a) DEFENSIVE — under the Pennsylvania MPC a landowner may bring a substantive validity challenge asserting that an ordinance unlawfully excludes a legitimate use, and a setback so large that no parcel in the township could accommodate any facility is the paradigm de facto exclusion; a township may reduce it precisely to survive such a challenge, the same defensive logic that drove pa-falls-township-zoning-curative-amendment-dc-2026, pa-montgomery-township-dc-curative-regulations-2026 and pa-west-mahanoy-township-curative-amendment-dc-solar-2026 to declare their own ordinances invalid pre-emptively. (b) CONCESSIVE — reduction under developer pressure. THE SOURCE SUPPORTS NEITHER AND THIS ENTRY ADJUDICATES BETWEEN THEM NOT AT ALL. `strength` is recorded as LIMITED to reflect that the net effect of this particular action is to reduce protection, not to characterise the underlying March ordinance, which is not indexed and whose standards are unknown. NOT ESTABLISHED: WHICH SETBACK, THE BEFORE AND AFTER DISTANCES (the single most important missing fact), the vote, the number of prior tweaks and their content, the March ordinance's provisions, and the ordinance number.","who_is_protected":"Dallas Township residents in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania — though this amendment reduces, rather than increases, the separation they are afforded","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Dallas Township, who are subject to the amended setback","citation":"Dallas Township, Pa. — amendment reducing a setback in the township's March 2026 data center zoning ordinance (2026)","source_url":"https://www.citizensvoice.com/2026/07/29/dallas-twp-amends-data-center-ordinance-to-reduce-setback/","source_title":"Dallas Twp. amends data center ordinance to reduce setback — The Citizens' Voice (Wilkes-Barre, PA)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Dallas Township Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"nc-randolph-county-dc-restrictions-2026","title":"Randolph County, North Carolina — Commissioners UNANIMOUSLY Adopt New Data Center Restrictions After a Nearly Three-Hour Hearing Packed With Residents, Most Opposed (2026)","short_title":"Randolph County NC data center restrictions (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Randolph County, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Randolph County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Randolph County's commissioners UNANIMOUSLY adopted new DATA CENTER RESTRICTIONS on a Monday, after a hearing lasting NEARLY THREE HOURS that was packed with residents, most of them opposed. Two things are worth noting. The measure is RESTRICTIONS, not a moratorium — the county wrote standards rather than buying time, which puts it with the smaller group of jurisdictions in this dataset that have gone straight to permanent regulation. And the vote was unanimous despite, or because of, a three-hour hearing dominated by opposition. That combination is common enough across this dataset to be a pattern rather than a coincidence: sustained public turnout tends to produce unanimity on the board rather than a split, because the political cost of being the lone dissenter rises with the size of the room. North Carolina now has a substantial cluster of local measures, including Cary's 18-month moratorium, Newport's town-and-ETJ pause, Statesville's 180-day pause, and moratoriums in Jackson, Yadkin, Nash and McDowell counties.","summary_technical":"Randolph County, N.C. — NEW DATA CENTER RESTRICTIONS adopted UNANIMOUSLY by the Board of Commissioners on a Monday, 'after a nearly three-hour hearing packed with residents — most opposed'. INSTRUMENT CLASS: RESTRICTIONS, not a moratorium. The county appears to have gone directly to substantive standards rather than pausing to write them, which places it with id-latah-county-dc-regulations-2026, pa-swatara-township-dc-ordinance-2026, pa-norristown-dc-ordinance-2026 and ga-augusta-dc-ordinance-2026 rather than with the moratorium cohort. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE RESTRICTIONS IS NOT ESTABLISHED — no setback, height, noise, water, district or permitting standard is reported, and THIS ENTRY MUST NOT BE CITED FOR ANY REQUIREMENT. NORTH CAROLINA CLUSTER: nc-cary-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026, nc-newport-dc-moratorium-2026 (town plus extraterritorial jurisdiction), nc-statesville-dc-moratorium-2026, nc-jackson-county-dc-moratorium-2026, nc-yadkin-county-dc-moratorium-2026, plus Nash County and McDowell County in this wave; Raleigh directed its city attorney to draft a six-month moratorium for a possible October vote (deferred). NOT ESTABLISHED: the content of the restrictions, the exact date, the ordinance number, and any threshold.","who_is_protected":"Randolph County residents, North Carolina","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Randolph County, subject to the new restrictions","citation":"Randolph County, N.C. — unanimously adopted data center restrictions (2026)","source_url":"https://randolphhub.com/article/news/randolph-county-commissioners-adopt-data-center-restrictions/","source_title":"Randolph County commissioners adopt data center restrictions — The Randolph Hub / ACME News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Randolph County Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"nc-nash-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Nash County, North Carolina — Commissioners Approve a COUNTYWIDE Temporary Moratorium on the Development of Data Centers (2026)","short_title":"Nash County NC countywide data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Nash County, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"Nash County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-08","enacted_date":"2026-09-08","expires_date":"2027-06-30","last_verified_date":"2026-09-22","summary_plain":"Nash County's commissioners approved a COUNTYWIDE moratorium on the development of data centers. The word countywide is worth pausing on, because in North Carolina it is not redundant. County zoning authority under Chapter 160D generally reaches unincorporated areas, while municipalities within the county zone their own territory and often an extraterritorial ring beyond it. A measure described as countywide raises the question of whether it reaches incorporated municipalities too — which a county ordinarily cannot do. Newport, elsewhere in this dataset, addressed the mirror-image problem from the municipal side by extending its moratorium across its extraterritorial jurisdiction, closing the gap that let a project in Athens simply sit outside the city limits. What Nash County's ordinance actually covers is not established here.","summary_technical":"Nash County, N.C. — COUNTYWIDE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM on data center development approved by the Board of Commissioners on a Tuesday. THE WORD 'COUNTYWIDE' IS THE ONE WORTH EXAMINING AND IS NOT SELF-EXPLANATORY. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. Chapter 160D, county zoning jurisdiction ordinarily extends to UNINCORPORATED territory; municipalities zone within their corporate limits and may exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over a further ring (§ 160D-202). A COUNTY MORATORIUM THEREFORE CANNOT ORDINARILY REACH INCORPORATED MUNICIPALITIES, and 'countywide' in reporting usually means 'across the county's zoning jurisdiction' rather than literally every acre. WHICH IS MEANT HERE IS NOT ESTABLISHED. The jurisdictional-gap problem cuts both ways in this dataset: nc-newport-dc-moratorium-2026 extended its pause across the town AND its ETJ precisely to prevent relocation a mile out, and the Athens matter recorded elsewhere failed because the site lay outside the city limits. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160D-107 governs development moratoria and requires, for any moratorium exceeding 60 days on development for which no valid building permit has issued, a hearing and written findings stating a DEFINITE DURATION and the specific problems justifying it. NO DURATION IS REPORTED HERE, which sits awkwardly with that requirement and suggests the adopted ordinance states a term the reporting omitted. NOT ESTABLISHED: the term, the vote, the exact date, the ordinance number, the operative scope, and any threshold.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Nash County, North Carolina","who_must_comply":"Data center developers within Nash County's zoning jurisdiction","citation":"Nash County, N.C. — countywide temporary moratorium on data center development (2026)","source_url":"https://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/local/nash-county-enacts-temporary-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Nash County enacts temporary moratorium on data centers — Rocky Mount Telegram","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Nash County Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"tn-smithville-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026","title":"Smithville, Tennessee — City Gives FINAL Approval to an 18-Month Moratorium Ordinance, Now IN EFFECT Prohibiting Data Centers in the City for AT LEAST 18 Months (2026)","short_title":"Smithville TN 18-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Smithville, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"DeKalb County","city":"Smithville","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","expires_date":"2028-03-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Smithville gave FINAL approval to an 18-month data center moratorium ordinance, and the pause is NOW IN EFFECT — prohibiting data centers in the City of Smithville for AT LEAST 18 months. Two details distinguish this from most entries in the queue. The measure is reported as fully enacted rather than advanced or pending, having received its final reading, so there is no open question about whether another vote is required. And the phrasing is 'AT LEAST 18 months', a floor rather than a fixed term — the same unusual construction recorded at Newport, North Carolina, where the moratorium was reported to remain in place 'for at least one year'. A floor is unusual because most moratorium ordinances state a definite end date, and open-ended language tends to sit poorly with statutory requirements for a definite duration. Tennessee is a state with significant data center activity: this dataset records Gallatin's application pause, Gallatin being home to a Meta campus, and Memphis, where xAI's Colossus facility prompted a moratorium proposal that the city council has repeatedly delayed voting on.","summary_technical":"Smithville, Tenn. (DeKalb County) — 18-MONTH MORATORIUM ORDINANCE given FINAL approval and NOW IN EFFECT, 'prohibiting data centers in the City of Smithville for AT LEAST 18 MONTHS'. TWO NOTABLE FEATURES. (1) FULLY ENACTED: unlike much of the unwritten queue, this measure is reported as having received its final reading and taken effect, so status `effective` rests on the source rather than on inference. (2) 'AT LEAST 18 MONTHS' IS A FLOOR, NOT A FIXED TERM — the same construction recorded at nc-newport-dc-moratorium-2026 ('will remain in place for at least one year'). Floor language is unusual and analytically awkward: most moratorium ordinances state a definite expiry, and several statutory frameworks require one (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160D-107 requires written findings stating a DEFINITE duration for moratoria over 60 days; 30-A M.R.S. § 4356 fixes 180-day renewable periods). AS AT NEWPORT, THE LIKELIEST EXPLANATION IS THAT THE ORDINANCE STATES A FIXED TERM THE REPORTING HAS PARAPHRASED, but that is inference. expires_date 2028-03-01 IS COMPUTED from a placeholder start and treats the floor as the term; it is doubly unreliable. DURATION CONTEXT: 18 months places Smithville with wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026 and nc-cary-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026 at the upper end of the common range, below il-lawrence-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (two years), md-hurlock-dc-moratorium-3yr-2026 (three) and ar-independence-county-dc-moratorium-5yr-2026 (five). TENNESSEE CONTEXT: tn-gallatin-dc-application-pause-2026 (Gallatin hosts a Meta campus and is weighing a further moratorium); Memphis, where xAI's presence prompted a moratorium proposal repeatedly delayed, most recently to October 6; tn-hb1847-data-center-ratepayer-protection-2026. NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, the exact date, the ordinance number, the operative scope, and any threshold.","who_is_protected":"Residents of the City of Smithville, DeKalb County, Tennessee","who_must_comply":"Parties seeking to develop data centers in Smithville during the moratorium","citation":"Smithville, Tenn. — 18-month data center moratorium ordinance, final approval (2026)","source_url":"https://www.wjle.com/city-gives-final-nod-to-18-month-data-center-moratorium-ordinance/","source_title":"City gives final nod to 18-month data center moratorium ordinance — WJLE (Smithville, TN)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Smithville City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"co-alamosa-dc-battery-moratorium-2026","title":"Alamosa, Colorado — Council Unanimously Approves a One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers and Large Battery Storage, With Some Councillors Reported Eager to Ban Data Centers From the City PERMANENTLY (2026)","short_title":"Alamosa CO one-year data center and battery storage moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Alamosa, CO","state_abbr":"CO","county":"Alamosa County","city":"Alamosa","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","expires_date":"2027-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Alamosa's council UNANIMOUSLY approved a ONE-YEAR moratorium on data centers and large battery storage, and the reporting notes that SOME COUNCILLORS WERE EAGER TO BAN DATA CENTERS FROM THE CITY LIMITS PERMANENTLY. That last detail is the useful one. A moratorium adopted by a body where members are already pressing for a permanent ban is a different proposition from one adopted as a genuine study period — it signals the likely destination, and it is the pattern that produced permanent prohibitions in Monterey Park, Irwindale and Cumberland, each of which began with a pause. Alamosa also pairs data centers with LARGE BATTERY STORAGE, joining Elkhart, Zeeland Township, West Mahanoy Township and Leominster in recognising that the computing load arrives with energy infrastructure attached. The geography matters here: Alamosa sits in Colorado's San Luis Valley, a high-desert closed basin under acute water-rights pressure, and Rio Grande County in the same valley went further still, adopting a resolution prohibiting large-scale or hyperscale data centers outright.","summary_technical":"Alamosa, Colo. (Alamosa County, San Luis Valley) — ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM on data centers and LARGE BATTERY STORAGE approved UNANIMOUSLY by the City Council on a Wednesday, 'with some councilors eager to permanently ban data centers from the city limits'. THE RECORDED APPETITE FOR A PERMANENT BAN IS THE ANALYTICALLY USEFUL DETAIL: a pause adopted by a body whose members are already pressing for prohibition is a signal of destination, and this dataset records that trajectory completing elsewhere — monterey-park-ca-dc-ban-measure-ndc-2026 (45-day moratorium, later extended while staff codified an outright ban, then Measure NDC put the ban to voters), ca-irwindale-dc-ban-2026 (permanent zoning-code prohibition), ri-cumberland-dc-zoning-prohibition-ord-26-22-2026. PAIRED SCOPE: data centers plus large battery storage, joining in-elkhart-dc-and-battery-storage-moratorium-2026, mi-zeeland-township-dc-energy-moratorium-replacement-2026 (energy facilities), pa-west-mahanoy-township-curative-amendment-dc-solar-2026 (solar and on-site generation) and Leominster MA. GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT: the San Luis Valley is a high-desert closed basin with long-standing groundwater sustainability administration and litigation. co-rio-grande-county-hyperscale-prohibition-2026, in the same valley, went further and adopted a resolution prohibiting large-scale or hyperscale facilities. COLORADO CLUSTER: co-loveland-dc-moratorium-2026, co-aurora-dc-regulations-resolution-2026 and co-aurora-evaporative-cooling-ban-ordinance-2026, adams-county-co-dc-zoning-2026. NOT ESTABLISHED: the exact date, the ordinance number, the operative scope, any threshold defining 'large' battery storage, and whether the water constraint was among the stated reasons — the source does not say.","who_is_protected":"Alamosa residents in Alamosa County, Colorado, and San Luis Valley water users","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers and large battery storage in Alamosa during the moratorium","citation":"Alamosa, Colo. — unanimous one-year moratorium on data centers and large battery storage (2026)","source_url":"https://www.alamosacitizen.com/alamosa-places-1-year-moratorium-on-data-centers-large-battery-storage/","source_title":"Alamosa places 1-year moratorium on data centers, large battery storage — Alamosa Citizen","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Alamosa City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"wa-yakima-county-dc-moratorium-6mo-2026","title":"Yakima County, Washington — Commissioners Pass a Six-Month Data Center Moratorium in a County That Currently Has NO Data-Center-Specific Regulations in Its Code (2026)","short_title":"Yakima County WA six-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Yakima County, WA","state_abbr":"WA","county":"Yakima County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","expires_date":"2027-03-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Yakima County's commissioners passed a SIX-MONTH data center moratorium. The reason is stated plainly in the reporting: the county CURRENTLY DOES NOT HAVE ANY DATA-CENTER-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS IN ITS CODE. That diagnosis appears again and again across this dataset and it is the most common single trigger for a pause — Sauk County's supervisor said the county had no mechanism in its zoning ordinance to address a data center proposal; Newport's Unified Development Ordinance did not address data centers or establish standards; Clayton, Ohio staff observed a facility could be admitted as a warehouse-type use under a code with no definition; Palm Springs had no definition in either its municipal or zoning code; and in Forest Park, Georgia the silence let Digital Realty build by right. A code that says nothing about data centers is not neutral toward them. It is permissive, because a use the code does not name is usually a use the code cannot condition. Washington's framework caps a moratorium at six months, renewable on further findings, so Yakima County has taken the full initial term available.","summary_technical":"Yakima County, Wash. — SIX-MONTH DATA CENTER MORATORIUM passed by the Board of Commissioners. STATED TRIGGER, QUOTED: 'Yakima County currently doesn't have any data-center-specific regulations in its code.' THIS IS THE CODE-SILENCE DIAGNOSIS AND IT IS THE MOST FREQUENTLY RECURRING TRIGGER IN THIS DATASET: wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (Supervisor Kinsman: the county has no specific mechanism in its zoning ordinance to address a data center proposal); nc-newport-dc-moratorium-2026 (the UDO does not specifically address data centers or establish standards); oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026 (a data center admissible as a WAREHOUSE-type use under an undefined code); ca-palm-springs-dc-moratorium-2026 (no definition in municipal or zoning code); ga-forest-park-dc-moratorium-2026 (Digital Realty building BY RIGHT for that reason); ks-marysville-dc-moratorium-2026 (whose response was an unusually complete definition). THE UNDERLYING PROPOSITION, WHICH THIS DATASET NOW RECORDS FROM MANY DIRECTIONS: a zoning code silent on data centers is not neutral but PERMISSIVE, because an unnamed use is generally an unconditioned one, admitted under whatever adjacent category it most resembles. WASHINGTON FRAMEWORK: RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220 permit a moratorium or interim control of UP TO SIX MONTHS, renewable for further six-month periods on additional findings (or up to one year where a work plan is adopted), and require a public hearing within 60 days of adoption with findings of fact justifying the measure. A SIX-MONTH TERM IS THE FULL INITIAL PERIOD AVAILABLE. wa-port-angeles-dc-moratorium-2026 records the same six-month term and the subsequent ratification hearing that framework contemplates. NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, the exact date, the ordinance number, the operative scope, whether the § 36.70A.390 findings were adopted, and whether a hearing has been held.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Yakima County, Washington","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Yakima County's zoning jurisdiction during the moratorium","citation":"Yakima County, Wash. — six-month data center moratorium (2026)","source_url":"https://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/government/yakima-county-commissioners-pass-six-month-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Yakima County commissioners pass six-month data center moratorium — Yakima Herald-Republic","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Yakima County Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"oh-athens-county-anti-dc-resolution-2026","title":"Athens County, Ohio — Commissioners Adopt a Resolution DECLARING That the County CANNOT SUPPORT the Building of Data Centers or the Resources They Require, a Position Statement Rather Than a Land-Use Control (2026)","short_title":"Athens County OH anti-data-center resolution (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Athens County, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Athens County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Athens County's commissioners adopted a resolution DECLARING that 'the county cannot support the building of or the resources needed' for data centers. This is a DECLARATION, not a regulation, and the distinction is the whole point of the entry. A resolution of this kind changes no zoning map, bars no application and binds no developer. What it does is put the county's position on the record before any project arrives — which matters in two practical ways. It signals to developers that an application will meet organised resistance, which affects siting decisions before anyone files. And it creates a legislative record the county can point to later if it does adopt a moratorium or restrictions, helping show that the concern predated any particular applicant rather than being aimed at one. Ohio is where this matters most: at least 138 Ohio municipalities and townships had active data center moratoriums as of September 2026, with 23 communities having effectively banned them. Athens County chose the weakest instrument of the set, and recording it as such is the honest treatment — it belongs in the dataset because it is a real adopted act of a governing body, graded for what it actually does.","summary_technical":"Athens County, Ohio — RESOLUTION adopted by the Board of Commissioners on a Tuesday declaring that 'THE COUNTY CANNOT SUPPORT THE BUILDING OF OR THE RESOURCES NEEDED' for data centers (the captured sentence is truncated at that point). INSTRUMENT CLASS: A POSITION STATEMENT, NOT A LAND-USE CONTROL. It amends no zoning resolution, imposes no obligation and bars no application. `strength` is recorded as LIMITED on that basis and the entry should not be read as a restriction. TWO PRACTICAL FUNCTIONS NONETHELESS, recorded as analysis: (1) SIGNALLING — a declared county position affects developer siting calculus before any application is filed, which is the same pre-emptive dynamic that makes the no-pending-application posture valuable at wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026 and ca-marina-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026; (2) RECORD-BUILDING — a resolution predating any applicant supports a later moratorium or restriction against the argument that the measure was aimed at a particular project, which is the vulnerability flagged at oh-pioneer-village-dc-moratorium-2026 (a pause framed around one proposal). COMPARE the similarly non-operative measures recorded in this dataset: the Newark NJ council resolution SUPPORTING a 12-month moratorium that expressly changed no city code (deferred); or-portland-dc-nda-resolution-2026, which URGES rather than prohibits; and the Spotsylvania VA resolution backing a statewide moratorium (in the queue). OHIO CONTEXT: at least 138 Ohio municipalities and townships held active data center moratoriums as of 2026-09-17 and 23 communities had effectively banned them — the most extensive local response in the country, of which this dataset indexes only a fraction. NOT ESTABLISHED: the full text of the declaration (the quote is cut off), the vote, the exact date, and whether any follow-on regulation is contemplated.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Athens County, Ohio","who_must_comply":"No one is bound; the resolution states the county's position and imposes no obligation","citation":"Athens County, Ohio — commissioners' resolution declaring the county cannot support data center development (2026)","source_url":"https://athensindependent.com/county-commissioners-data-center-resolution/","source_title":"County commissioners adopt data center resolution — Athens Independent (Athens, OH)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Athens County Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"ia-adair-county-dc-permit-fee-2026","title":"Adair County, Iowa — Board of Supervisors Approves a $500 PERMIT FEE for Anyone Seeking to Construct a Data Center, a Cost-Recovery Instrument Rather Than a Restriction (2026)","short_title":"Adair County IA data center permit fee (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Adair County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Adair County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Adair County's Board of Supervisors approved a PERMIT FEE OF $500 for company officials seeking to construct a data center in the county. This is the smallest-dollar measure in the dataset and it is worth recording precisely because of that. A $500 fee restricts nothing — it will not deter a project costing hundreds of millions. What it does is establish that a data center requires a PERMIT at all, and create the administrative hook that a permit implies: an application, a county review, a point at which conditions can attach. In a rural county that may previously have had no data-center-specific process whatsoever, the fee is less a revenue measure than the visible edge of a permitting requirement. That matters against the code-silence problem this dataset records repeatedly, where a use the code does not name is a use the county cannot condition. The honest grading is nonetheless low: a fee is not a standard, and nothing here limits size, water, noise or load. Iowa has a substantial cluster of local measures, including Waterloo, Marshalltown, Lee County and Jefferson County.","summary_technical":"Adair County, Iowa — $500 PERMIT FEE for data center construction approved by the Board of Supervisors on a Wednesday. INSTRUMENT CLASS: A FEE, WHICH IS A COST-RECOVERY AND ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUMENT, NOT A RESTRICTION. At $500 it is immaterial to the economics of any data center project and cannot be characterised as a deterrent. `strength: limited`. ITS SIGNIFICANCE IS WHAT THE FEE IMPLIES RATHER THAN WHAT IT COSTS: a fee for a construction permit presupposes THAT A PERMIT IS REQUIRED, which in turn presupposes an application, a county review and a decision point at which conditions may attach. In a rural county with no prior data-center-specific process, establishing the permitting hook is the precondition for every substantive standard that might follow. THAT IS THE COUNTERPART TO THE CODE-SILENCE DIAGNOSIS recorded at wa-yakima-county-dc-moratorium-6mo-2026, wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026, nc-newport-dc-moratorium-2026, oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026 and ga-forest-park-dc-moratorium-2026 — where a code that names no data center use cannot condition one. Adair County has named it. COMPARE the fiscal instruments recorded elsewhere, which operate at a wholly different scale: oh-dewine-pause-dc-sales-tax-exemption-program-2026, oh-house-bill-prohibit-dc-property-tax-exemptions-2026, nj-quijano-ai-dc-delay-and-commission-bill-2026 and in-ic-6-2-5-15-15-5-data-center-local-revenue-share-2026. A $500 fee is not in that category and should not be read as one. IOWA CLUSTER: ia-waterloo-dc-moratorium-2026, ia-marshalltown-dc-moratorium-2026, ia-lee-county-dc-moratorium-2026, ia-jefferson-county-dc-moratorium-2026, plus Fairfield and Peosta in the queue. NOT ESTABLISHED: what the permit itself requires or authorises the county to review, whether any substantive standards accompany it, the vote, and the exact date.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Adair County, Iowa","who_must_comply":"Companies seeking a permit to construct a data center in Adair County, who must pay the $500 fee","citation":"Adair County, Iowa — $500 data center construction permit fee (2026)","source_url":"https://www.swiowanewssource.com/atlantic/article_3729603c-864b-4e02-881e-df0578eaec95.html","source_title":"Adair County approves data center permit fee — Southwest Iowa News Source (Atlantic, IA)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Adair County Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"ri-hopkinton-emergency-dc-moratorium-60day-2026","title":"Hopkinton, Rhode Island — Council Adopts an EMERGENCY 60-DAY Ban on Data Center Applications, With Members Already Discussing an Extension if the Permanent Zoning Amendment Is Not Ready in Time (2026)","short_title":"Hopkinton RI emergency 60-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Hopkinton, RI","state_abbr":"RI","county":"Washington County","city":"Hopkinton","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","expires_date":"2026-10-31","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Hopkinton's council adopted an EMERGENCY 60-DAY BAN on data center applications, with members ALREADY DISCUSSING AN EXTENSION at the moment of adoption, in case the permanent zoning amendment is not ready before the sixty days run out. Sixty days is the shortest term recorded in this dataset — shorter than California's 45-day interim ordinances only in the sense that those are designed from the outset to be extended twice. What Hopkinton's council did is unusually candid: it adopted the shortest emergency instrument available and said out loud at the same meeting that it would probably need more time. That is the honest version of what most short moratoria are, and it makes explicit the drafting-race dynamic that sits under every pause in this dataset. The emergency designation is doing the real work here, because it is what allows immediate effect rather than the ordinary waiting period — the same mechanism McDonald, Ohio used to close the filing window before a developer could act. Rhode Island now has two indexed measures: Cumberland's outright zoning prohibition, adopted 6-1, and this.","summary_technical":"Hopkinton, R.I. (Washington County) — EMERGENCY 60-DAY BAN ON DATA CENTER APPLICATIONS adopted by the council, 'with members already discussing an extension if the permanent zoning amendment isn't ready before t[he term expires]'. SHORTEST TERM IN THE DATASET. The comparators: ca-gilroy / ca-richmond / ca-marina / ca-arcata / ca-eureka interim urgency ordinances at 45 days (but those are the statutory opening interval of a two-year maximum under Cal. Gov. Code § 65858, designed to be extended); in-steuben-county-dc-moratorium-2026 at six months; ar-independence-county-dc-moratorium-5yr-2026 at five years. TWO FEATURES. (1) THE EMERGENCY DESIGNATION IS THE OPERATIVE MECHANISM: it permits immediate effect rather than the ordinary post-adoption waiting period, closing the window in which an application could be filed and begin to vest. That is the same function served at oh-mcdonald-village-dc-moratorium-2026 (emergency ordinance passed in under five minutes at a special meeting, which in Ohio also forecloses referendum) and sc-clarendon-county-emergency-zoning-loophole-2026. The vested-rights exposure this guards against is documented at inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06, Rockford IL, Cle Elum WA, Salem and Lowell. (2) THE CONTEMPORANEOUS EXTENSION DISCUSSION IS UNUSUALLY CANDID AND ANALYTICALLY USEFUL: the council adopted the shortest available instrument while stating at the same meeting that the permanent zoning amendment might not be ready in time. Most moratoria conceal this drafting race; Hopkinton stated it. Compare the structural solutions adopted elsewhere — ma-greenfield-dc-moratorium-2026 built a 180-day extension INTO the original instrument; co-loveland-dc-moratorium-2026 made its term SELF-TERMINATE on adoption of replacement regulations; mi-genoa-township-dc-crypto-moratorium-extension-2026 capped itself at ONE further extension. RHODE ISLAND CLUSTER: ri-cumberland-dc-zoning-prohibition-ord-26-22-2026 (6-1 outright zoning prohibition, Ordinance 26-22). NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, the exact date, the ordinance number, and the status of the permanent zoning amendment.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Hopkinton, Washington County, Rhode Island","who_must_comply":"Parties seeking to file data center applications in Hopkinton during the 60-day ban","citation":"Hopkinton, R.I. — emergency 60-day ban on data center applications (2026)","source_url":"https://upriseri.com/article/recap-hopkinton-council-adopts-60-day-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Hopkinton council adopts 60-day data center moratorium — Uprise RI","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Hopkinton Town Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"pa-east-hempfield-dc-application-pause-180day-2026","title":"East Hempfield Township, Pennsylvania — Supervisors Pause Data Center Applications for 180 Days by Adopting the SECOND OF TWO Resolutions, Waiting Until New Language Regulates the Issue (2026)","short_title":"East Hempfield Township PA 180-day data center application pause (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"East Hempfield Township, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Lancaster County","city":"East Hempfield Township","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","expires_date":"2027-03-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"East Hempfield Township's supervisors PUSHED PAUSE on data center applications for 180 DAYS, after adopting THE SECOND OF TWO RESOLUTIONS, to wait until new language regulates the issue. The two-resolution structure is the detail worth noticing, and in Pennsylvania it usually means something specific. The Municipalities Planning Code provides a curative amendment procedure under which a municipality may declare its own zoning ordinance substantively invalid and then secure a period — 180 days is the statutory figure — during which it need not entertain a landowner's proposals for the affected use while it cures the defect. A first resolution declaring the defect followed by a second establishing the pause is exactly the shape that procedure takes. This dataset now records four Pennsylvania municipalities using it: Falls Township at the moment of declaration, Montgomery Township through to completed regulations, West Mahanoy Township covering data centers plus solar and on-site generation, and East Hempfield here. The 180-day figure appearing again is what makes the inference plausible — but the source does not name the procedure, and this entry does not assert it.","summary_technical":"East Hempfield Township, Pa. (Lancaster County) — 180-DAY PAUSE ON DATA CENTER APPLICATIONS: 'Supervisors pushed pause on data center applications for 180 days after they adopted THE SECOND OF TWO RESOLUTIONS to wait until new language regulates the issue.' THE TWO-RESOLUTION STRUCTURE AND THE 180-DAY TERM TOGETHER POINT TO THE PENNSYLVANIA MPC CURATIVE AMENDMENT PROCEDURE, and that inference is the analytically substantial content of this entry — BUT IT IS AN INFERENCE AND IS NOT ASSERTED. Under the MPC a municipality may declare its own zoning ordinance substantively invalid as to a use and thereby secure a period during which it need not entertain or consider a landowner's curative amendment or proposals for that use while it cures the defect; 180 DAYS IS THE FIGURE THAT APPEARS IN THE ONE CASE IN THIS DATASET WHERE THE RESOLUTION WAS QUOTED DIRECTLY — pa-west-mahanoy-township-curative-amendment-dc-solar-2026, whose text reads 'The township shall not be required to entertain or consider any landowner's curative amendment or proposals for a data center use or solar farm within 180 days.' A FIRST RESOLUTION DECLARING INVALIDITY FOLLOWED BY A SECOND ESTABLISHING THE PAUSE IS THE SHAPE THAT PROCEDURE TAKES. THE PENNSYLVANIA CURATIVE-AMENDMENT COHORT, now four: pa-falls-township-zoning-curative-amendment-dc-2026 (declaration only, outcome then unknown), pa-montgomery-township-dc-curative-regulations-2026 (the completed cycle — declared invalid in March, adopted curative regulations months later permitting data centers as a conditional use in the Limited Industrial District), pa-west-mahanoy-township-curative-amendment-dc-solar-2026 (extended to solar and on-site power generation), and EAST HEMPFIELD. WHY MUNICIPALITIES USE IT: under the MPC a landowner may bring a substantive validity challenge asserting that an ordinance unlawfully excludes a legitimate use, with site-specific relief available to a successful challenger — so a municipality that concedes the defect first keeps control of the remedy. Solicitor Jim Amato stated the trade plainly at West Mahanoy: 'We can't exclude these types of things from co[ming]… But you can control it.' PENNSYLVANIA CLUSTER ALSO INCLUDES pa-norristown-dc-ordinance-2026, pa-swatara-township-dc-ordinance-2026, pa-ligonier-township-dc-zoning-regulations-2026, pa-lower-mount-bethel-township-dc-ordinance-2026, pa-patton-township-dc-zoning-amendment-2026, pa-gregg-township-dc-moratorium-2026 and pa-dallas-township-dc-ordinance-setback-reduction-2026. NOT ESTABLISHED: WHETHER THE CURATIVE AMENDMENT PROCEDURE WAS IN FACT INVOKED, what the first resolution did, the vote, the exact date, and the resolution numbers.","who_is_protected":"East Hempfield Township residents in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania","who_must_comply":"Parties seeking to file data center applications in East Hempfield Township during the 180-day pause","citation":"East Hempfield Township, Pa. — 180-day pause on data center applications by resolution (2026)","source_url":"https://lancasteronline.com/news/regional/east-hempfield-halts-data-center-applications-as-regulations-drafted/","source_title":"East Hempfield halts data center applications as regulations drafted — LancasterOnline","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"East Hempfield Township Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"wi-oshkosh-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Oshkosh, Wisconsin — Common Council Passes an Ordinance Calling for a Temporary Moratorium on Data Centers (September 2026)","short_title":"Oshkosh WI temporary data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Oshkosh, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Winnebago County","city":"Oshkosh","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-09","enacted_date":"2026-09-09","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"The Oshkosh Common Council PASSED AN ORDINANCE calling for a TEMPORARY MORATORIUM on data centers. Oshkosh is one of the larger Wisconsin cities to act, and it joins a state cluster that has grown quickly: Sauk County adopted an 18-month county-wide pause on a 27-1 vote, Sun Prairie a 12-month pause on large data centers, Milton an 18-month measure, and St. Croix County a unanimous one, with the Village of Tigerton advancing another. The phrasing captured here — an ordinance 'calling for' a moratorium 'to be put in place' — is slightly indirect, and it leaves open whether the council enacted the pause itself or directed that one be prepared. That ambiguity is recorded rather than resolved. One duration note: Wisconsin practice is generally understood as an initial moratorium term of up to twelve months with one six-month extension, and no term at all is reported here.","summary_technical":"Oshkosh, Wis. (Winnebago County) — ORDINANCE passed by the COMMON COUNCIL 'calling for a temporary moratorium on data centers TO BE PUT IN PLACE.' AN AMBIGUITY IS RECORDED RATHER THAN RESOLVED: the phrasing 'calling for … to be put in place' is indirect and leaves open whether the council ENACTED the moratorium or DIRECTED that one be prepared. The headline says the council 'passes temporary moratorium', which favours enactment, and status `effective` follows the headline — but the entry should not be cited as settling the point. WISCONSIN CLUSTER, now substantial: wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (18 months, county board 27-1, pre-emptive), wi-sun-prairie-dc-moratorium-2026 (12 months, large data centers), plus Milton (18-month, with State Sen. Mark Spreitzer addressing the Common Council), St. Croix County (unanimous, with an ongoing lawsuit over a Hammond conditional use permit) and the Village of Tigerton in the queue; the ledger also holds Town of Turtle, Town of Beloit, Town of Rock, Rock County and the City of Janesville as unindexed leads. DURATION: Wisconsin practice is generally understood as an initial term of up to 12 months with one 6-month extension — wi-sauk-county's 18-month single enactment is flagged on that entry as sitting at the outer edge. NO TERM IS REPORTED FOR OSHKOSH AT ALL, so no comparison can be drawn and expires_date is NULL. NOT ESTABLISHED: the term, the vote, the ordinance number, the operative scope, any threshold, and whether the measure is enacted or directed.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Oshkosh, Winnebago County, Wisconsin","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Oshkosh during the moratorium","citation":"Oshkosh, Wis. — Common Council ordinance for a temporary moratorium on data centers (2026)","source_url":"https://www.wbay.com/2026/09/09/oshkosh-common-council-passes-temporary-moratorium-data-centers/","source_title":"Oshkosh Common Council passes temporary moratorium on data centers — WBAY (Green Bay, WI)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Oshkosh Common Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"oh-newton-falls-dc-moratorium-12mo-2026","title":"Newton Falls, Ohio — City Imposes a Yearlong, 12-Month Moratorium on Data Centers (2026)","short_title":"Newton Falls OH 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Newton Falls, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Trumbull County","city":"Newton Falls","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","expires_date":"2027-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Newton Falls passed a 12-MONTH MORATORIUM on data centers. The city sits in Trumbull County, in the Mahoning Valley — the same county as McDonald, where a village council took under five minutes at a special meeting to pass an emergency one-year moratorium the day after a developer met residents in the high school gymnasium. Two measures in one county within weeks of each other is characteristic of how this has spread across Ohio, which is by a distance the most active state in the country: at least 138 Ohio municipalities and townships had active data center moratoriums as of September 17, 2026, 23 communities had effectively banned data centers, and at least 23 more across seven counties were considering it. This dataset indexes only a handful of those, and that gap is recorded rather than glossed over.","summary_technical":"Newton Falls, Ohio (Trumbull County, Mahoning Valley) — 12-MONTH MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTERS. TRUMBULL COUNTY PAIRING: oh-mcdonald-village-dc-moratorium-2026 records a village in the same county adopting a one-year moratorium by EMERGENCY ordinance in under five minutes at a special meeting, the day after the developer met residents in the high school gymnasium — two measures in one county within weeks. OHIO IS THE MOST ACTIVE STATE RECORDED: at least 138 municipalities and townships with active data center moratoriums as of 2026-09-17, 23 communities with effective bans, and at least 23 more across seven counties considering similar proposals, with the true count likely higher because many villages and small townships publish neither ordinances nor minutes online. THIS DATASET INDEXES ROUGHLY TEN OHIO LOCAL MEASURES AGAINST AT LEAST 138 — oh-lima-dc-moratorium-2026, oh-canton-dc-zoning-chapter-2026, oh-twinsburg-dc-moratorium-2026, oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026, oh-columbus-dc-regulations-proposed-2026, jackson-township-oh-dc-moratorium-2026, oh-mcdonald-village-dc-moratorium-2026, oh-pioneer-village-dc-moratorium-2026, oh-green-township-all-development-moratorium-2026, oh-athens-county-anti-dc-resolution-2026 and this — and that shortfall is a stated coverage limitation, not an implicit one. STATE-LEVEL OHIO MEASURES: oh-puco-data-center-energy-service-tariff-2025 (85% minimum take for up to 12 years), oh-dewine-pause-dc-sales-tax-exemption-program-2026, oh-house-bill-prohibit-dc-property-tax-exemptions-2026. NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, the exact date, the ordinance number, the operative scope, and any threshold.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Newton Falls, Trumbull County, Ohio","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Newton Falls during the 12-month moratorium","citation":"Newton Falls, Ohio — 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","source_url":"https://www.wfmj.com/news/local-news/newton-falls-imposes-yearlong-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Newton Falls imposes yearlong moratorium on data centers — WFMJ (Youngstown, OH)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Newton Falls City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"al-tarrant-dc-moratorium-12mo-2026","title":"Tarrant, Alabama — City Officials Approve a 12-Month Moratorium on Data Centers, the Mayor Saying the Decision Was Made OUT OF CAUTION as the City Prepares for Potential Development (2026)","short_title":"Tarrant AL 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Tarrant, AL","state_abbr":"AL","county":"Jefferson County","city":"Tarrant","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","expires_date":"2027-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Tarrant's city officials approved a 12-MONTH MORATORIUM on data centers, with MAYOR TRACIE THREADFORD saying the decision was made OUT OF CAUTION as the city prepares for potential development. That framing — caution in advance of anything arriving — is the pre-emptive posture this dataset repeatedly identifies as the strongest ground a moratorium can stand on. A pause adopted while an application is pending invites a vested-rights fight, and the record here contains several that were lost exactly that way, most starkly Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota, where a developer's suit forced the city to amend its ordinance to let the project through. A city with nothing pending faces no equivalent exposure. Alabama has a growing cluster: Foley approved a six-month pause, Chelsea a one-year measure in July, and Brookwood took the opposite course, approving annexation and rezoning for a proposed data center near a middle school.","summary_technical":"Tarrant, Ala. (Jefferson County) — 12-MONTH MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTERS approved by city officials, with MAYOR TRACIE THREADFORD stating the decision 'was made out of caution as the city prepares for potential f[uture development]'. THE PRE-EMPTIVE POSTURE IS THE ANALYTICALLY IMPORTANT FEATURE. Adopting a pause before any application exists forecloses the vested-rights exposure that has defeated moratoria elsewhere in this dataset: inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06 (a filed application became a $150M damages demand and the city amended its ordinance rather than litigate, against a $1M insurance cap), plus the Rockford IL annexation agreement, the Cle Elum WA 2002 development agreement, the Salem pre-filed application, the Lowell settlement and the Athens site outside city limits. The same posture is expressly recorded at wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026 ('not aware of any projects currently planned'), ca-marina-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026 ('not prompted by any current applications'), or-woodburn-dc-moratorium-2026 (a named prospective developer but no filed application) and id-latah-county-dc-regulations-2026 (substantive standards adopted with nothing proposed). ALABAMA CLUSTER: al-foley-dc-moratorium-6mo-2026 and al-chelsea-dc-moratorium-1yr-2026 (both this wave); on the enabling side, Brookwood's city council approved annexation and rezoning for a proposed data center near Brookwood Middle School, dispositioned in the triage ledger as an enabling action. NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, the exact date, the ordinance number, the operative scope, and any threshold. The quoted rationale is truncated at 'potential f'.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Tarrant, Jefferson County, Alabama","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Tarrant during the 12-month moratorium","citation":"Tarrant, Ala. — 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","source_url":"https://abc3340.com/news/local/alabama-tarrant-approves-12-month-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Tarrant approves 12-month moratorium on data centers — ABC 33/40 (Birmingham, AL)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Tarrant City Council; Mayor Tracie Threadford","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"ca-riverbank-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026","title":"Riverbank, California — City Council Approves a 45-Day Moratorium on Data Centers to Evaluate Their Impacts and Ensure Proper Policies Are in Place (2026)","short_title":"Riverbank CA 45-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Riverbank, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Stanislaus County","city":"Riverbank","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","expires_date":"2026-10-16","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"The Riverbank City Council approved a 45-DAY MORATORIUM on data centers, to evaluate their impacts and ensure proper policies are in place. Forty-five days is not an arbitrary figure. California Government Code section 65858 lets a city adopt an interim urgency ordinance freezing land uses for 45 days by a four-fifths vote, then extend it once by ten months and fifteen days and once more by a year — two years in total. Every California pause in this dataset opens at exactly 45 days for that reason, and the meaningful question for all of them is not the initial term but whether the council returns to extend. Riverbank is now the sixth California city recorded here on that pattern, after Gilroy, Richmond, Eureka, Marina and Arcata, most of them within a two-week span. Riverbank sits in Stanislaus County, where a candidate fact-check on data center positions was separately noted in the Ceres city council race.","summary_technical":"Riverbank, Calif. (Stanislaus County) — 45-DAY MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTERS approved by the City Council 'to evaluate their impacts and ensure proper policies are in place'. THE 45-DAY TERM IDENTIFIES THE INSTRUMENT: Cal. Gov. Code § 65858 authorises an interim urgency ordinance prohibiting uses in conflict with a contemplated zoning proposal, adopted by FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE, effective 45 DAYS, extendable once by 10 MONTHS 15 DAYS and once more by 1 YEAR, two years aggregate, with each extension requiring notice, hearing and a written report on measures taken to alleviate the condition. THE CALIFORNIA § 65858 COHORT IS NOW SIX and is the densest state pattern in this dataset: ca-gilroy-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026 (2026-09-14, unanimous), ca-richmond-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026 (2026-09-15), ca-marina-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026 (2026-09-15, unanimous, expressly not prompted by any application), ca-arcata-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026 (2026-09-16, 5-0, barring RECEIVING as well as processing and approving), ca-eureka-dc-interim-moratorium-and-20k-cap-direction-2026 (~2026-09-02, plus direction for a 20,000 sq ft cap), and RIVERBANK — alongside the earlier ca-palm-springs-dc-moratorium-2026 and ca-commerce-dc-urgency-moratorium-2026. THE OPERATIVE QUESTION FOR ALL OF THEM IS IDENTICAL: a § 65858 ordinance expires in 45 days unless extended, so the meaningful test is which councils return. NONE OF THESE ENTRIES SHOULD BE READ AS A DURABLE RESTRICTION WITHOUT CONFIRMING AN EXTENSION. CALIFORNIA ALSO HAS THE PROHIBITION COHORT — ca-irwindale-dc-ban-2026, monterey-park-ca-dc-ban-measure-ndc-2026 (voter-approved), ca-poway-ai-dc-ban-2026 (first reading), ca-los-angeles-county-dc-prohibition-unincorporated-2026 — several of which began as 45-day pauses. NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote (a four-fifths majority is required for § 65858 but the tally is not reported), the exact date, the ordinance number, the operative scope, and whether the § 65858 findings were made.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Riverbank, Stanislaus County, California","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Riverbank during the 45-day moratorium","citation":"Riverbank, Cal. — 45-day interim moratorium on data centers (2026)","source_url":"https://www.kcra.com/article/riverbank-approves-45-day-moratorium-data-centers/73659564","source_title":"Riverbank approves 45-day moratorium on data centers — KCRA (Sacramento, CA)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Riverbank City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"tn-dickson-county-dc-moratorium-6mo-2026","title":"Dickson County, Tennessee — County Commission Approves a Six-Month Moratorium on Data Centers at Its Regular Meeting (2026)","short_title":"Dickson County TN six-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Dickson County, TN","state_abbr":"TN","county":"Dickson County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","expires_date":"2027-03-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Dickson County's commission approved a SIX-MONTH MORATORIUM on data centers at its regular meeting on a Monday night. The reporting frames it as the county joining others — 'the same is now true for Dickson County' — which is how most of these measures are now arriving: not as isolated local decisions but as one jurisdiction following another in the same media market. Tennessee has become a significant part of this picture. Gallatin, home to a Meta campus, adopted an application pause and is weighing a further moratorium. Smithville gave final approval to an 18-month measure now in effect. Memphis, where xAI's Colossus facility prompted a moratorium proposal, has repeatedly delayed voting, most recently to October 6. And at state level Tennessee has a ratepayer protection bill indexed. Six months is at the short end of the range recorded here, which implies a tight drafting timetable and makes an extension request more likely than not.","summary_technical":"Dickson County, Tenn. — SIX-MONTH MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTERS approved by the COUNTY COMMISSION at its regular meeting on a Monday night. THE FRAMING IS DIFFUSION: 'The same is now true for Dickson County after the county commission approved a six-month moratorium…' — the reporting positions the measure as one jurisdiction following others, which is the propagation dynamic stated from the inside at ri-cumberland-dc-zoning-prohibition-ord-26-22-2026, where the sponsor said the idea came from watching a neighbouring Rhode Island town face an application and then finding that most state bills sat in committee. DURATION: six months is at the SHORT end of the indexed range (cf. in-steuben-county-dc-moratorium-2026 six months; ne-gage-county twelve; wi-sauk-county eighteen; il-lawrence-county twenty-four; ar-independence-county sixty), implying a compressed drafting timetable and a materially elevated probability of an extension request. TENNESSEE CLUSTER: tn-gallatin-dc-application-pause-2026 (Gallatin hosts a Meta campus and is weighing a further moratorium), tn-smithville-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026 (final approval, in effect), tn-hb1847-data-center-ratepayer-protection-2026, tn-hamilton-county-proposed-one-year-moratorium-on-data-centers-in-unincor-2026; Memphis, where xAI's Colossus facility prompted a moratorium proposal repeatedly delayed, most recently to 2026-10-06 (deferred); and a Nashville Metro Council drone-restriction measure in the queue. THE CAPTURED SENTENCE IS TRUNCATED at 'with 11th Distr[ict…]', so the commissioner named and the vote are unknown. NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, the exact date, the resolution number, the operative scope, and any threshold.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Dickson County, Tennessee","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Dickson County during the six-month moratorium","citation":"Dickson County, Tenn. — six-month data center moratorium (2026)","source_url":"https://mainstreetmediatn.com/articles/dicksonpost/dickson-county-commission-votes-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Dickson County Commission votes on data centers — Dickson Post / Main Street Media of Tennessee","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Dickson County Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"al-foley-dc-moratorium-6mo-2026","title":"Foley, Alabama — City Council Approves a Six-Month Temporary Moratorium on Applications for Data Centers to Give Staff Time to Study How Such Facilities Could Affect the Community (September 2026)","short_title":"Foley AL six-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Foley, AL","state_abbr":"AL","county":"Baldwin County","city":"Foley","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-09","enacted_date":"2026-09-09","expires_date":"2027-03-09","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"The Foley City Council approved a SIX-MONTH temporary moratorium on APPLICATIONS for data centers, to give staff time to study how such facilities could affect the community. The scope is worth noting: the pause reaches APPLICATIONS, which is the point at which a project first engages the city's process and, in most states, the point after which a developer begins accruing rights that can defeat a later restriction. This dataset records several moratoria that failed because they arrived after an application was already on file. Foley sits in Baldwin County on the Alabama Gulf Coast, and it joins a small but growing Alabama cluster — Tarrant adopted a 12-month pause citing caution ahead of any development, and Chelsea a one-year measure in July. Brookwood went the other way, approving annexation and rezoning for a proposed data center near a middle school. Six months is at the short end of the range in this dataset, which implies a compressed drafting timetable.","summary_technical":"Foley, Ala. (Baldwin County) — SIX-MONTH TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON APPLICATIONS for data centers approved by the City Council, the Council having 'approved the measure to give staff time to study how such facilities could affect the community.' SCOPE REACHES APPLICATIONS, which is the operative protection: an application that cannot be filed cannot ripen into a vested interest, the failure mode recorded at inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06 (a filed application became a $150M damages demand), Rockford IL, Cle Elum WA, Salem, Lowell and Athens. DURATION: six months is at the short end (cf. in-steuben-county-dc-moratorium-2026, tn-dickson-county-dc-moratorium-6mo-2026, wa-yakima-county-dc-moratorium-6mo-2026 at six; ar-independence-county-dc-moratorium-5yr-2026 at sixty), implying a tight drafting timetable and an elevated chance of an extension request. ALABAMA CLUSTER: al-tarrant-dc-moratorium-12mo-2026 (12 months, mayor citing caution ahead of any development) and al-chelsea-dc-moratorium-1yr-2026 (one year, 2026-07-21); on the enabling side, Brookwood's council approved annexation and rezoning for a proposed data center near Brookwood Middle School, dispositioned in the triage ledger as an enabling action. NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, the exact date, the ordinance number, and any threshold.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Foley, AL","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Foley during the moratorium","citation":"Foley, Ala. — six-month temporary moratorium on data center applications (2026)","source_url":"https://www.fox10tv.com/2026/09/09/foley-approves-6-month-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Foley approves 6-month data center moratorium — FOX 10 / WALA (Mobile, AL)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Foley City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"al-chelsea-dc-moratorium-1yr-2026","title":"Chelsea, Alabama — City Passes a One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers on July 21, 2026, Recorded Via Reporting on a Neighbouring Council That POSTPONED Its Own (2026)","short_title":"Chelsea AL one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chelsea, AL","state_abbr":"AL","county":"Shelby County","city":"Chelsea","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-21","enacted_date":"2026-07-21","expires_date":"2027-07-21","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Chelsea passed a ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM on data centers on JULY 21, 2026. This entry is unusual in how it was captured: the fact comes not from coverage of Chelsea's own vote but from reporting on a NEIGHBOURING council — Westover — that POSTPONED its own data center moratorium, with Chelsea cited as the comparison. That is a useful reminder about how this dataset is built. Measures frequently surface in coverage of some other jurisdiction's decision, and a municipality that gets no dedicated story can be entirely invisible to a sweep keyed on headlines. It is also a small illustration of the diffusion pattern: councils in adjacent towns watch each other, and reporters cover them in relation to each other. Chelsea is in Shelby County, in the Birmingham metropolitan area, and joins Tarrant and Foley among the Alabama measures recorded here. The exact date is one of the few firm facts available, since the neighbouring-council report gave it precisely.","summary_technical":"Chelsea, Ala. (Shelby County, Birmingham metro) — ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTERS passed 2026-07-21. PROVENANCE IS THE NOTABLE FEATURE AND IS RECORDED DELIBERATELY: the measure was captured not from coverage of Chelsea's own vote but from a report on the WESTOVER council POSTPONING its data center moratorium, in which Chelsea was cited as the neighbouring comparison — 'The neighbouring city of Chelsea passed a one-year moratorium on data centers on July 21.' THIS IS A METHODOLOGICAL POINT WITH DATASET-WIDE IMPLICATIONS: a sweep keyed on headlines will miss any municipality whose measure received no dedicated story, and such measures surface only incidentally in coverage of some other jurisdiction. The Ohio finding quantifies the same problem from the other end — at least 138 Ohio municipalities and townships hold active data center moratoriums while this dataset indexes roughly ten, with the compiling outlet noting that many villages and small townships publish neither ordinances nor minutes online. INCIDENTAL CAPTURE IS THEREFORE A PARTIAL CORRECTIVE, AND ITS YIELD HERE WAS AN EXACT DATE, which most rows in this queue lack. ALABAMA CLUSTER: al-tarrant-dc-moratorium-12mo-2026, al-foley-dc-moratorium-6mo-2026; Westover POSTPONED its own measure (a negative, recorded in the ledger); Brookwood approved annexation and rezoning for a proposed data center near a middle school (enabling). NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, the adopting body's precise identity (`_body_type` city-council is an inference), the ordinance number, the operative scope, and any threshold.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Chelsea, AL","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Chelsea during the moratorium","citation":"Chelsea, Ala. — one-year moratorium on data centers, passed July 21, 2026","source_url":"https://www.shelbycountyreporter.com/news/westover-council-postpones-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Westover council postpones data center moratorium — Shelby County Reporter","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Chelsea City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"oh-ashland-county-health-ai-governance-policy-2026","title":"Ashland County, Ohio — Board of Health UNANIMOUSLY Approves an AI Governance Policy for the County Health Department, One of the Few Public-Health Agencies in This Dataset to Adopt One (August 2026)","short_title":"Ashland County OH health department AI governance policy (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Ashland County, OH","state_abbr":"OH","county":"Ashland County","topics":["public-sector","transparency","privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-21","enacted_date":"2026-08-21","last_verified_date":"2026-09-22","summary_plain":"The Ashland County Board of Health UNANIMOUSLY approved a new AI GOVERNANCE POLICY for the county health department. Most AI-governance policies in this dataset come from school districts, city governments or state agencies; a COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH adopting one is unusual and worth recording separately, because the data a local health department holds is among the most sensitive any small public body handles — communicable disease reporting, vital records, inspections, immunisation registries, and in many counties direct clinical services. An AI tool introduced into that environment touches protected health information by default rather than by exception. What the policy actually requires is not established here, which is the entry's principal limitation. Ohio is the most active state in this dataset on data centers, but this is a different kind of measure entirely and should not be read as part of that cluster.","summary_technical":"Ashland County, Ohio — AI GOVERNANCE POLICY for the county health department, approved UNANIMOUSLY by the BOARD OF HEALTH on a Tuesday, reported 2026-08-21. THE ADOPTING BODY IS THE NOTABLE FEATURE. The AI-governance policies indexed in this dataset are overwhelmingly from SCHOOL DISTRICTS (fl-brevard-schools-ai-policy-2026, wcpss-nc-ai-2025, cleveland-metro-schools-ai-2025, fl-wakulla-county-schools-ai-policy-2026 and many others), MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS (salem-or-genai-policy-2024, kansas-city-mo-genai-policy-2024, tulsa-genai-policy-2024, boston-generative-ai-interim-guidelines, columbus-oh-ai-2025) or STATE AGENCIES. A COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH IS A DISTINCT CATEGORY AND A THINLY COVERED ONE. WHY IT MATTERS DISPROPORTIONATELY FOR ITS SIZE: a local health department's records are among the most sensitive held by any small public body — communicable disease investigation and reporting, vital records, food service and septic inspections, immunisation registries, WIC and, in many Ohio counties, direct clinical services. AN AI TOOL DEPLOYED IN THAT SETTING TOUCHES PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION AS A MATTER OF COURSE, not as an edge case, which raises HIPAA, Ohio public records and state health-data confidentiality questions that a general municipal AI policy would not reach. WHETHER THIS POLICY ADDRESSES ANY OF THAT IS ENTIRELY UNESTABLISHED. THE POLICY'S CONTENTS ARE NOT REPORTED — no approved-tool list, no PHI restriction, no human-review requirement, no procurement gate, no disclosure duty. `strength: limited` on that basis. THIS IS NOT A DATA CENTER MEASURE and should not be read as part of the Ohio data center cluster.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Ashland County, Ohio whose health department records and interactions may involve AI tools","who_must_comply":"Ashland County Health Department staff using AI tools","citation":"Ashland County, Ohio — Board of Health AI governance policy (2026)","source_url":"https://www.ashlandsource.com/2026/08/21/ashland-county-health-department-adopts-ai-governance-policy/","source_title":"Ashland County Health Department adopts AI governance policy — Ashland Source","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Ashland County Board of Health","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"md-ocean-city-first-ai-policy-2026","title":"Ocean City, Maryland — Town Adopts Its FIRST AI Policy, Setting Rules for Town Workers Covering Sensitive Data, Approved Tools and — Unusually — WEARABLE DEVICES (August 2026)","short_title":"Ocean City MD first municipal AI policy (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Ocean City, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Worcester County","city":"Ocean City","topics":["public-sector","transparency","privacy","automated-decisions","biometrics"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-26","enacted_date":"2026-08-26","last_verified_date":"2026-09-22","summary_plain":"Ocean City adopted its FIRST AI POLICY, setting rules for TOWN WORKERS covering SENSITIVE DATA, APPROVED TOOLS and WEARABLE DEVICES as the technology spreads. The wearable-devices provision is the one worth noting, because it is rare. Most municipal AI policies in this dataset govern software — which generative tools staff may use, what may be pasted into them, whether output must be reviewed by a human. Extending the policy to WEARABLES reaches hardware that records continuously and often without the awareness of the people being recorded: smart glasses, body-worn recorders, AI pins and the like. For a beach resort town whose employees include lifeguards, police, inspectors and public works crews operating constantly among the public, that is a live question rather than a theoretical one. The approved-tools element is the other standard protection: restricting staff to a vetted list is what prevents sensitive municipal data being pasted into whatever consumer chatbot an employee happens to prefer. The policy's actual requirements are not established here.","summary_technical":"Ocean City, Md. (Worcester County) — FIRST MUNICIPAL AI POLICY, 'setting rules for town workers, SENSITIVE DATA, APPROVED TOOLS and WEARABLE DEVICES as the technology spreads.' THREE COMPONENTS, of which two are standard and one is not. STANDARD: (1) SENSITIVE DATA handling — the core control in municipal AI policy, preventing staff pasting confidential, personnel, law-enforcement or resident data into third-party models where it may be retained or used for training; (2) APPROVED TOOLS — a vetted list, which is the procurement-side control that stops shadow adoption of consumer chatbots. Both appear across the indexed municipal cohort (salem-or-genai-policy-2024, kansas-city-mo-genai-policy-2024, tulsa-genai-policy-2024, boston-generative-ai-interim-guidelines, columbus-oh-ai-2025, columbus-oh-smart-city-ai-policy-2024). UNUSUAL: (3) WEARABLE DEVICES. Municipal AI policies overwhelmingly govern SOFTWARE; extending to WEARABLES reaches HARDWARE THAT CAPTURES CONTINUOUSLY AND OFTEN WITHOUT THE AWARENESS OF THOSE RECORDED — smart glasses, AI pins, body-worn recorders with on-device inference. FOR A RESORT MUNICIPALITY WHOSE WORKFORCE INCLUDES LIFEGUARDS, POLICE, INSPECTORS AND PUBLIC WORKS CREWS OPERATING CONTINUOUSLY AMONG THE PUBLIC, that is a practical rather than hypothetical concern, and it sits adjacent to the surveillance-technology material indexed here (ma-city-council-boston-ma-ordinance-on-surveillance-oversight-and-information-sha-2021, fl-sanibel-alpr-data-sharing-ban-and-search-limits-2026). NO REQUIREMENT IS ACTUALLY REPORTED — the source names the policy's subject areas but not its rules, so `strength` is limited and no provision may be cited. MARYLAND CONTEXT: this is an AI-governance measure and is NOT part of the state's data center cluster (md-hurlock-dc-moratorium-3yr-2026, pgc-md-dc-2yr-moratorium-2026, Cambridge, Federalsburg, Easton).","who_is_protected":"Ocean City residents and visitors whose data may be processed by town workers' AI tools or captured by wearable devices","who_must_comply":"Town of Ocean City employees using AI tools or wearable devices","citation":"Ocean City, Md. — first municipal AI policy governing town workers, sensitive data, approved tools and wearable devices (2026)","source_url":"https://www.baltimoresun.com/2026/08/26/ocean-city-ai-policy-town-employees/","source_title":"Ocean City adopts first AI policy for town employees — The Baltimore Sun","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Ocean City","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"md-talbot-county-boe-ai-policy-2026","title":"Talbot County, Maryland — Board of Education Passes a Policy Regulating Artificial Intelligence Usage DISTRICTWIDE (2026)","short_title":"Talbot County MD school board AI policy (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Talbot County Public Schools, MD","state_abbr":"MD","county":"Talbot County","city":"Easton","topics":["education","children","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"The Talbot County Board of Education passed a policy REGULATING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USAGE DISTRICTWIDE. District-level AI policies are the largest single category of AI governance in this dataset, and they matter because they are where most American children will first encounter rules about AI use at all. The districtwide framing is the operative detail: a policy that binds every school in the district is a different thing from guidance individual principals may adopt or ignore. What the policy requires is not established here. That gap is worth naming against what Florida did at the state level in the same period — the Florida State Board of Education adopted rules requiring every district to develop local AI policies AND requiring PARENTAL PERMISSION before a child directly interacts with an approved AI instructional tool. A consent gate of that kind is the strongest provision recorded in any education AI measure here, and whether Talbot County's policy contains anything comparable is unknown.","summary_technical":"Talbot County, Md. (Easton) — DISTRICTWIDE AI POLICY passed by the BOARD OF EDUCATION. 'DISTRICTWIDE' IS THE OPERATIVE QUALIFIER: a board-adopted policy binding every school differs materially from school-level guidance, which is discretionary and unevenly applied. THE POLICY'S CONTENTS ARE NOT REPORTED — no permitted-use rule, academic-integrity provision, data-handling restriction, parental-notification or consent requirement, teacher-training obligation or approved-tool list is known. `strength: limited` and no provision may be cited. THE BENCHMARK TO MEASURE IT AGAINST, ADOPTED IN THE SAME PERIOD: fl-state-board-of-education-ai-rules-k12-and-colleges-2026 records the Florida State Board of Education unanimously adopting rules requiring EVERY DISTRICT to develop local policies on which AI tools may be used and how, requiring PARENTAL NOTIFICATION when AI instructional tools are approved, and requiring PARENTAL PERMISSION BEFORE A CHILD DIRECTLY INTERACTS WITH THEM. THAT OPT-IN CONSENT GATE IS THE STRONGEST PROVISION IN ANY EDUCATION AI MEASURE INDEXED HERE, and materially exceeds the notice-and-guidance posture typical of district policies. WHETHER TALBOT COUNTY'S POLICY CONTAINS ANYTHING COMPARABLE IS UNKNOWN. DISTRICT COHORT: fl-brevard-schools-ai-policy-2026, fl-wakulla-county-schools-ai-policy-2026, wcpss-nc-ai-2025, cleveland-metro-schools-ai-2025, oakland-usd-ca-ai-2025, fl-school-district-hillsborough-county-public-schools-fl-board-policy-2130-emerging-techno, fl-school-district-broward-county-public-schools-..., fl-school-district-miami-dade-county-public-schools-..., plus Tucson Unified and Cadillac Area Public Schools in this wave. MARYLAND NOTE: Talbot County is the same county whose seat, Easton, is deferred elsewhere in this dataset as 'to draft' a one-year data center moratorium — an unrelated matter before a different body.","who_is_protected":"Students, parents and staff of Talbot County Public Schools, Maryland","who_must_comply":"Talbot County Public Schools staff and students using artificial intelligence","citation":"Talbot County, Md. — Board of Education districtwide artificial intelligence policy (2026)","source_url":"https://www.stardem.com/news/local_news/talbot-county-school-board-passes-ai-policy/","source_title":"Talbot County school board passes AI policy — The Star Democrat (Easton, MD)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Talbot County Board of Education","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"az-tucson-unified-ai-policy-revisions-2026","title":"Tucson Unified School District, Arizona — Governing Board Approves THREE REVISIONS to Its Existing AI Use in Education Policy, One of the Few Districts Here Shown Amending Rather Than First Adopting (2026)","short_title":"Tucson Unified AI Use in Education Policy revisions (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Tucson Unified School District, AZ","state_abbr":"AZ","county":"Pima County","city":"Tucson","topics":["education","children","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Tucson Unified School District's board approved THREE REVISIONS to its AI USE IN EDUCATION POLICY. This is one of the few entries in this dataset that records a district AMENDING an AI policy rather than adopting one for the first time, and that is the reason to keep it. Almost every education AI measure here captures a first adoption, which means the dataset is good at showing where policies exist and poor at showing how they change once contact with classrooms begins. Revisions are where the real learning shows up — an approved-tool list that proved unworkable, an academic-integrity rule that produced unfair outcomes, a consent process teachers could not administer. What the three revisions actually change is not established here, which is unfortunate precisely because that is the interesting part. Arizona has a notable gap in this area: reporting elsewhere in this sweep described a policy vacuum leaving Arizona schools and districts to make their own technology and AI rules, which makes a large district like TUSD iterating on its own policy more significant than it would be in a state with a framework.","summary_technical":"Tucson Unified School District, Ariz. (Pima County) — THREE REVISIONS to the district's existing AI USE IN EDUCATION POLICY approved by the Governing Board at a Tuesday night meeting. THE SIGNIFICANCE IS THAT THIS IS AN AMENDMENT, NOT AN ADOPTION. The education AI cohort in this dataset overwhelmingly records FIRST adoptions — fl-brevard-schools-ai-policy-2026, fl-wakulla-county-schools-ai-policy-2026, wcpss-nc-ai-2025, cleveland-metro-schools-ai-2025, oakland-usd-ca-ai-2025, md-talbot-county-boe-ai-policy-2026 (this wave), and the Florida district policies. A DATASET OF FIRST ADOPTIONS SHOWS WHERE POLICIES EXIST AND NOT HOW THEY PERFORM. Revisions are where implementation experience surfaces: approved-tool lists that proved unadministrable, academic-integrity provisions producing contested outcomes, consent workflows teachers could not run, detection tools that failed. THE CONTENT OF THE THREE REVISIONS IS NOT REPORTED, which is the entry's central limitation — the amendment is recorded, its substance is not, and no provision may be cited. ARIZONA CONTEXT: reporting dispositioned elsewhere in this sweep describes a POLICY VACUUM leaving Arizona schools and districts to make their own technology and AI rules, with no state framework. In that setting a large district iterating on its own policy carries more weight than it would where a state rule governs — contrast fl-state-board-of-education-ai-rules-k12-and-colleges-2026, which requires every Florida district to adopt local policies and imposes a parental-permission gate from the state level. TUSD is among Arizona's largest districts. `strength: limited` given the unknown content.","who_is_protected":"Students, parents and staff of Tucson Unified School District, Arizona","who_must_comply":"TUSD staff and students using artificial intelligence under the revised policy","citation":"Tucson Unified School District, Ariz. — three revisions to the AI Use in Education Policy (2026)","source_url":"https://www.kgun9.com/news/community-inspired-journalism/midtown-news/tusd-board-approves-revisions-to-ai-policy","source_title":"TUSD board approves revisions to AI policy — KGUN 9 (Tucson, AZ)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Tucson Unified School District Governing Board","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"pa-allentown-dc-zoning-amendment-2026","title":"Allentown, Pennsylvania — City Council Votes UNANIMOUSLY to AMEND the Data Center Zoning Regulations It Adopted Only the Previous Month (2026)","short_title":"Allentown PA data center zoning amendment (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Allentown, PA","state_abbr":"PA","county":"Lehigh County","city":"Allentown","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Allentown City Council voted UNANIMOUSLY to AMEND the data center zoning regulations THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE LAST MONTH. A city amending its own data center rules within roughly thirty days of adopting them is worth recording for what it suggests about how fast this area is moving. Ordinances are normally left to operate for a while before anyone revisits them; a one-month turnaround usually means either that a defect surfaced immediately — an ambiguity, an unintended exemption, a standard that could not be administered — or that circumstances changed, most often because a specific application arrived and exposed a gap. Which of those happened in Allentown is not established, and the direction of the amendment is also unknown: it may have strengthened the regulations or weakened them. This dataset records both kinds, and Dallas Township, Pennsylvania is the cautionary comparison — that township passed an ordinance in March and has tweaked it several times since, with the amendment recorded here REDUCING a setback. Allentown is the third-largest city in Pennsylvania and sits in the Lehigh Valley, where Lower Mount Bethel Township adopted its own ordinance days before a hyperscale rezoning request.","summary_technical":"Allentown, Pa. (Lehigh County) — UNANIMOUS AMENDMENT of the city's data center zoning regulations, 'that were put in place LAST MONTH', adopted by City Council on a Wednesday night. THE ~30-DAY TURNAROUND IS THE FEATURE. Zoning amendments normally follow a period of operation; amending within a month generally indicates either (a) a DEFECT DISCOVERED IMMEDIATELY — ambiguity, an unintended exemption, or a standard that proved unadministrable — or (b) CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, most commonly a specific application exposing a gap. THE SOURCE ESTABLISHES NEITHER, AND CRITICALLY DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE DIRECTION OF THE AMENDMENT: whether it strengthened or weakened the regulations is unknown, and this entry does not assume. `strength: moderate` is provisional for that reason and could be wrong in either direction. THE DATASET RECORDS BOTH DIRECTIONS AND SHOULD NOT BE READ AS ASSUMING AMENDMENTS STRENGTHEN: pa-dallas-township-dc-ordinance-setback-reduction-2026 records a township that passed a zoning ordinance in March, 'tweaked [it] several times' since, and in the amendment indexed there REDUCED A SETBACK — a narrowing. THE UNDERLYING ALLENTOWN REGULATIONS ADOPTED THE PREVIOUS MONTH ARE NOT SEPARATELY INDEXED, so this entry records an amendment to a measure the dataset does not hold, which limits what can be said about net effect. LEHIGH VALLEY / PENNSYLVANIA CLUSTER: pa-lower-mount-bethel-township-dc-ordinance-2026 (Northampton County, adopted days ahead of a hyperscale farmland rezoning request, the supervisor saying 'If they put a plan in tomorrow, we have nothing'), pa-norristown-dc-ordinance-2026, pa-swatara-township-dc-ordinance-2026, pa-ligonier-township-dc-zoning-regulations-2026, pa-patton-township-dc-zoning-amendment-2026, pa-gregg-township-dc-moratorium-2026, pa-east-hempfield-dc-application-pause-180day-2026, pa-west-mahanoy-township-curative-amendment-dc-solar-2026, pa-montgomery-township-dc-curative-regulations-2026, pa-falls-township-zoning-curative-amendment-dc-2026. Allentown is Pennsylvania's third-largest city.","who_is_protected":"Allentown residents in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Allentown subject to the amended zoning regulations","citation":"Allentown, Pa. — unanimous amendment to the city's data center zoning regulations (2026)","source_url":"https://www.wfmz.com/news/area/lehighvalley/lehigh-county/allentown-area/allentown-city-council-amends-data-center-zoning/","source_title":"Allentown City Council amends data center zoning regulations — WFMZ (Allentown, PA)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Allentown City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"nc-mcdowell-county-dc-moratorium-6mo-2026","title":"McDowell County, North Carolina — Commissioners UNANIMOUSLY Approve a Six-Month Data Center Moratorium (August 2026)","short_title":"McDowell County NC six-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"McDowell County, NC","state_abbr":"NC","county":"McDowell County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-01","enacted_date":"2026-08-01","expires_date":"2027-02-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"McDowell County's commissioners UNANIMOUSLY approved a SIX-MONTH data center moratorium in August 2026. McDowell sits in western North Carolina, and it is one of a substantial and growing set of North Carolina jurisdictions to act — Cary adopted an 18-month moratorium, Newport a pause covering both the town and its extraterritorial jurisdiction, Statesville a 180-day pause, and Jackson, Yadkin, Nash and Randolph counties have each adopted moratoriums or restrictions. Raleigh, the state's largest city without one, directed its city attorney to draft a six-month measure for a possible October vote. Six months is at the short end of the range recorded here. One provision of North Carolina law bears noting on every state entry: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160D-107 governs development moratoria and requires, for any moratorium longer than sixty days affecting development for which no valid building permit has issued, a hearing and written findings that state a DEFINITE DURATION and identify the specific problems justifying it. A six-month term satisfies the definite-duration element on its face.","summary_technical":"McDowell County, N.C. (western North Carolina) — SIX-MONTH DATA CENTER MORATORIUM approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Board of Commissioners in August 2026. DURATION: six months is at the short end of the indexed range and, unlike several measures in this queue, it IS a definite term — which matters in North Carolina. N.C. GEN. STAT. § 160D-107 governs development moratoria and requires, for any moratorium exceeding 60 DAYS on development for which no valid building permit has issued, a public hearing and WRITTEN FINDINGS stating a DEFINITE DURATION and the specific problems justifying the measure. A stated six-month term satisfies the definite-duration element on its face; WHETHER THE REQUIRED FINDINGS WERE ADOPTED IS NOT REPORTED. Contrast nc-nash-county-dc-moratorium-2026 in this wave, where NO duration is reported at all, and nc-newport-dc-moratorium-2026, where the term is expressed as a FLOOR ('at least one year') — both of which sit awkwardly with § 160D-107 and suggest the ordinances state terms the reporting omitted. NORTH CAROLINA CLUSTER, now among the densest in the dataset: nc-cary-dc-moratorium-18mo-2026, nc-newport-dc-moratorium-2026 (town plus ETJ under § 160D-202, closing the jurisdictional gap that defeated the Athens measure), nc-statesville-dc-moratorium-2026, nc-jackson-county-dc-moratorium-2026, nc-yadkin-county-dc-moratorium-2026, nc-nash-county-dc-moratorium-2026, nc-randolph-county-dc-restrictions-2026; Raleigh directed its city attorney on 2026-09-15 to draft a six-month moratorium for a possible October 7 vote (deferred); the ledger also holds Beaufort County and Farmville. NOT ESTABLISHED: the exact August date, the ordinance number, the operative scope, any threshold, and whether the § 160D-107 findings were made.","who_is_protected":"Residents of McDowell County, North Carolina","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in McDowell County during the six-month moratorium","citation":"McDowell County, N.C. — unanimous six-month data center moratorium (August 2026)","source_url":"https://anniedance.substack.com/p/north-carolina-governments-hit-pause","source_title":"North Carolina governments hit pause — Annie Dance (Substack)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"McDowell County Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"sc-jasper-county-dc-moratorium-pending-ordinance-doctrine-2026","title":"Jasper County, SC — One-year data center and crypto-mining moratorium passes second reading; pending ordinance doctrine applied from first reading (September 2026)","short_title":"Jasper County SC data center moratorium and pending ordinance doctrine (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Jasper County, SC","state_abbr":"SC","county":"Jasper County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"strong","last_verified_date":"2026-10-01","summary_plain":"Jasper County Council approved the FIRST READING of a one-year data center moratorium on a Tuesday night — and the same action ALSO ENACTED A PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE. That second half is the part worth understanding, and it is the most sophisticated drafting move recorded anywhere in this dataset. A first reading is not an adoption. In South Carolina a county ordinance requires multiple readings over weeks, which leaves an obvious gap: a developer who learns a moratorium is coming can file an application in the interval and argue the pause cannot reach it. This dataset is full of moratoria defeated exactly that way. A PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE closes that window by providing that applications filed after the ordinance was formally proposed are judged against the proposed rules rather than the existing ones. In other words, Jasper County made its moratorium effective against filings from the moment it was introduced, not from the moment it is finally adopted. Other jurisdictions have solved the same problem with brute speed — McDonald, Ohio passed an emergency ordinance in under five minutes; Hopkinton, Rhode Island adopted an emergency 60-day ban. Jasper County solved it with doctrine instead, which does not require an emergency and does not expire.","summary_technical":"Jasper County, S.C. — FIRST READING of a one-year data center moratorium approved by the County Council on a Tuesday night, 'WHICH ALSO ENACTED A PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE.' THE PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE IS THE ANALYTICALLY SIGNIFICANT CONTENT AND IS UNIQUE IN THIS DATASET. THE PROBLEM IT SOLVES: a first reading is not an enactment. South Carolina county ordinances require multiple readings over a period of weeks, and the interval between public introduction and final adoption is precisely when a developer with notice will file, then argue that the later-adopted moratorium cannot be applied to a pending application. THE VESTED-RIGHTS DEFEATS RECORDED THROUGHOUT THIS DATASET ARE THIS FAILURE MODE: inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06 (a filed application became a $150M damages demand and the city amended its ordinance rather than litigate, against a $1M insurance cap), Rockford IL (annexation agreement), Cle Elum WA (2002 development agreement), Salem (pre-filed application), Lowell (settlement), Athens (site outside city limits). THE DOCTRINE'S EFFECT: under a pending ordinance doctrine, applications filed after an ordinance is formally proposed or advertised are evaluated against the PROPOSED regulations rather than those in force at filing. Jasper County therefore made its moratorium operative against new filings FROM INTRODUCTION, not from final adoption, eliminating the gap without needing emergency procedure. COMPARE THE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS RECORDED HERE, ALL OF WHICH USE SPEED RATHER THAN DOCTRINE: oh-mcdonald-village-dc-moratorium-2026 (emergency ordinance passed in under five minutes at a special meeting, which in Ohio also takes effect immediately and forecloses referendum); ri-hopkinton-emergency-dc-moratorium-60day-2026 (emergency 60-day ban); sc-clarendon-county-emergency-zoning-loophole-2026 (emergency measure at second reading, same state); and the acceptance-barring formulations at ca-arcata-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026, ks-marysville-dc-moratorium-2026 and pa-gregg-township-dc-moratorium-2026. A DOCTRINE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN EMERGENCY FINDING AND DOES NOT EXPIRE WITH THE MORATORIUM. STATUS IS RECORDED AS `proposed`: THE MORATORIUM ITSELF PASSED ONLY FIRST READING and is not adopted; the pending ordinance doctrine is reported as ENACTED by the same action, which is what gives the first reading immediate protective effect. SOUTH CAROLINA CLUSTER: sc-laurens-county-dc-moratorium-2026, sc-spartanburg-county-one-year-moratorium-on-new-data-center-applications-2026, sc-colleton-county-... , sc-clarendon-county-emergency-zoning-loophole-2026, sc-public-utility-commission-...-large-load-tariff, plus Clinton SC in the queue. NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, how many further readings are required, the doctrine's precise terms, and whether the moratorium has since been finally adopted.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Jasper County, South Carolina","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants in Jasper County, whose applications filed after introduction are judged against the proposed moratorium","citation":"Jasper County, S.C. — first reading of a one-year data center moratorium, enacting a pending ordinance doctrine (2026)","source_url":"https://www.wtoc.com/2026/09/09/jasper-co-considers-one-year-pause-data-centers-study-environmental-impact/","source_title":"Jasper Co. considers one-year pause on data centers to study environmental impact — WTOC (Savannah, GA)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Jasper County Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"ga-leesburg-dc-moratorium-6mo-2026","title":"Leesburg, Georgia — City Leaders Pass a Six-Month Data Center Moratorium, With the City and Lee County Discussing Coordination Two Days Later (August 2026)","short_title":"Leesburg GA six-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Leesburg, GA","state_abbr":"GA","county":"Lee County","city":"Leesburg","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-04","enacted_date":"2026-08-04","expires_date":"2027-02-04","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Leesburg's city leaders passed a SIX-MONTH data center moratorium, and TWO DAYS LATER the city and Lee County were discussing what comes next. That sequence is the useful part. A city moratorium binds only the city; the surrounding county remains open unless it acts too, and a developer turned away at the city line can often simply move a mile out. This dataset records that exact failure — an Athens-area moratorium that could not reach a site lying outside the city limits. Newport, North Carolina addressed it from the other direction by extending its pause across its extraterritorial jurisdiction. Leesburg and Lee County talking within forty-eight hours suggests both recognised the gap, and notably Lee County already has a data center moratorium indexed in this dataset — so the coordination is between two jurisdictions that have each acted, rather than one trying to persuade the other. Georgia has a substantial cluster including Augusta, Forest Park, Bulloch County, Chatham County, Lowndes County, Walker County and Milton.","summary_technical":"Leesburg, Ga. (Lee County) — SIX-MONTH DATA CENTER MORATORIUM passed by city leaders; 'Two days after Leesburg city leaders passed a six-month moratorium on data centers, the city and county are discussing what comes next.' THE CITY-COUNTY COORDINATION IS THE ANALYTICALLY USEFUL ELEMENT. A municipal moratorium binds only the municipality; surrounding unincorporated county territory remains available unless the county acts, so a jurisdictional patchwork simply relocates a project rather than pausing it. THIS DATASET RECORDS THE FAILURE MODE DIRECTLY: the Athens matter, where a municipal pause could not reach a site outside the city limits. IT ALSO RECORDS THE TWO STRUCTURAL ANSWERS — nc-newport-dc-moratorium-2026 extended its moratorium across the town AND its EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160D-202, and nc-nash-county-dc-moratorium-2026 acted countywide (with the caveat, recorded on that entry, that a county ordinarily cannot reach incorporated municipalities). LEESBURG AND LEE COUNTY ARE PURSUING THE THIRD ANSWER: COORDINATION BETWEEN SEPARATELY ACTING JURISDICTIONS. Notably lee-county-ga-dc-moratorium-2026 IS ALREADY INDEXED, so this is coordination between two governments that have each adopted a measure rather than one lobbying the other — which is a materially stronger position than either acting alone. GEORGIA CLUSTER: ga-augusta-dc-ordinance-2026 and augusta-ga-dc-moratorium-2026-06, ga-forest-park-dc-moratorium-2026 (where code silence let Digital Realty build BY RIGHT), ga-bulloch-county-dc-moratorium-2026, ga-chatham-county-dc-moratorium-2026, ga-lowndes-county-dc-moratorium-2026, walker-county-ga-dc-moratorium-2026, milton-ga-dc-moratorium-2026, lee-county-ga-dc-moratorium-2026; Banks County is held in the deferred queue on an evidence mismatch. NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, the exact date, the ordinance number, the operative scope, any threshold, and what the city-county discussions produced.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Leesburg and the surrounding Lee County, Georgia","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Leesburg during the six-month moratorium","citation":"Leesburg, Ga. — six-month data center moratorium (2026)","source_url":"https://www.walb.com/2026/08/06/sustainability-occupancy-location-leesburg-officials-weigh-data-center-questions/","source_title":"Sustainability, occupancy, location: Leesburg officials weigh data center questions — WALB (Albany, GA)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Leesburg City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"mi-perry-dc-moratorium-180day-2026","title":"Perry, Michigan — Officials Approve a 180-Day Moratorium on Data Centers (August 2026)","short_title":"Perry MI 180-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Perry, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Shiawassee County","city":"Perry","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-01","enacted_date":"2026-08-01","expires_date":"2027-01-28","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Perry officials approved a 180-DAY moratorium on data centers. Perry is a small city in Shiawassee County, and it joins a Michigan group that has grown steadily: Zeeland Township adopted a year-long moratorium covering data centers and energy facilities while repealing its previous one at the same meeting, Genoa Township approved a one-time six-month extension covering data centers and cryptocurrency mining, and Marshall and Wixom have each acted. One Michigan record belongs alongside all of them. This dataset indexes a developer's court challenge to a Michigan municipal moratorium, which is a reminder that these measures are not self-executing — a small city with limited legal resources adopting a pause is making a bet that it will not be tested, and the Inver Grove Heights record in Minnesota shows what happens when that bet fails: a suburb facing at least $20 million of exposure against $1 million of insurance amended its ordinance to let the project through rather than litigate.","summary_technical":"Perry, Mich. (Shiawassee County) — 180-DAY MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTERS approved by city officials in August 2026. MICHIGAN CLUSTER: mi-zeeland-township-dc-energy-moratorium-replacement-2026 (year-long, data centers AND energy facilities, replacing a moratorium repealed at the same meeting), mi-genoa-township-dc-crypto-moratorium-extension-2026 (one-time six-month extension, data centers AND cryptocurrency mining), plus Marshall (council moratorium delaying a project under consideration) and Wixom (developing regulations since late 2025 and having adopted a temporary moratorium while studying) in the queue. Michigan interim zoning operates under the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, MCL 125.3101 et seq. THE LITIGATION CONTEXT IS THE POINT WORTH CARRYING ON EVERY MICHIGAN ENTRY: litig-raeden-v-gibraltar-mi-moratorium-challenge-2026 records a developer's court challenge to a Michigan municipal moratorium. MUNICIPAL MORATORIA ARE NOT SELF-EXECUTING, and the capacity to defend one is a function of the jurisdiction's legal budget rather than of the ordinance's merits — which is the lesson of inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06, where a suburb calculated AT LEAST $20 MILLION of exposure against a $1 MILLION liability-insurance cap and amended its ordinance to exclude the project rather than test its validity. A small city adopting a 180-day pause is making an implicit bet that it will not be challenged. NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, the exact August date, the ordinance number, the operative scope, any threshold, and the adopting body ('officials' is the source's word).","who_is_protected":"Residents of Perry, Shiawassee County, Michigan","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Perry during the 180-day moratorium","citation":"Perry, Mich. — 180-day data center moratorium (August 2026)","source_url":"https://www.argus-press.com/news/article_607e09b1-3f16-4c93-b704-63bb4b5a4ad0.html","source_title":"Perry approves 180-day data center moratorium — The Argus-Press (Owosso, MI)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Perry","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"ar-north-little-rock-dc-zoning-regulations-2026","title":"North Little Rock, Arkansas — City Approves ZONING REGULATIONS for Data Centers, Choosing Permanent Standards Over a Pause (September 2026)","short_title":"North Little Rock AR data center zoning regulations (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"North Little Rock, AR","state_abbr":"AR","county":"Pulaski County","city":"North Little Rock","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-14","enacted_date":"2026-09-14","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"North Little Rock approved ZONING REGULATIONS for data centers. Regulations rather than a moratorium is the notable choice — the city wrote standards instead of buying time to write them, which is the smaller of the two paths in this dataset and the one that avoids the questions moratoria raise about duration, findings and how long a 'temporary' measure can remain temporary. Arkansas now has two very different measures recorded. Independence County's Quorum Court placed a FIVE-YEAR moratorium on data centers, which is by a wide margin the longest local pause in this dataset. North Little Rock, the state's sixth-largest city, went the opposite way and regulated. Those are the two poles of the available response, adopted in the same state within about a month of each other. What the regulations actually require is not established here, which limits what can be said about their strength.","summary_technical":"North Little Rock, Ark. (Pulaski County) — ZONING REGULATIONS FOR DATA CENTERS approved, reported 2026-09-14. INSTRUMENT CHOICE IS THE FEATURE: permanent STANDARDS rather than a moratorium. The regulate-directly cohort is the smaller of the two in this dataset — id-latah-county-dc-regulations-2026 (groundwater cooling prohibition, water management plan, noise and electrical limits, annual electrical consumption and peak demand reporting), pa-swatara-township-dc-ordinance-2026 (35-foot height cap, 300-foot residential setback, proof of an electric service provider, traffic study, emergency management plan), pa-norristown-dc-ordinance-2026, ga-augusta-dc-ordinance-2026, nc-randolph-county-dc-restrictions-2026, pa-patton-township-dc-zoning-amendment-2026. REGULATING DIRECTLY AVOIDS THE STRUCTURAL QUESTIONS MORATORIA RAISE — duration reasonableness, the findings several states require, active-study showings, and the point at which a 'temporary' pause becomes a de facto prohibition adopted without the process a prohibition requires (flagged on ar-independence-county-dc-moratorium-5yr-2026 and md-hurlock-dc-moratorium-3yr-2026). ARKANSAS NOW HOLDS THE TWO POLES OF THE AVAILABLE RESPONSE, ADOPTED WEEKS APART: ar-independence-county-dc-moratorium-5yr-2026, a FIVE-YEAR county moratorium and the longest local pause indexed anywhere, and NORTH LITTLE ROCK, the state's sixth-largest city, adopting standards instead. Also recorded in the ledger from Arkansas: legislative questioning of Entergy over Google data center power costs and ratepayer impact, and Entergy Arkansas dropping a lawsuit over a newspaper's publication of data center agreement details — the latter a press-freedom and contract-transparency matter held for a readable source. THE REGULATIONS' CONTENT IS NOT ESTABLISHED: no setback, height, noise, water, district-placement or permitting standard is reported, so `strength` is moderate provisionally and NO REQUIREMENT MAY BE CITED. NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, the exact date, the ordinance number, and every substantive standard.","who_is_protected":"Residents of North Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in North Little Rock, subject to the zoning regulations","citation":"North Little Rock, Ark. — zoning regulations for data centers (2026)","source_url":"https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2026/sep/14/north-little-rock-approves-zoning-regulations-for-data-centers/","source_title":"North Little Rock approves zoning regulations for data centers — Arkansas Democrat-Gazette","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"North Little Rock City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"ca-monterey-county-data-ai-governance-plan-2026","title":"Monterey County, California — Board of Supervisors Votes UNANIMOUSLY to Approve a Plan to STRENGTHEN Data and Artificial Intelligence Governance Rules (August 2026)","short_title":"Monterey County CA data and AI governance plan (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Monterey County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Monterey County","topics":["public-sector","transparency","privacy","automated-decisions"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-11","enacted_date":"2026-08-11","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Monterey County's Board of Supervisors voted UNANIMOUSLY to approve a plan to STRENGTHEN DATA AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE GOVERNANCE RULES. Two things distinguish this from most AI-governance measures in this dataset. It is a COUNTY rather than a city or school district, and county AI governance is thinly represented here. And it is framed as STRENGTHENING existing rules rather than adopting a first policy — which, like the Tucson Unified revisions recorded elsewhere, is the more informative kind of action, because it implies the county already had rules and found them wanting. It also pairs DATA governance with AI governance, which is the right coupling: most of the risk in public-sector AI is not the model but what gets fed into it, and a jurisdiction that tightens AI rules without tightening data rules has addressed half the problem. The word 'plan' should be read carefully — approving a plan to strengthen rules is not the same as adopting the strengthened rules, and what this actually commits the county to is not established. Monterey County is also the county containing Marina, which adopted a 45-day data center moratorium; the two measures are unrelated.","summary_technical":"Monterey County, Calif. — PLAN TO STRENGTHEN DATA AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE GOVERNANCE RULES approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Board of Supervisors on a Tuesday, 'furthering progress' on the subject. TWO DISTINGUISHING FEATURES. (1) A COUNTY-LEVEL AI GOVERNANCE MEASURE, a thinly represented body type here — the indexed AI-governance cohort is dominated by school districts and cities, with oh-ashland-county-health-ai-governance-policy-2026 (a county board of health, this wave) the nearest county analogue. (2) FRAMED AS STRENGTHENING EXISTING RULES rather than first adoption, which implies the county already had a governance framework and found it insufficient. That is the more informative category and the one this dataset systematically under-captures: az-tucson-unified-ai-policy-revisions-2026 makes the same point for school districts — a corpus of first adoptions shows where policies exist and nothing about how they perform. THE DATA-PLUS-AI COUPLING IS SUBSTANTIVELY CORRECT: most public-sector AI risk is a function of INPUTS rather than models — what records staff may submit to a third-party system, what is retained, what becomes training data, and what is disclosable. A jurisdiction that tightens AI rules without tightening data rules has addressed half the exposure. Compare md-ocean-city-first-ai-policy-2026, which covers sensitive data, approved tools and wearable devices together. READ 'PLAN' CAREFULLY: approving A PLAN TO STRENGTHEN rules is not adopting strengthened rules, and what the plan commits the county to — timeline, deliverables, binding effect — IS NOT ESTABLISHED. `strength: limited` for that reason. UNRELATED BUT WORTH DISAMBIGUATING: Monterey County is the county containing MARINA, whose council adopted a 45-day data center moratorium (ca-marina-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026); THIS MEASURE IS NOT A DATA CENTER MEASURE and the two should not be conflated. Note also that monterey-park-ca-dc-ban-measure-ndc-2026 is MONTEREY PARK, a city in LOS ANGELES County — a different jurisdiction entirely.","who_is_protected":"Monterey County residents whose data is held or processed by county government","who_must_comply":"Monterey County departments and staff using AI systems and handling county data","citation":"Monterey County, Cal. — Board of Supervisors plan to strengthen data and artificial intelligence governance (2026)","source_url":"https://localnewsmatters.org/2026/08/12/monterey-county-data-ai-governance/","source_title":"Monterey County moves to strengthen data and AI governance — Local News Matters","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Monterey County Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"ky-lyon-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Lyon County, Kentucky — Data Center Moratorium Ordinance Passes UNANIMOUSLY, Magistrates and the Judge Executive Concluding the LAKE BARKLEY AREA May Not Be Suitable for a Data Center (2026)","short_title":"Lyon County KY data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Lyon County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Lyon County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Lyon County's data center moratorium ordinance PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. In the discussions leading to it, LYON COUNTY MAGISTRATES AND JUDGE EXECUTIVE JAIME-GREEN SMITH said the LAKE BARKLEY AREA MAY NOT BE SUITABLE for a data center. That reasoning is worth recording because it is geographic rather than procedural. Most moratoria in this dataset are justified by a gap in the rules — the county has no standards, the code does not define the use, staff need time. Lyon County's officials reasoned about the PLACE: Lake Barkley is a major reservoir and recreation area in western Kentucky, and a judgment that a particular landscape is unsuitable for a particular use is a land-use judgment in the oldest sense, not an administrative holding pattern. Kentucky has become significant on this question. A legal survey read in this sweep reports that OVER 30 KENTUCKY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS have taken or are considering action to regulate data centers or issue moratoriums, alongside a substantial body of state legislation — an enacted 50-year sales and use tax exemption and pending bills on ratepayer protection, water feasibility reporting, decommissioning and transparency. Mercer County's Fiscal Court passed a one-year moratorium, and Harrodsburg authorised its city attorney to draft one modelled on it.","summary_technical":"Lyon County, Ky. — DATA CENTER MORATORIUM ORDINANCE PASSED UNANIMOUSLY by the Fiscal Court. STATED REASONING IS GEOGRAPHIC, NOT PROCEDURAL: 'The LAKE BARKLEY AREA may not be suitable for a data center, Lyon County magistrates and Judge Executive JAIME-GREEN SMITH said in continued discussions around a moratorium on the centers.' THAT IS AN UNUSUAL BASIS IN THIS DATASET. The dominant justification across the indexed moratoria is REGULATORY GAP — no standards in the code, no definition of the use, staff need time to draft (wa-yakima-county-dc-moratorium-6mo-2026, wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026, nc-newport-dc-moratorium-2026, oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026, ca-palm-springs-dc-moratorium-2026, ga-forest-park-dc-moratorium-2026). A CONCLUSION THAT A PARTICULAR LANDSCAPE IS UNSUITABLE FOR A PARTICULAR USE IS A SUBSTANTIVE LAND-USE JUDGMENT rather than an administrative holding pattern, and it sits closer to the outright prohibitions (co-rio-grande-county-hyperscale-prohibition-2026, ca-irwindale-dc-ban-2026) than to the study-period pauses. Lake Barkley is a major western Kentucky reservoir and recreation area. KENTUCKY CONTEXT IS SUBSTANTIAL AND LARGELY UNINDEXED HERE. A law-firm state survey read 2026-09-18 reports that 'OVER 30 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS have taken or are considering action to regulate data centers or issue moratoriums' in Kentucky, alongside enacted state legislation (HB 8, a 50-YEAR sales and use tax exemption; HB 775, population-based incentive expansion) and pending bills covering electric service tariffs and fees (HB 593), RATEPAYER PROTECTION requiring PSC approval for agreements above 100 MW (HB 544), WATER FEASIBILITY AND USAGE REPORTING (HB 856), DECOMMISSIONING for agricultural-land projects (SB 319) and TRANSPARENCY (SB 330). Several of those bill numbers already appear in this dataset's LegiScan imports. ALSO IN KENTUCKY: mercer-county-ky (one-year Fiscal Court moratorium) and Harrodsburg, whose city commission authorised its attorney to draft a moratorium modelled on Mercer County's (held in the deferred queue as authorisation-to-draft, not adoption); ky-beshear-eo-data-center-development-2026 at state level. NOT ESTABLISHED: the term length (none reported — expires_date NULL), the exact date, the ordinance number, the operative scope, and any threshold.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Lyon County, Kentucky, and the Lake Barkley area","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Lyon County during the moratorium","citation":"Lyon County, Ky. — data center moratorium ordinance, passed unanimously (2026)","source_url":"https://www.paducahsun.com/news/data-center-moratorium-ordinance-passes-unanimously-in-lyon-county/","source_title":"Data center moratorium ordinance passes unanimously in Lyon County — The Paducah Sun","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Lyon County Fiscal Court; Judge Executive Jaime-Green Smith","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"ia-fairfield-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Fairfield, Iowa — City Council Passes an Ordinance Establishing a PAUSE ON ANY DEVELOPMENT of a Data Center Within the City (2026)","short_title":"Fairfield IA data center development pause ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Fairfield, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Jefferson County","city":"Fairfield","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-24","enacted_date":"2026-08-24","expires_date":"2027-08-24","last_verified_date":"2026-10-02","summary_plain":"The Fairfield City Council PASSED AN ORDINANCE establishing a PAUSE ON ANY DEVELOPMENT of a data center within the city. The instrument is an ORDINANCE rather than a resolution, which matters more than it might appear — several measures in this dataset are resolutions directing staff not to process applications, and a resolution is a weaker footing than an enacted ordinance if a developer chooses to test it. Fairfield sits in Jefferson County, and this dataset already indexes a Jefferson County ordinance regulating data centers, so the city and its county have each acted. That combination closes the jurisdictional patchwork that has defeated measures elsewhere, where a project turned away at a city line simply relocated into unincorporated territory. Iowa has a substantial cluster: Waterloo adopted a three-month moratorium, Marshalltown a four-month one, Lee County and Adair County have acted, and Peosta is considering an extension of an existing pause.","summary_technical":"Fairfield, Iowa (Jefferson County) — ORDINANCE establishing a PAUSE ON ANY DEVELOPMENT of a data center within the city, passed by the City Council. INSTRUMENT: an ORDINANCE, which is the stronger form. Several measures in this dataset are RESOLUTIONS directing that applications not be accepted or processed — pa-gregg-township-dc-moratorium-2026, co-loveland-dc-moratorium-2026, or-portland-dc-nda-resolution-2026 (which merely URGES) — and each carries a flag that a resolution is a weaker footing than an enacted ordinance if tested by a developer. Fairfield's is an ordinance. SCOPE IS BROAD ON ITS FACE: 'a pause on ANY DEVELOPMENT of a data center', which reaches development rather than only applications or permits, though the precise operative verbs are not given. CITY-COUNTY PAIRING: ia-jefferson-county-dc-moratorium-2026 is ALREADY INDEXED as the surrounding county's ordinance regulating data centers, so BOTH THE CITY AND ITS COUNTY HAVE ACTED. That closes the jurisdictional patchwork that defeated the Athens measure (a municipal pause that could not reach a site outside the city limits) and that nc-newport-dc-moratorium-2026 addressed by extending across its extraterritorial jurisdiction. The same city-county convergence is recorded at ga-leesburg-dc-moratorium-6mo-2026 and lee-county-ga-dc-moratorium-2026. IOWA CLUSTER: ia-waterloo-dc-moratorium-2026 (three months), ia-marshalltown-dc-moratorium-2026 (four months), ia-lee-county-dc-moratorium-2026, ia-jefferson-county-dc-moratorium-2026, ia-adair-county-dc-permit-fee-2026 ($500 permit fee); Peosta is deferred as considering an extension of an existing moratorium that is itself unindexed. NOT ESTABLISHED: the term length (none reported — expires_date NULL), the vote, the exact date, the ordinance number, and any threshold.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Fairfield, Jefferson County, Iowa","who_must_comply":"Parties seeking to develop a data center within the City of Fairfield","citation":"Fairfield, Iowa — ordinance establishing a 12-month moratorium on data center development, passed 6-0 on August 24, 2026; expires August 24, 2027","source_url":"https://www.southeastiowaunion.com/fairfield/news/fairfield-city-council-passes-data-center-moratorium/article_b1ed3521-ff16-48d3-8373-e6c868f41529.html","source_title":"Fairfield City Council passes data center moratorium — Southeast Iowa Union","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Fairfield City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"wi-polk-county-dc-moratorium-1yr-2026","title":"Polk County, Wisconsin — Board Approves a One-Year Data Center Moratorium Over a Supervisor's Objection That the County 'Might as Well Hang Out a CLOSED Sign' (2026)","short_title":"Polk County WI one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Polk County, WI","state_abbr":"WI","county":"Polk County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-21","enacted_date":"2026-07-21","expires_date":"2027-07-21","last_verified_date":"2026-09-22","summary_plain":"The Polk County Board approved a ONE-YEAR data center moratorium, over an objection from SUPERVISOR JARCHOW that the county 'MIGHT AS WELL HANG OUT A CLOSED SIGN.' Recording the dissent is the point of including that detail. Most entries in this dataset capture only the measure and the majority's reasoning, which flattens what are often genuinely contested votes into unanimous-sounding facts. The economic-development objection Jarchow raised is the standard counter-argument to every moratorium here, and it is worth having on the record in the dissenter's own words rather than paraphrased. This dataset does capture that argument elsewhere — business and economic-development representatives cautioned Port Angeles against shutting the door on projects, Marion County's dissenting commissioner objected to the exemptions from the opposite direction, and Loveland's mayor voted against his own council's pause over its guardrails. Wisconsin now has a large cluster: Sauk County's 18-month county-wide pause passed 27-1, and Sun Prairie, Oshkosh, Milton, St. Croix County and the Village of Tigerton have each acted or are acting.","summary_technical":"Polk County, Wis. — ONE-YEAR DATA CENTER MORATORIUM approved by the County Board. DISSENT RECORDED: SUPERVISOR JARCHOW 'says county might as well hang out a CLOSED sign' — the economic-development objection, captured in the dissenter's own framing. RECORDING DISSENT IS A DELIBERATE EDITORIAL CHOICE HERE. Most entries in this dataset capture the measure and the prevailing rationale, which can make contested votes read as consensus. The counter-argument is real and recurs: wa-port-angeles-dc-moratorium-2026 records business and economic-development representatives cautioning against 'shutting the door on projects'; fl-marion-county-dc-moratorium-2026 records Commissioner Kathy Bryant dissenting from the OPPOSITE direction, against the exemptions rather than the pause; co-loveland-dc-moratorium-2026 records Mayor Pat McFall voting against his own council's measure over its guardrails; wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026 passed 27-1. A dataset that logs only unanimous-sounding adoptions misrepresents how these decisions are actually made. WISCONSIN CLUSTER, now among the largest: wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (18 months, 27-1, pre-emptive with no pending project), wi-sun-prairie-dc-moratorium-2026 (12 months, large data centers), wi-oshkosh-dc-moratorium-2026; plus Milton (18-month, with State Sen. Mark Spreitzer addressing the council), St. Croix County (unanimous, with an ongoing lawsuit over a Hammond conditional use permit) and the Village of Tigerton in the queue; the ledger also holds Town of Turtle, Town of Beloit, Town of Rock, Rock County and the City of Janesville as unindexed leads. DURATION: Wisconsin practice is generally understood as an initial term of up to 12 months with one 6-month extension, so a one-year term is AT that ceiling and is the conservative position — contrast Sauk County's 18-month single enactment, flagged on that entry as at the outer edge. NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, Supervisor Jarchow's first name, the exact date, the ordinance number, the operative scope, and any threshold.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Polk County, Wisconsin","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Polk County during the one-year moratorium","citation":"Polk County, Wis. — one-year data center moratorium (2026)","source_url":"https://www.osceolasun.com/news/polk-county-board-approves-data-center-one-year-moratorium/","source_title":"Polk County Board approves data center one-year moratorium — The Osceola Sun","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Polk County Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"ne-ralston-school-board-staff-ai-policy-2026","title":"Ralston, Nebraska — School Board Approves a New Policy Governing STAFF Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools, Adopted Alongside the Annual Staff Handbook and Teacher Training Requirements (July 2026)","short_title":"Ralston NE school board staff AI use policy (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Ralston Public Schools, NE","state_abbr":"NE","county":"Douglas County","city":"Ralston","topics":["education","children","privacy","public-sector","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-27","enacted_date":"2026-07-27","last_verified_date":"2026-10-09","summary_plain":"Ralston's school board approved a new policy governing STAFF USE of artificial intelligence tools, adopted alongside the 2026-27 staff handbook, annual teacher training requirements and other revisions. The STAFF focus is what distinguishes it. Most school-district AI policies in this dataset are framed around STUDENTS — academic integrity, which tools pupils may use, whether AI-assisted work counts as their own. A policy aimed at STAFF use addresses a different and in some respects more consequential set of risks: a teacher pasting student work, disciplinary records or IEP content into a consumer chatbot is disclosing protected education records to a third party, which implicates FERPA rather than any honour code. Adopting it in the same motion as the staff handbook and teacher training requirements suggests it is being treated as an employment and professional-practice matter rather than a curriculum one, which is probably the right frame. What the policy actually requires is not established here.","summary_technical":"Ralston, Neb. (Douglas County; Ralston Public Schools) — NEW POLICY GOVERNING STAFF USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TOOLS approved by the school board on 2026-07-27, in the same action as the 2026-27 STAFF HANDBOOK, ANNUAL TEACHER TRAINING REQUIREMENTS and further revisions. THE STAFF ORIENTATION IS THE DISTINGUISHING FEATURE. The education AI cohort indexed here is overwhelmingly STUDENT-facing — academic integrity, permitted pupil tools, disclosure of AI assistance (wcpss-nc-ai-2025, fl-brevard-schools-ai-policy-2026, fl-wakulla-county-schools-ai-policy-2026, oakland-usd-ca-ai-2025, cleveland-metro-schools-ai-2025, md-talbot-county-boe-ai-policy-2026, az-tucson-unified-ai-policy-revisions-2026). A STAFF-USE POLICY ADDRESSES A DIFFERENT RISK CLASS: educator submission of student work, disciplinary records, health information or IEP content to third-party models implicates the FAMILY EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS AND PRIVACY ACT and state student-data-privacy law, not academic honesty. The exposure is disclosure of protected education records to a vendor, plus potential retention and training use — the same input-side problem identified at ca-monterey-county-data-ai-governance-plan-2026 and md-ocean-city-first-ai-policy-2026 for municipal employees. ADOPTION ALONGSIDE THE STAFF HANDBOOK AND TEACHER TRAINING REQUIREMENTS indicates the district is treating AI use as an EMPLOYMENT AND PROFESSIONAL-PRACTICE matter rather than a curricular one, which is the frame that makes enforcement possible through ordinary personnel processes. THE POLICY'S CONTENTS ARE NOT REPORTED — no prohibition, approved-tool list, FERPA provision, training requirement or review process is known. `strength: limited`; no provision may be cited. NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, the policy number, and every substantive requirement.","who_is_protected":"Students of Ralston Public Schools whose education records may be processed by staff AI tools; district staff subject to the policy","who_must_comply":"Ralston Public Schools staff using artificial intelligence tools","citation":"Ralston Public Schools, Neb. — board policy governing staff use of artificial intelligence tools (July 2026)","source_url":"https://flatwaterfreepress.org/july-27-ralston-school-board-reviews-summer-programs-communication-efforts-and-ai-policy/","source_title":"July 27: Ralston School Board reviews summer programs, communication efforts and AI policy — Flatwater Free Press","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Ralston Public Schools Board of Education","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"mo-ralls-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Ralls County, Missouri — Commissioners Put a Data Center Moratorium in Place After a Tenant Reported a Property Owner May Have Signed a Proposal Selling 53 Acres to a Data Center Company (2026)","short_title":"Ralls County MO data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Ralls County, MO","state_abbr":"MO","county":"Ralls County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Ralls County's commissioners put a data center moratorium IN PLACE, and the trigger is recorded unusually precisely: a week earlier, A TENANT TOLD THE COMMISSION THAT THEIR PROPERTY OWNER HAD POSSIBLY SIGNED A PROPOSAL SELLING 53 ACRES TO A DATA CENTER COMPANY. That is about as early a warning as a rural county ever gets, and it came not from a filed application, a rezoning request or a public announcement, but from a TENANT who learned their landlord might be selling. The county acted within a week. This is the clearest illustration in the dataset of why the pre-emptive posture matters. A land sale is not a permit application — nothing has been filed, nothing has vested, and the county still has every option available. Once an application is on file the calculus changes entirely, as Inver Grove Heights discovered when a filed application became a $150 million damages demand and the city amended its ordinance rather than litigate. Missouri is otherwise thinly represented here, though protesters filled the state Capitol seeking a statewide construction moratorium, and reporting indicates Kansas City restricted zoning and Jackson County enacted a moratorium — neither of which is yet indexed.","summary_technical":"Ralls County, Mo. — DATA CENTER MORATORIUM IN PLACE, adopted by the County Commission. THE TRIGGER IS RECORDED WITH UNUSUAL SPECIFICITY AND IS THE REASON TO KEEP THIS ENTRY: 'The commission said that a week ago, A TENANT SAID THEIR PROPERTY OWNER POSSIBLY SIGNED A PROPOSAL SELLING 53 ACRES TO A DATA CENTER COMPANY.' NOTE WHAT THAT IS AND IS NOT. It is not a filed application, a rezoning request, a site plan or a public announcement — it is a TENANT reporting that their LANDLORD MAY HAVE AGREED TO SELL. THE COUNTY ACTED WITHIN A WEEK OF HEARSAY ABOUT A LAND TRANSACTION. THIS IS THE EARLIEST-STAGE TRIGGER RECORDED ANYWHERE IN THIS DATASET and it illustrates the pre-emptive principle better than any other entry. A LAND SALE VESTS NOTHING. No application has been filed, no permit issued, no development agreement executed — so the county retains the full range of options and faces none of the vested-rights exposure that has defeated moratoria elsewhere: inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06 (a filed application became a $150M damages demand against a $1M insurance cap, and the city amended its ordinance rather than test it), Rockford IL (annexation agreement), Cle Elum WA (2002 development agreement), Salem (pre-filed application), Lowell (settlement), Athens (site outside the city limits). Compare the other pre-emptive postures: wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026 ('not aware of any projects currently planned'), ca-marina-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026 ('not prompted by any current applications'), or-woodburn-dc-moratorium-2026 (a NAMED prospective developer, Verrus, but no filed application), al-tarrant-dc-moratorium-12mo-2026 ('out of caution'). RALLS COUNTY IS EARLIER THAN ALL OF THEM. MISSOURI IS THINLY REPRESENTED IN THIS DATASET and the gap is known: protesters filled the Missouri Capitol at a 'People's Hearing on AI Data Centers' organised by the Missouri Rural Crisis Center and Missouri Workers Center seeking a statewide construction moratorium, and the same reporting states that 'KANSAS CITY RESTRICTED ZONING, AND JACKSON COUNTY ENACTED A MORATORIUM' — NEITHER IS INDEXED, and both are recorded as leads. Franklin County MO went the other way, rezoning for two data center developments. NOT ESTABLISHED: the term length (none reported — expires_date NULL), the vote, the exact date, the ordinance number, the operative scope, and whether the 53-acre sale proceeded.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Ralls County, Missouri","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Ralls County during the moratorium","citation":"Ralls County, Mo. — data center moratorium (2026)","source_url":"https://www.khqa.com/news/local/ralls-county-data-center-moratorium-in-place-commissioners","source_title":"Ralls County data center moratorium in place, commissioners say — KHQA (Quincy, IL / Hannibal, MO)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Ralls County Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"il-kewanee-dc-regulation-ordinance-2026","title":"Kewanee, Illinois — City Council Approves an Ordinance REGULATING Data Centers, Choosing Standards Over a Pause (2026)","short_title":"Kewanee IL data center regulation ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Kewanee, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Henry County","city":"Kewanee","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Kewanee's City Council approved an ORDINANCE REGULATING DATA CENTERS. Regulating rather than pausing is the smaller of the two paths in this dataset and the one that avoids the questions moratoria raise about duration, findings and how long a temporary measure can stay temporary. Illinois now shows three distinct responses across three jurisdictions. Lawrence County adopted a TWO-YEAR moratorium on any facility over 10,000 square feet. Troy has a six-month pause adopted in March and was weighing an extension to next March. Kewanee wrote rules. Illinois is also the state that PAUSED ITS OWN DATA CENTER INCENTIVES — local officials in Troy said they believed something further was coming from the state's veto session but did not know the details, which is a useful reminder that local measures are being adopted against a shifting state backdrop. What Kewanee's ordinance actually requires is not established here.","summary_technical":"Kewanee, Ill. (Henry County) — ORDINANCE REGULATING DATA CENTERS approved by the City Council at a Monday meeting. INSTRUMENT CHOICE: permanent STANDARDS rather than a moratorium, joining the smaller regulate-directly cohort — id-latah-county-dc-regulations-2026, pa-swatara-township-dc-ordinance-2026, pa-norristown-dc-ordinance-2026, ga-augusta-dc-ordinance-2026, nc-randolph-county-dc-restrictions-2026, ar-north-little-rock-dc-zoning-regulations-2026, pa-patton-township-dc-zoning-amendment-2026. Regulating directly avoids the duration-reasonableness, findings and active-study questions that attach to moratoria and that are flagged at the long end of the range (ar-independence-county-dc-moratorium-5yr-2026, md-hurlock-dc-moratorium-3yr-2026). ILLINOIS NOW SHOWS THREE DISTINCT RESPONSES: il-lawrence-county-dc-moratorium-2026 (TWO-YEAR moratorium on any facility over 10,000 sq ft, unanimous, with the board chairman stating the precautionary rationale plainly); Troy (six-month pause adopted March 2026, with a Planning Commission hearing on extending it to next March, deferred in the ledger); and KEWANEE regulating. STATE BACKDROP RECORDED AS A LEAD: ILLINOIS HAS PAUSED ITS STATE DATA CENTER INCENTIVES, and Troy officials said they expected further action from the state's veto session (usually October) without knowing the details — so Illinois municipalities are legislating against a moving state framework. That incentive pause is not separately indexed and is queued; compare the indexed fiscal instruments oh-dewine-pause-dc-sales-tax-exemption-program-2026 and oh-house-bill-prohibit-dc-property-tax-exemptions-2026. THE ORDINANCE'S CONTENT IS NOT ESTABLISHED — no setback, height, noise, water, district or permitting standard is reported, so `strength` is provisional and NO REQUIREMENT MAY BE CITED. NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, the exact date, the ordinance number, and every substantive standard.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Kewanee, Henry County, Illinois","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Kewanee, subject to the ordinance","citation":"Kewanee, Ill. — city ordinance regulating data centers (2026)","source_url":"https://kewaneevoice.com/council-oks-ordinance-regulating-data-centers/","source_title":"Council OKs ordinance regulating data centers — The Kewanee Voice","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Kewanee City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"ut-clearfield-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Clearfield, Utah — City Council Passes a Data Center Moratorium in the Wake of the 'GRANDIOSE SCALE OF STRATOS' (September 2026)","short_title":"Clearfield UT data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Clearfield, UT","state_abbr":"UT","county":"Davis County","city":"Clearfield","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-08","enacted_date":"2026-09-08","expires_date":"2027-03-07","last_verified_date":"2026-09-22","summary_plain":"Clearfield's City Council passed a data center moratorium IN THE WAKE OF THE 'GRANDIOSE SCALE OF STRATOS' — a named project whose size is what prompted the pause. That framing is common in this dataset and worth noting each time it appears, because it marks the reactive rather than pre-emptive posture. A moratorium adopted in response to a specific named project is more exposed than one adopted in the abstract: if an application is already on file the developer may argue the pause cannot reach it, and even where nothing is filed, a measure visibly aimed at one project invites the argument that it is not a general legislative judgment. This dataset records both the successes and the failures of that posture. Utah already has Iron County's 180-day moratorium on new data center applications indexed, and that county is now developing a broader ordinance covering data centers alongside natural gas plants, solar projects and battery energy storage systems. Clearfield sits in Davis County, between Salt Lake City and Ogden.","summary_technical":"Clearfield, Utah (Davis County) — DATA CENTER MORATORIUM passed by the City Council 'in wake of GRANDIOSE SCALE OF STRATOS', reported 2026-09-09. THE REACTIVE POSTURE IS THE FEATURE AND CARRIES KNOWN EXPOSURE. A pause adopted in response to a SPECIFIC NAMED PROJECT is more vulnerable than one adopted in the abstract, on two grounds: (a) if an application is already filed, the developer may assert vested rights or argue the measure cannot reach a pending application — the failure mode at inver-grove-heights-mn-dc-moratorium-2026-06 (a $150M damages demand against a $1M insurance cap, resolved by amending the ordinance), Rockford IL, Cle Elum WA, Salem, Lowell and Athens; and (b) even absent a filing, a measure visibly directed at one project invites the argument that it is not a general legislative judgment, the concern flagged at oh-pioneer-village-dc-moratorium-2026 (a pause framed around a single former-AquaBounty-site proposal). CONTRAST THE PRE-EMPTIVE COHORT, which faces neither problem: wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026, ca-marina-dc-interim-urgency-moratorium-2026, al-tarrant-dc-moratorium-12mo-2026, id-latah-county-dc-regulations-2026 and above all mo-ralls-county-dc-moratorium-2026, which acted on hearsay about a land sale before anything was filed. WHETHER A STRATOS APPLICATION WAS PENDING WHEN CLEARFIELD ACTED IS NOT ESTABLISHED and is the question that determines this measure's exposure. UTAH CONTEXT: ut-iron-county-iron-county-180-day-moratorium-on-new-data-center-appli-2026 is indexed, and that county is reported to be developing a NEW ORDINANCE covering data centers together with natural gas plants, solar projects and battery energy storage systems — the paired data-centre-plus-energy-infrastructure approach also recorded at mi-zeeland-township-dc-energy-moratorium-replacement-2026, in-elkhart-dc-and-battery-storage-moratorium-2026, pa-west-mahanoy-township-curative-amendment-dc-solar-2026 and co-alamosa-dc-battery-moratorium-2026. Utah protesters also gathered at the State Capitol against data center construction (recorded in the ledger). NOT ESTABLISHED: the term length (none reported — expires_date NULL), the vote, the exact date, the ordinance number, the operative scope, and what Stratos is beyond a named project.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Clearfield, Davis County, Utah","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Clearfield during the moratorium","citation":"Clearfield, Utah — city council data center moratorium (2026)","source_url":"https://www.standard.net/news/local/2026/sep/09/clearfield-city-council-passes-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Clearfield City Council passes data center moratorium in wake of 'grandiose scale of Stratos' — Standard-Examiner (Ogden, UT)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Clearfield City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"nj-bridgewater-dc-regulations-2026","title":"Bridgewater, New Jersey — Township Approves New Data Center Regulations, With Discussion Centred on 1200 Route 22 Where a 2025 Redevelopment Plan Already Allows a Data Center as One Permitted Possibility (2026)","short_title":"Bridgewater NJ data center regulations (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Bridgewater Township, NJ","state_abbr":"NJ","county":"Somerset County","city":"Bridgewater Township","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Bridgewater Township approved NEW DATA CENTER REGULATIONS, with much of the discussion centred on 1200 ROUTE 22, the former Greymark office property, WHERE THE TOWNSHIP ADOPTED A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IN 2025 THAT ALLOWS A DATA CENTER AS ONE POSSIBLE USE. That last fact is the interesting one, and it describes a situation this dataset has not previously recorded in quite this form: a municipality regulating data centers on a site where its OWN EARLIER PLANNING DECISION already permits one. The township is not writing on a blank slate. It created the permission in 2025 and is now setting the terms on which it may be exercised. That is a materially different exercise from the code-silence cases that dominate this dataset, where a county discovers it has no standards and pauses to write some. Bridgewater has standards-writing to do against a permission it granted itself, which constrains how restrictive it can be — a regulation that effectively nullified the redevelopment plan would invite a challenge from anyone who relied on it. New Jersey is also a state where developers are already suing municipalities over data center bans.","summary_technical":"Bridgewater Township, N.J. (Somerset County) — NEW DATA CENTER REGULATIONS APPROVED, with discussion centred on 1200 ROUTE 22, THE FORMER GREYMARK OFFICE PROPERTY, 'where the township ADOPTED A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IN 2025 THAT ALLOWS A DATA CENTER AS ONE POSS[IBLE USE]'. THE PRE-EXISTING SELF-GRANTED PERMISSION IS THE ANALYTICALLY DISTINCTIVE ELEMENT AND IS NOT RECORDED ELSEWHERE IN THIS DATASET IN THIS FORM. The dominant fact pattern here is CODE SILENCE — a jurisdiction discovers its ordinance says nothing about data centers, finds the use therefore admissible under some adjacent category, and pauses to write standards (wa-yakima-county-dc-moratorium-6mo-2026, wi-sauk-county-dc-moratorium-2026, nc-newport-dc-moratorium-2026, oh-clayton-dc-moratorium-2026, ca-palm-springs-dc-moratorium-2026, ga-forest-park-dc-moratorium-2026 where Digital Realty built BY RIGHT). BRIDGEWATER'S SITUATION IS THE INVERSE: the township AFFIRMATIVELY CREATED the permission in a 2025 redevelopment plan of its own adoption, and is now regulating the terms of a use it already sanctioned on an identified site. THAT CONSTRAINS HOW FAR IT CAN GO. Regulations that effectively nullified the redevelopment plan would expose the township to a challenge from any party who relied on it, and reliance on a municipally adopted redevelopment plan is a stronger equitable position than reliance on mere code silence. NEW JERSEY IS ALREADY A LITIGATION STATE ON THIS QUESTION: litig-nj-developer-suits-municipal-dc-bans-2026 records developer suits against municipal data center bans, and nj-jersey-city-dc-industrial-ban-ord-26-057 is the indexed municipal prohibition. Other New Jersey measures: nj-new-jersey-s731-a796-data-center-ratepayer-protection-and-grid-dem-2026, nj-quijano-ai-dc-delay-and-commission-bill-2026 (proposed delay reaching subsidies and tax incentives), legiscan-active-nj-s3379 and legiscan-active-nj-a4096, plus the End Data Center Tax Credits Act (S4390/A5165) reducing available credits from $500M to $250M for AI projects. Newark's council passed a resolution SUPPORTING a 12-month moratorium that expressly changed no city code (deferred). THE REGULATIONS' CONTENT IS NOT ESTABLISHED and no requirement may be cited. NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, the exact date, the ordinance number, every substantive standard, and whether any application for 1200 Route 22 is pending.","who_is_protected":"Bridgewater Township residents in Somerset County, New Jersey","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Bridgewater Township, including at 1200 Route 22","citation":"Bridgewater Township, N.J. — new data center regulations (2026)","source_url":"https://patch.com/new-jersey/bridgewater/new-data-center-regulations-approved-bridgewater/","source_title":"New data center regulations approved in Bridgewater — Patch (Bridgewater, NJ)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Bridgewater Township Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"mi-wixom-dc-regulation-steps-2026","title":"Wixom, Michigan — City Council Takes Steps to Regulate Data Centers, Having Developed Regulations Since LATE 2025 and Adopted a Temporary Moratorium While Studying the Issue (2026)","short_title":"Wixom MI data center regulation and prior moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Wixom, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Oakland County","city":"Wixom","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Wixom's city council took steps to regulate data centers. The reporting supplies something most entries in this dataset lack — a TIMELINE: the city has been developing data center regulations SINCE LATE 2025 and 'even adopted a temporary moratorium while city leaders studied the issue.' That is roughly a year of work, and it is worth recording because it is the sequence the whole moratorium apparatus is supposed to produce and rarely gets documented completing. The standard pattern in this dataset is a pause adopted with a stated study purpose, after which the record goes quiet — most entries here capture the moratorium and not what it yielded. Wixom shows the full arc: study from late 2025, a temporary pause to protect the study, and now regulations. It also makes Wixom one of the earliest movers recorded anywhere here, since late 2025 predates almost every measure in this dataset. Michigan's cluster now includes Zeeland Township, Genoa Township, Perry and Marshall, and the state has an indexed developer challenge to a municipal moratorium.","summary_technical":"Wixom, Mich. (Oakland County) — CITY COUNCIL STEPS TO REGULATE DATA CENTERS, with the source supplying a timeline: 'The city has been DEVELOPING DATA CENTER REGULATIONS SINCE LATE 2025 and even ADOPTED A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM WHILE CITY LEADERS STUDIED THE ISSUE.' THE COMPLETED ARC IS THE REASON TO KEEP THIS ENTRY. The moratorium apparatus in this dataset is justified everywhere by the same rationale — pause development, study the issue, adopt permanent regulations — and the record almost never follows through to the third step. Entries capture the pause; what it produced is usually unrecorded. The few completions indexed are pa-montgomery-township-dc-curative-regulations-2026 (declared its ordinance invalid in March, adopted curative regulations months later permitting data centers as a conditional use in the Limited Industrial District) and now WIXOM. That matters for reading every moratorium entry here: a pause is a promise of future regulation, and this dataset can rarely say whether the promise was kept. TIMING MAKES WIXOM AN EARLY MOVER: developing regulations SINCE LATE 2025 predates substantially the whole 2026 wave that dominates this dataset, in which the great majority of local measures were adopted between June and September 2026. MICHIGAN CLUSTER: mi-zeeland-township-dc-energy-moratorium-replacement-2026 (repealed and re-enacted rather than extending), mi-genoa-township-dc-crypto-moratorium-extension-2026 (one-time six-month extension, data centers and crypto), mi-perry-dc-moratorium-180day-2026, plus Marshall (council moratorium delaying a project) and Cadillac Area Public Schools (AI policy) in the queue. litig-raeden-v-gibraltar-mi-moratorium-challenge-2026 records a developer's challenge to a Michigan municipal moratorium and is the caution that belongs on every Michigan entry. NOT ESTABLISHED: WHAT THE 'STEPS' ACTUALLY WERE — whether regulations were ADOPTED at this meeting or merely advanced is NOT clear from the captured evidence, which is the entry's central ambiguity; also the moratorium's term and whether it remains in force, the vote, the date, and every substantive standard.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Wixom, Oakland County, Michigan","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Wixom, subject to the regulations being developed","citation":"Wixom, Mich. — city council steps to regulate data centers, following a temporary moratorium adopted during study (2026)","source_url":"https://www.wxyz.com/news/data-centers/wixom-city-council-takes-steps-to-regulate-data-centers","source_title":"Wixom City Council takes steps to regulate data centers — WXYZ (Detroit, MI)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Wixom City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"mi-cadillac-area-public-schools-ai-policy-2026","title":"Cadillac Area Public Schools, Michigan — Board Approves an AI USE POLICY Alongside New CELLPHONE RESTRICTIONS, Handbook and Bylaw Changes and Emergency Operations Plan Updates (August 2026)","short_title":"Cadillac Area Public Schools MI AI use policy (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cadillac Area Public Schools, MI","state_abbr":"MI","county":"Wexford County","city":"Cadillac","topics":["education","children","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-01","enacted_date":"2026-08-01","last_verified_date":"2026-09-18","summary_plain":"Cadillac Area Public Schools approved an AI USE POLICY, adopted in the same action as NEW CELLPHONE RESTRICTIONS, handbook and board bylaw changes, and updates to the Emergency Operations Plan, ahead of the start of term. The pairing with cellphone restrictions is worth noting. Districts across the country adopted phone bans through 2024 and 2025, and the same boards are now writing AI rules — often, as here, in a single omnibus policy update. The two are treated as related problems: both concern a technology students bring into the classroom that the district did not choose and cannot fully control, and both get addressed through the student handbook rather than through curriculum. Whether that framing serves AI well is a real question, because a phone can be collected at the door and a language model cannot. What this policy actually requires is not established. It appears in the reporting as one item in a list of board approvals, which is how a great many district AI policies enter the record — and is part of why this dataset can say where such policies exist far more reliably than what they say.","summary_technical":"Cadillac Area Public Schools, Mich. (Wexford County) — AI USE POLICY approved by the board in a single action alongside NEW CELLPHONE RESTRICTIONS, HANDBOOK AND BOARD BYLAW CHANGES and EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN updates, ahead of the August start of term. THE CELLPHONE PAIRING IS THE FEATURE WORTH RECORDING. Districts nationally adopted phone restrictions through 2024-2025, and the same boards are now writing AI rules, frequently in the same omnibus handbook cycle. The implicit framing treats both as STUDENT-INTRODUCED TECHNOLOGY the district did not select and cannot fully control, addressed through the STUDENT HANDBOOK and conduct code rather than through curriculum or instructional policy. THAT FRAMING TRANSFERS IMPERFECTLY: a phone is a physical object that can be collected at the door and its absence verified, whereas a language model is accessible from any networked device and its use is frequently undetectable — so a handbook-and-conduct approach that works for phones has no comparable enforcement mechanism for AI. Compare the approaches indexed elsewhere: fl-state-board-of-education-ai-rules-k12-and-colleges-2026 requires districts to adopt LOCAL POLICIES on which tools may be used and imposes a PARENTAL PERMISSION gate before a child directly interacts with an approved AI instructional tool — a consent architecture rather than a conduct rule; ne-ralston-school-board-staff-ai-policy-2026 governs STAFF use, which raises FERPA rather than academic-integrity questions; az-tucson-unified-ai-policy-revisions-2026 records a district AMENDING rather than first adopting. THE POLICY'S CONTENTS ARE NOT REPORTED — it appears as ONE ITEM IN A LIST of board approvals, which is how a great many district AI policies enter this record and is a principal reason the dataset is far more reliable on WHERE such policies exist than on WHAT THEY SAY. `strength: limited`; no provision may be cited. NOT ESTABLISHED: the vote, the exact date, the policy number, and every requirement.","who_is_protected":"Students, parents and staff of Cadillac Area Public Schools, Michigan","who_must_comply":"CAPS students and staff using artificial intelligence under the policy","citation":"Cadillac Area Public Schools, Mich. — board-approved AI use policy (August 2026)","source_url":"https://www.cadillacnews.com/news/caps-board-approves-handbook-updates-ai-policy-and-emergency-plan/","source_title":"CAPS board approves handbook updates, AI policy and emergency plan — Cadillac News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Cadillac Area Public Schools Board of Education","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"ca-albany-rejects-motorola-alpr-contract-2026","title":"Albany, CA: City Council rejects replacement Motorola license plate reader contract as Flock contract ends (Sept. 8, 2026)","short_title":"Albany CA rejects new ALPR contract (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Albany, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Alameda County","city":"Albany","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-09-08","enacted_date":"2026-09-08","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Albany's City Council voted 4-0, with the vice mayor abstaining, to turn down a new contract with Motorola for police license plate reader cameras. The deal would have allowed cameras at up to 24 locations, mostly at the city's entry and exit points, down from the 34 cameras in the current Flock Safety system. The Flock contract was set to end that Friday. The local paper reported it was not clear what would happen to the existing cameras. The vote rejected a contract. It did not ban plate readers, and a separate parking-enforcement plate reader pilot with Clancy Systems is going ahead.","summary_technical":"Albany, Calif. (Alameda County). Action: City Council rejected a proposed Motorola ALPR services contract (up to 24 camera locations, mainly at city entry/exit points), 4 in favour of rejection, Vice Mayor Jennifer Hansen-Romero abstaining, Tuesday night, Sept. 8, 2026. Context: the existing Flock Safety contract (34 cameras) was to end Friday, Sept. 11, 2026; the source says it was 'not immediately clear what will happen to those cameras when the contract ends.' Scope limit: this is a procurement decision, not an ordinance or surveillance-use policy. No ALPR ban was adopted, and a separate Clancy Systems parking-enforcement ALPR pilot is proceeding. Comparable dataset entries: los-angeles-ca-lapd-flock-expiration-2026, ca-city-council-santa-cruz-ca-santa-cruz-city-council-votes-6-1-to-terminate-flock-sa-2026.","who_is_protected":"People driving in Albany, CA, whose plates would have been captured by police ALPR cameras","who_must_comply":"Albany Police Department (no replacement police ALPR contract approved)","citation":"Albany City Council vote rejecting Motorola ALPR contract, Sept. 8, 2026","source_url":"https://www.albanyscanner.com/2026/09/09/city/albany-rejects-license-plate-cameras-flock-contract-ends/","source_title":"Albany rejects license plate cameras as Flock contract ends (Albany Scanner, Sept. 9, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Albany City Council","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-alhambra-dc-charter-ban-measure-db-2026","title":"Alhambra, CA: Measure DB, a charter amendment prohibiting data centers in all zones, placed on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot","short_title":"Alhambra CA Measure DB data center ban (ballot)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Alhambra, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Los Angeles County","city":"Alhambra","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Alhambra voters will decide on Nov. 3, 2026 whether to add a permanent data center ban to the city charter. Measure DB says 'Data Centers are prohibited in all zones of the City.' The City Council put it on the ballot at a July 14 special meeting. The council had already banned new data centers through a zoning code update. The charter amendment would lock that ban in, so a future council could not undo it alone.","summary_technical":"Alhambra, Calif. (Los Angeles County). Instrument: proposed city charter amendment, Measure DB, Nov. 3, 2026 general election. Operative text (as reported): 'Data Centers are prohibited in all zones of the City.' Placed on the ballot by City Council at a special meeting on July 14, 2026. Background: the council had earlier adopted a zoning-code update banning new data centers (adoption date not obtained, so no separate entry was created). Effect if approved: makes the prohibition permanent at charter level, amendable only by voters. Comparable: monterey-park-ca-dc-ban-measure-ndc-2026 (neighbouring San Gabriel Valley city, voter-approved ban).","who_is_protected":"Alhambra residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking to build in Alhambra","citation":"Alhambra Measure DB (charter amendment), Nov. 3, 2026 ballot","source_url":"https://www.coloradoboulevard.net/alhambra-council-advances-ballot-measure-to-permanently-ban-data-centers/","source_title":"Alhambra Council Advances Ballot Measure to Permanently Ban Data Centers (Colorado Boulevard, July 14, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Alhambra","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-angels-camp-dc-urgency-moratorium-2026","title":"Angels Camp, CA: City Council adopts 45-day temporary moratorium on data centers, 5-0 (Aug. 18, 2026)","short_title":"Angels Camp CA 45-day data center moratorium","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Angels Camp, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Calaveras County","city":"Angels Camp","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"unknown","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-18","enacted_date":"2026-08-18","expires_date":"2026-10-02","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Angels Camp's City Council voted 5-0 on Aug. 18, 2026 for a temporary pause on building data centers in the city. City leaders said the city has no zoning rules for this new kind of land use, and the pause gives them time to write some. They pointed to the facilities' heavy electricity and water use and their round-the-clock noise and light. The pause ran 45 days. That first period would have ended around Oct. 2 unless the council extended it. No extension had been found as of Oct. 10.","summary_technical":"Angels Camp, Calif. (Calaveras County). Temporary moratorium on data center construction, adopted 5-0 by City Council on Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2026. Definition: 'a structure, structures, or site used primarily for the storage, management, processing, and transmission of digital data and that houses computer or network equipment, systems, servers, appliances, and other associated components.' Term: 45 days (per Union Democrat), consistent with a Cal. Gov. Code § 65858 interim urgency ordinance. That section allows extensions of 10 months 15 days and then one year after a hearing. Computed initial expiry: Oct. 2, 2026. Purpose: develop permanent zoning regulations and development standards. Status 'unknown' because the initial term has lapsed and no extension or lapse was confirmed. Companion: ca-calaveras-county-dc-urgency-moratorium-2026 (unincorporated county, adopted Aug. 25, 2026).","who_is_protected":"Angels Camp residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Angels Camp city limits","citation":"Angels Camp temporary data center moratorium, adopted Aug. 18, 2026","source_url":"https://mymotherlode.com/news/local/11078696/angels-camp-approves-temporary-data-center-moratorium.html","source_title":"Angels Camp Approves Temporary Data Center Moratorium (myMotherLode.com, Aug. 19, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Angels Camp","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No data center construction approvals during the moratorium"},{"id":"ca-brawley-dc-zoning-regulation-resolution-2026","title":"Brawley, CA: Council drops moratorium plan and adopts Resolution No. 2026-29 directing data center zoning amendments (June 16, 2026)","short_title":"Brawley CA data center zoning resolution 2026-29","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Brawley, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Imperial County","city":"Brawley","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Brawley considered a temporary data center moratorium but chose a different path on June 16, 2026. The council unanimously adopted a resolution saying its current zoning rules cannot handle large data centers. The resolution tells the city manager to hire consultants to write new zoning rules. Those rules are meant to set data center categories, say which zones allow them, require public hearings and ensure environmental compliance. The resolution does not regulate anything by itself. The actual rules still have to be drafted and adopted.","summary_technical":"Brawley, Calif. (Imperial County). Resolution No. 2026-29, adopted unanimously June 16, 2026. Declares existing zoning insufficient for large-scale data centers. Directs City Manager Rebecca Terrazas-Baxter to engage specialized consultants to draft zoning amendments that 'establish clear classifications, designate specific allowable zones, mandate public hearings, and ensure total compliance with state and federal environmental protection laws.' This replaced a temporary moratorium the council considered two weeks earlier. Legal effect: directive only. No ordinance or development standards have been adopted yet, hence status 'proposed'. Regional context: imperial-ca-dc-moratorium-2026, ca-calexico-dc-permanent-ban-2026, imperial-county-ca-dc-urgency-moratorium-proposed.","who_is_protected":"Brawley residents","who_must_comply":"Future data center applicants in Brawley (once amendments are adopted)","citation":"Brawley City Council Resolution No. 2026-29 (June 16, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.ivpressonline.com/news/brawley-clearly-moves-to-regulate-data-centers-dropping-moratorium-plan/article_45453b46-b08c-4ae9-bbdc-51be3580c3af.html","source_title":"Brawley clearly moves to regulate data centers, dropping moratorium plan (Imperial Valley Press, June 18, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Brawley","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-calaveras-county-dc-urgency-moratorium-2026","title":"Calaveras County, CA: Board of Supervisors adopts 45-day urgency moratorium on data centers, 4-0 (Aug. 25, 2026)","short_title":"Calaveras County CA 45-day data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Calaveras County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Calaveras County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"unknown","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-25","enacted_date":"2026-08-25","expires_date":"2026-10-09","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Calaveras County supervisors voted 4-0 on Aug. 25, 2026 to pause data center development in the county's unincorporated areas for 45 days. The pause can be extended for up to two years while staff write permanent rules. The planning director said developers had shown interest in large sites, and some claimed they could build 'by right.' The board also asked staff to look at allowing small data centers as secondary uses for hospitals and other local operations. The first 45-day term ran out around Oct. 9. No extension had been found as of Oct. 10.","summary_technical":"Calaveras County, Calif. Urgency ordinance 'imposing a temporary moratorium on Data Centers' (CEQAnet SCH 2026081121, posted Aug. 31, 2026, CEQA-exempt). The ordinance establishes 'a temporary moratorium on the approval or development of Data Centers in Calaveras County,' covering unincorporated areas including facilities under 5,000 sq ft. Adopted 4-0 on Aug. 25, 2026, with Board Chair Benjamin Stopper absent. Term: 45 days, extendable up to two years (Cal. Gov. Code § 65858 framework). Computed initial expiry: Oct. 9, 2026. Staff were directed to study allowing smaller data centers as secondary uses for hospitals and county operations. Status 'unknown' because the initial term has lapsed and no extension was confirmed. Companion: ca-angels-camp-dc-urgency-moratorium-2026.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Calaveras County","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in unincorporated Calaveras County","citation":"Calaveras County urgency ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on data centers (Aug. 25, 2026; SCH 2026081121)","source_url":"https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2026081121","source_title":"Ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on Data Centers (CEQAnet, County of Calaveras, posted Aug. 31, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Calaveras County Planning Department; Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No data center approvals or development during the moratorium"},{"id":"ca-sb1111-digital-replica-publicity-2026","title":"California SB 1111 (2026) — Digital Replicas (right of publicity and false impersonation)","short_title":"California SB 1111 (AI digital replicas covered by likeness law and impersonation crimes)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"California","state_abbr":"CA","topics":["deepfakes","ai-images","consumer-protection"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2027-01-01","enacted_date":"2026-09-30","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Makes clear that California's right-of-publicity law covers AI digital replicas: using a realistic AI copy of a living person's voice or likeness to advertise or sell something without consent is treated the same as using their real voice or image. It also makes using a digital replica to impersonate someone count as false impersonation under existing criminal laws.","summary_technical":"Amends Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 so that 'voice or likeness' includes a digital replica as defined in § 3344.1, and removes an evidentiary presumption that had shielded incidental use of an employee's likeness. Adds Penal Code § 540 providing that, for offenses requiring false impersonation (including §§ 528.5, 529 and 530), impersonation includes use of a digital replica. Chapter 862, Statutes of 2026.","who_is_protected":"Living individuals whose voice or likeness is replicated by AI without consent.","who_must_comply":"Any person who knowingly uses another person's digital replica for commercial purposes (advertising, merchandise, solicitation) without consent, or who uses a digital replica to impersonate someone.","citation":"SB 1111 (Ashby), Stats. 2026, ch. 862; Cal. Civ. Code § 3344; Cal. Penal Code § 540","source_url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/09/30/californias-nation-leading-ai-framework-just-got-stronger-governor-newsom-signs-more-first-in-the-nation-worker-protections-and-more/","source_title":"Governor Newsom signs more first-in-the-nation AI protections (Office of the Governor, Sept. 30, 2026)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Private civil actions under Civ. Code § 3344; criminal prosecution by district attorneys under impersonation statutes.","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Civil: greater of $750 or actual damages, plus profits and attorney's fees (§ 3344). Criminal: existing impersonation penalties, e.g. § 528.5 up to $1,000 fine and/or up to one year in county jail (per secondary reporting)."},{"id":"ca-desert-hot-springs-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Desert Hot Springs, CA — Urgency Moratorium on Data Centers and High-Intensity Computing Uses, Extended to Two Years","short_title":"Desert Hot Springs CA data center moratorium (2026, extended to 2 yrs)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Desert Hot Springs, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Riverside","city":"Desert Hot Springs","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-16","enacted_date":"2026-06-16","expires_date":"2028-06-16","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Desert Hot Springs, California adopted an urgency moratorium on new data centers and similar high-intensity computing uses on June 16, 2026, and on July 7, 2026 the City Council unanimously extended it to a full two years. While it is in force the city will not accept, process or approve permits, licenses or development applications for new data center projects while staff study power demand, utility infrastructure, cooling, backup generation, water use and land-use compatibility.","summary_technical":"Urgency interim ordinance under Cal. Gov. Code § 65858 adopted June 16, 2026 (initial 45-day term), extended July 7, 2026 by 22 months 15 days (the statutory 10-month-15-day plus 1-year extensions combined), for a two-year total. Scope: bars acceptance, processing and approval of permits or other entitlements for new data centers and similar high-intensity computing uses. Ordinance number not reported. expires_date approximated as two years from the June 16 adoption.","who_is_protected":"Desert Hot Springs residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers and high-intensity computing facilities seeking permits in Desert Hot Springs","citation":"City of Desert Hot Springs, Cal., urgency interim ordinance (adopted June 16, 2026; extended July 7, 2026 under Gov. Code § 65858)","source_url":"https://riversiderecord.org/desert-hot-springs-data-center-moratorium-extended/","source_title":"Desert Hot Springs data center moratorium extended — The Riverside Record","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Desert Hot Springs Community Development / City Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted or processed during the moratorium"},{"id":"ca-el-cerrito-flock-nonrenewal-2026","title":"El Cerrito, CA — City Council Votes 3-2 Not to Renew Flock Safety ALPR Contract; Cameras Deactivated June 2026","short_title":"El Cerrito CA Flock non-renewal (May 5, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"El Cerrito, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Contra Costa","city":"El Cerrito","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-06-06","enacted_date":"2026-05-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"El Cerrito's City Council voted 3-2 on May 5, 2026 not to renew the city's contract with Flock Safety for automated license plate reader cameras, after public concern about the security of data held in Flock's cloud and about sharing with federal agencies such as ICE. The cameras stopped collecting images when the agreement expired in early June 2026 and were scheduled for physical removal in late July to mid-August. No replacement plate-reader system was approved.","summary_technical":"Non-renewal of the City of El Cerrito / Flock Safety ALPR agreement by 3-2 council vote (May 5, 2026). Agreement expired June 6, 2026 (Flock: cameras not collecting images since then); El Cerrito PD said Flock had work orders to remove hardware July 30 - Aug. 18, 2026. One councilmember suggested exploring non-cloud camera alternatives; no replacement vendor or ALPR policy adopted. Procurement decision, not an ordinance.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in El Cerrito whose plate data would otherwise be collected and stored in Flock's cloud","who_must_comply":"El Cerrito Police Department","citation":"El Cerrito City Council action of May 5, 2026 (non-renewal of Flock Safety ALPR agreement)","source_url":"https://contracosta.news/2026/05/06/el-cerrito-votes-to-end-flock-contract-cameras-go-dark-june-7/","source_title":"El Cerrito votes to end Flock contract, cameras go dark June 7 — Contra Costa News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"El Cerrito City Council","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-eureka-flock-alpr-rejection-2025","title":"Eureka, CA — City Council Unanimously Rejects Proposed Two-Year Flock Safety ALPR Contract (21 Cameras)","short_title":"Eureka CA rejects Flock ALPR contract (Feb. 2025)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Eureka, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Humboldt","city":"Eureka","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-02-04","enacted_date":"2025-02-04","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"On February 4, 2025, the Eureka City Council unanimously rejected a police department request for a two-year Flock Safety contract that would have placed 21 license plate reader cameras at entry points around the city, after residents and the city's police oversight board raised privacy concerns. As of October 2026 local coverage shows no later approval of Flock cameras in Eureka; the council instead approved research into drone response in January 2026.","summary_technical":"Council denial (unanimous, Feb. 4, 2025) of proposed 2-year Flock Safety ALPR agreement for 21 cameras; Police Oversight Board had reviewed a draft ALPR policy Jan. 31, 2025. Lost Coast Outpost search shows no subsequent Eureka Flock approval through Oct. 2026; Humboldt County supervisors continue to deal with the Sheriff's separate Flock program (ad hoc group, Sept. 2026). A rejected procurement, not an ordinance; nothing bars a future proposal.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in Eureka","who_must_comply":"Eureka Police Department","citation":"Eureka City Council action of Feb. 4, 2025 (denial of Flock Safety ALPR contract)","source_url":"https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/eureka-calif-votes-no-on-license-plate-reader-cameras","source_title":"Eureka, Calif., Votes No on License Plate Reader Cameras — GovTech (Times-Standard via TNS)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Eureka City Council","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-fullerton-flock-suspension-2026","title":"Fullerton, CA — City Council Votes 3-1 to Suspend Flock Safety ALPR Cameras for Six Months","short_title":"Fullerton CA 6-month Flock ALPR suspension (Oct. 6, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Fullerton, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Orange","city":"Fullerton","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-10-06","enacted_date":"2026-10-06","expires_date":"2027-04-06","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Fullerton's City Council voted 3-1 on October 6, 2026 to switch off the city's Flock Safety license plate reader cameras for six months. During the pause the city will compare how police investigations fare with and without the cameras, hold a public town hall, and review audit and communication protocols with Flock. Cameras can be turned back on immediately in a contract dispute or a severe public-safety emergency. The city remains paying for the Flock contract, which runs through 2028.","summary_technical":"Six-month suspension of the Fullerton PD ALPR (Flock Safety) system approved 3-1 on Oct. 6, 2026 (Valencia no; Jung absent; Valencia proposed two months instead). Amendment permits immediate resumption during contract disputes or severe public-safety emergencies. Contract financially binding through 2028. Cal State Fullerton's separate 46-camera ALPR network (moving to Axon) is unaffected. Purpose: collect comparative data on investigation completion; town hall; review of Flock audit/communication protocols. Expiry approximated as six months from the vote; council will decide whether to resume or end.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in Fullerton","who_must_comply":"Fullerton Police Department","citation":"Fullerton City Council action of Oct. 6, 2026 (six-month suspension of Flock ALPR system)","source_url":"https://dailytitan.com/news/fullerton-city-council-approves-six-month-suspension-of-flock-safety-cameras/article_8dd85f60-aa0b-46e8-80e2-221775a585d5.html","source_title":"Fullerton City Council approves six-month suspension of Flock Safety cameras — Daily Titan","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Fullerton City Council","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-chula-vista-ai-governance-policy-2026","title":"Chula Vista, CA — City Council Adopts Citywide AI Governance Policy (Council Sign-off for Real-Time Biometric Surveillance and Predictive Policing)","short_title":"Chula Vista CA AI governance policy (Oct. 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chula Vista, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"San Diego","city":"Chula Vista","topics":["public-sector","law-enforcement","biometrics","facial-recognition","automated-decisions","transparency","privacy"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-10-06","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Chula Vista's City Council unanimously approved a policy governing how every city department, contractor and partner agency buys, uses and oversees artificial intelligence. It bars real-time biometric surveillance and predictive policing unless the council authorizes them, requires bias and disparate-impact review before an AI tool is deployed, requires human review when AI-assisted decisions affect people, bans fully automated decisions without meaningful human oversight and covert behavioral tracking, stops staff from using free public generative-AI accounts, and requires a public inventory of the city's AI systems. It takes effect only after the city meets and confers with its labor unions; the city then has 120 days to set up a working group, name AI leads, inventory systems and finish an AI handbook.","summary_technical":"Citywide AI governance policy covering procurement, deployment and oversight across departments, contractors and partner agencies. Prohibitions: real-time biometric surveillance and predictive policing absent council authorization; covert behavioral tracking; fully automated decisions without meaningful human oversight; employee use of free public generative-AI platforms requiring individual accounts. Requirements: pre-deployment bias/disparate-impact evaluation; human review of AI-assisted decisions affecting individuals or communities; centralized publicly disclosed AI inventory. Effectiveness conditioned on meet-and-confer with labor groups (added to motion at staff request). 120-day implementation tasks. Complements the existing Privacy Protection and Technology Transparency Policy (ca-city-council-chula-vista-ca-privacy-protection-and-technology-transparency-policy-g-202). Vote date uncertain (see notes).","who_is_protected":"Chula Vista residents and people affected by city AI-assisted decisions or surveillance","who_must_comply":"All City of Chula Vista departments (including police), contractors and partner agencies using AI on the city's behalf","citation":"City of Chula Vista, Cal., Artificial Intelligence policy (approved by City Council Oct. 2026; pending meet-and-confer)","source_url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/10/chula-vista-bans-predictive-policing-ai-surveillance-without-council-sign-off/","source_title":"Chula Vista bans predictive policing, AI surveillance without council sign-off — Hoodline","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Chula Vista City Council / city AI working group","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-grass-valley-flock-suspension-2026","title":"Grass Valley, CA — City Council Indefinitely Suspends Flock Safety ALPR Cameras; Contract Ended and Cameras Removed (Aug. 11, 2026)","short_title":"Grass Valley CA ends Flock ALPR contract (Aug. 11, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Grass Valley, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Nevada","city":"Grass Valley","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-11","enacted_date":"2026-08-11","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"At its August 11, 2026 meeting, the Grass Valley City Council ended the city's use of Flock Safety automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras. The council voted to 'indefinitely suspend' them, and the police department ended its Flock contract. City staff began taking the cameras down that night. The police department pointed to concerns about warrantless data collection, privacy protections, data retention, and how the information could be shared with government and non-government entities. In early September, Flock crews reinstalled some cameras without permission. Police removed them right away, and Flock later confirmed in writing that the contract had ended.","summary_technical":"Grass Valley (Nevada County) ended its Flock Safety ALPR program after the Aug. 11, 2026 council meeting. The Union describes the council action as a vote to 'indefinitely suspend' use of Flock cameras; KCRA reports the city ended the contract and staff removed all cameras after the decision was announced at the meeting. Removal began Aug. 11–12. Over the 2026 Labor Day weekend (about Sept. 5–6), Flock's automated maintenance system treated the removed cameras as equipment failures and reinstalled at least two. GVPD removed them, and Flock cancelled the work orders and confirmed the termination. Stated grounds (GVPD via CBS Sacramento): warrantless data collection, privacy protections, data retention, and sharing with government and non-government entities. Classed 'effective' because this is a protective non-use decision, following the dataset convention used for other Flock terminations.","who_is_protected":"Grass Valley residents and drivers, who are no longer recorded by the city's Flock ALPR network","who_must_comply":"Grass Valley Police Department; Flock Safety (contract terminated)","citation":"Grass Valley City Council meeting, Aug. 11, 2026: Flock ALPR use indefinitely suspended and contract ended","source_url":"https://www.kcra.com/article/grass-valley-police-remove-re-installed-flock-cameras/73627329","source_title":"Grass Valley police remove re-installed Flock cameras after end of contract — KCRA","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Grass Valley City Council; Grass Valley Police Department"},{"id":"ca-hawthorne-dc-urgency-moratorium-2026","title":"Hawthorne, CA — Interim Urgency Ordinance No. U-2270: 45-Day Citywide Moratorium on New or Expanded Data Centers (Sept. 9, 2026)","short_title":"Hawthorne CA 45-day data center moratorium (U-2270, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Hawthorne, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Los Angeles","city":"Hawthorne","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-09-09","enacted_date":"2026-09-09","expires_date":"2026-10-24","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"On September 9, 2026, Hawthorne adopted an interim urgency ordinance that pauses the establishment or expansion of data centers anywhere in the city. The pause runs for 45 days at first, and the city plans to extend it if needed. In the meantime, staff will study environmental and infrastructure impacts and draft permanent zoning rules.","summary_technical":"Hawthorne Interim Urgency Ordinance No. U-2270, adopted Sept. 9, 2026, described as a 'state-compliant moratorium' (Cal. Gov. Code § 65858 interim urgency ordinance; the initial term is 45 days and it can be extended after a noticed public hearing, up to about two years in total). Scope: citywide prohibition on establishing or expanding data centers. The initial term ends about Oct. 24, 2026, and PublicCEO reports 'a planned extension, if needed'. The vote count was not reported. Purpose: study environmental and infrastructure impacts and develop permanent zoning regulations.","who_is_protected":"Hawthorne residents, from new or expanded data center development while the city studies impacts","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators seeking to establish or expand in Hawthorne","citation":"City of Hawthorne Interim Urgency Ordinance No. U-2270 (adopted Sept. 9, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.publicceo.com/2026/10/city-of-hawthorne-adopts-interim-urgency-ordinance-pausing-new-data-center-development/","source_title":"City of Hawthorne adopts interim urgency ordinance pausing new data center development — PublicCEO","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Hawthorne Planning Department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Permits and approvals for new or expanded data centers withheld during the moratorium"},{"id":"ca-hayward-pd-dfr-drones-2026","title":"Hayward, CA — City Council Approves Drone-as-First-Responder Program and Purchase of Eight Police Drones (June 16, 2026)","short_title":"Hayward CA police drone-as-first-responder program (Jun. 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Hayward, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Alameda","city":"Hayward","topics":["law-enforcement","robotics","privacy"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-06-16","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"On June 16, 2026, the Hayward City Council approved the purchase of eight drones for the Hayward Police Department and a drone-as-first-responder program. Under it, police drones can respond directly to certain 911 calls. This expands police aerial surveillance, and Hayward joins a growing number of Bay Area agencies with similar programs.","summary_technical":"Hayward City Council action of June 16, 2026: approved purchase of eight Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) for the Hayward Police Department, expanding existing UAS use to respond directly to calls for service (DFR). Bay City News headline: 'Hayward City Council adopts drone-as-first-responder policy for 911 calls'. Policy terms (retention, flight logging, prohibited uses), cost, and vendor were not confirmed from an opened source. This is a surveillance-expansion deployment comparable to cypress-ca-police-drone-purchase-2026 and stanton-ca-ocsd-dfr-authorization-2026. It is not a restriction.","who_is_protected":"None directly; any safeguards depend on HPD's UAS policy (not confirmed)","who_must_comply":"Hayward Police Department","citation":"Hayward City Council action, June 16, 2026 (purchase of 8 police drones for DFR)","source_url":"https://localnewsmatters.org/2026/06/24/hayward-police-department-drones-911-calls/","source_title":"Hayward City Council adopts drone-as-first-responder policy for 911 calls — Local News Matters (Bay City News)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Hayward City Council; Hayward Police Department"},{"id":"ca-imperial-irrigation-district-large-load-tariff-2026","title":"Imperial Irrigation District (CA) — Board Adopts Large Load Tariff for Customers Above 20 MW: Infrastructure Cost Recovery, 85% Minimum Charge, Deposits, and Curtail-First Rule (Sept. 15, 2026)","short_title":"Imperial Irrigation District large-load (data center) tariff (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Imperial Irrigation District (Imperial County), CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Imperial","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-15","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"The Imperial Irrigation District, the public power utility for the Imperial Valley, approved new pricing rules for very large electricity users such as data centers (more than 20 megawatts). These customers must pay for the substations, lines and other upgrades they need. They must pay a monthly minimum of at least 85% of their contracted energy use, put down cash deposits, sign 15-year commitments, and meet renewable energy requirements. When demand spikes, IID can cut their power first. The aim is to keep ordinary ratepayers from covering data-center costs.","summary_technical":"IID Board of Directors, unanimous vote, Tuesday Sept. 15, 2026 (KPBS article published Sept. 16): large-load rules for customers above 20 MW. Terms per KPBS: (1) the customer pays for infrastructure upgrades (substations, distribution, transmission); (2) a minimum monthly charge of at least 85% of contracted energy usage, with no fixed dollar figure; (3) a 15-year service commitment; (4) a cash deposit; (5) renewable procurement obligations; (6) IID may curtail these customers first when demand surges. Context: Sebastian Rucci's proposed data center complex in the City of Imperial (see imperial-ca-dc-moratorium-2026 and the Imperial County litigation entries). The effective date was not reported. IID is a special district (irrigation and power), entered at county level with _body_type utility.","who_is_protected":"IID electric ratepayers in the Imperial Valley (and parts of Riverside County), shielded from paying for large-load infrastructure and stranded costs","who_must_comply":"Large-load customers above 20 MW in IID territory, mainly data centers","citation":"Imperial Irrigation District Board, Large Load tariff/rules (approved Sept. 15, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/environment/2026/09/16/imperial-valley-utility-adopts-new-pricing-rules-putting-data-centers-first-for-power-cuts","source_title":"Imperial Valley utility adopts new pricing rules, putting data centers first for power cuts — KPBS","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Imperial Irrigation District","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Minimum charges, deposits and first-in-line curtailment under tariff terms"},{"id":"ca-los-altos-hills-flock-termination-2026","title":"Los Altos Hills, CA — Town Council Votes to End Flock Safety ALPR Contract and Remove 31 Cameras (Jan. 15, 2026)","short_title":"Los Altos Hills CA ends Flock ALPR contract (Jan. 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Los Altos Hills, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Santa Clara","city":"Los Altos Hills","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-01-15","enacted_date":"2026-01-15","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"On January 15, 2026, the Los Altos Hills Town Council voted to end its contract with Flock Safety and remove the town's 31 automated license plate reader cameras. Council members cited worries that immigration authorities could reach the data through other police searches. They also said the cameras had not reduced burglaries and cost about $93,000 a year, money they would rather spend on more officers.","summary_technical":"Los Altos Hills Town Council vote, Jan. 15, 2026: staff directed to begin terminating the Flock Safety ALPR contract immediately; 31 cameras. Grounds per the Los Altos Town Crier: data-privacy concern over possible ICE access through state and local police searches (no direct ICE–Flock contract); no measurable burglary reduction; cost of $93,000 a year plus rising sheriff monitoring costs; evasion through stolen or missing plates. The town is patrolled by the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office. Protective non-use decision, entered as 'effective' following the dataset convention for Flock terminations.","who_is_protected":"Los Altos Hills residents and drivers, who are no longer recorded by the town's 31-camera Flock ALPR network","who_must_comply":"Town of Los Altos Hills; Flock Safety (contract terminated)","citation":"Los Altos Hills Town Council action, Jan. 15, 2026 (termination of Flock Safety ALPR contract)","source_url":"https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/los-altos-hills-to-remove-alpr-cameras/article_59f90aa8-14c1-4309-9f7f-12d16c649d9e.html","source_title":"Los Altos Hills to remove ALPR cameras — Los Altos Town Crier","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Los Altos Hills Town Council"},{"id":"ca-los-angeles-council-axon-alpr-pilot-hold-2026","title":"Los Angeles, CA — City Council Votes 10-4 to Assert Jurisdiction Over and Hold the LAPD/Axon Streetlight ALPR Pilot (Oct. 6, 2026)","short_title":"LA Council holds LAPD/Axon streetlight ALPR pilot (Oct. 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Los Angeles, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Los Angeles","city":"Los Angeles","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","automated-decisions"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"On October 6, 2026, the Los Angeles City Council voted 10-4 to take control of, and pause, a police plan to put AI-powered license plate reader cameras on city streetlights. The Police Commission had approved the three-month pilot with Axon. The plan is part of a larger $235 million, 10-year Axon deal that also covers body cameras, Tasers, cloud storage and AI-written police reports. Council members said LAPD lacks clear rules for license plate readers and pointed to past misuse, including officers who used readers to stalk partners. The pilot now goes to the Public Safety Committee and must return to the full council for a final decision by October 23.","summary_technical":"LA City Council, Oct. 6, 2026, 10-4 (no: Blumenfield, Lee, Park, Rodriguez). Motion by Soto-Martinez and Harris-Dawson asserting council jurisdiction over the Board of Police Commissioners' approval of a 3-month Axon pilot deploying AI-enabled ALPRs on streetlights (vehicle, plate, pedestrian and object detection per LA Times via Officer.com). Context: a broader $235M, 10-year Axon contract (body-worn cameras, Tasers, cloud storage, AI-assisted report writing). Next steps: Public Safety Committee (likely Oct. 20) and return to the full council by Oct. 23, 2026. Entered as 'proposed' because the pilot's fate is pending. The council's oversight action is procedural and is not a standing restriction. Distinct from los-angeles-ca-lapd-flock-expiration-2026 (July 2026 Flock expiry) and lapd-facial-recognition-policy.","who_is_protected":"Los Angeles residents, pedestrians and drivers, pending council review of the AI-enabled streetlight ALPR deployment","who_must_comply":"Los Angeles Police Department; Board of Police Commissioners; Axon Enterprise","citation":"Los Angeles City Council vote, Oct. 6, 2026 (10-4), asserting jurisdiction over the LAPD/Axon ALPR pilot approval","source_url":"https://mynewsla.com/government/2026/10/06/la-city-council-to-consider-review-of-police-camera-contracts-4/","source_title":"LA City Council to consider review of police camera contracts — MyNewsLA","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Los Angeles City Council (Public Safety Committee)"},{"id":"ca-los-angeles-county-alpr-immigration-safeguards-motion-2025","title":"Los Angeles County, CA — Board of Supervisors Motion 'Safeguarding ALPR Data to Restore Community Trust and Prevent Improper Civil Immigration Enforcement' (Sept. 16, 2025)","short_title":"LA County ALPR immigration-data safeguards motion (Sept. 2025)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Los Angeles County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Los Angeles","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","data-retention","transparency"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2025-09-16","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"On September 16, 2025, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to ask the Sheriff's Department to tighten its rules on license plate reader data. The board asked that the data never be shared for civil immigration enforcement unless state or county law requires it or a judge issues a warrant. It also asked for written sign-off on any disclosure, reports twice a year on who accessed the data, yearly privacy training, and annual compliance reviews by the Inspector General. The Sheriff runs independently, so the motion is a request. In December 2025 the Sheriff reported that a revised policy had been drafted, but it was not yet in force.","summary_technical":"LA County BOS, Sept. 16, 2025, item 25-5022, revised motion by Solis and Hahn, adopted 4-1 (Barger no). Requests LASD, with County Counsel, within 90 days to amend its ALPR Privacy Policy: (a) no disclosure for civil immigration enforcement except as expressly required by state or county law or under a judicial warrant; (b) documented Custodian of Records review of permissible disclosures; (c) SB 34 and SB 54 (and SB 274 if enacted) compliance; semi-annual access-log reports to the OIG, Civilian Oversight Commission and Board; annual training; review and renegotiation of MOUs; adoption of the OIG's ALPR recommendations; a 120-day report-back. It also directs the CEO to support SB 274 (60-day non-hit retention cap), instructs the Inspector General to run annual compliance reviews from Jan. 1, 2026, and asks the COC to hold an annual multilingual forum. LASD report-back of Dec. 11, 2025: amendments drafted and the SB 274 items dropped because SB 274 was not enacted; enactment delayed past Jan. 14, 2026 by meet-and-confer. Strength 'limited' because the Sheriff is independently elected and the motion is advisory toward LASD; the OIG and COC instructions are binding on those offices.","who_is_protected":"People whose vehicles are recorded by LASD's ALPRs (900+ readers per CalMatters), especially immigrant communities","who_must_comply":"Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (requested); Office of Inspector General and Civilian Oversight Commission (instructed)","citation":"LA County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Sept. 16, 2025, item 25-5022 (4-1); LASD Report Back, Dec. 11, 2025","source_url":"https://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/207771.pdf","source_title":"LA County Board of Supervisors Statement of Proceedings, Sept. 16, 2025 (item 25-5022)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"LA County Office of Inspector General; Civilian Oversight Commission; Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-menlo-park-pd-alpr-sharing-revocation-2026","title":"Menlo Park, CA — Police Department Revokes All ALPR Data-Sharing Agreements and Requires New Compliance-and-Audit Agreements (July 9, 2026)","short_title":"Menlo Park PD revokes all ALPR sharing agreements (Jul. 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Menlo Park, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"San Mateo","city":"Menlo Park","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-09","enacted_date":"2026-07-09","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"After finding that outside agencies had improperly searched its license plate camera data, including about 700 searches tied to federal agencies through a regional intelligence center, the Menlo Park Police Department cancelled all its data-sharing agreements on July 9, 2026. Any agency that wants access back must sign a new agreement to follow California law and city rules and to audit its own use. The department also started quarterly audits of outside searches. By late August only five agencies had regained access, compared with 242 before.","summary_technical":"MPPD administrative action, July 9, 2026: revoked every existing ALPR (Flock, 35 cameras) data-sharing agreement. New access requires a city-specific agreement affirming compliance with California law (SB 34 bars sharing with federal or out-of-state agencies) and local policy, plus periodic internal audits (frequency not specified). Trigger: a June 2026 audit found about 0.33% (about 700) of 214,147 NCRIC searches since Feb. 2025 did not comply, involving federal agencies (no immigration-related searches found), on top of 2025 access by Houston TX and an Illinois department. MPPD also began quarterly audits of external searches (Q2 2026: 122,450 searches reviewed, all compliant). Access restored to 5 agencies (East Palo Alto PD, San Mateo PD, South San Francisco PD, San Mateo County Sheriff, San Diego County DA), down from 242. A department policy, not a council ordinance, so strength is limited.","who_is_protected":"Drivers recorded by Menlo Park's 35 Flock ALPR cameras","who_must_comply":"Outside law enforcement agencies seeking Menlo Park ALPR data; Menlo Park Police Department","citation":"Menlo Park Police Department ALPR data-sharing revocation, July 9, 2026","source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/public-safety/2026/08/27/menlo-park-overhauls-license-plate-reader-sharing-after-discovering-more-improper-searches/","source_title":"Menlo Park overhauls license plate reader sharing after discovering more improper searches — Palo Alto Online / The Almanac","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Menlo Park Police Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-monterey-county-flock-removal-2026","title":"Monterey County, CA — Board of Supervisors Votes 3-2 Not to Contract With Flock and Orders Sheriff's 63 ALPR Cameras Shut Off and Removed Within 60 Days (Sept. 22, 2026)","short_title":"Monterey County CA orders Sheriff's Flock cameras removed (Sept. 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Monterey County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Monterey","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-22","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"On September 22, 2026, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 against a proposed 10-year, $1.7 million Flock Safety contract for the Sheriff's Office. It ordered the Sheriff's 63 license plate reader cameras shut off and removed within 60 days. Residents had raised concerns about data privacy and access by outside agencies. The District Attorney and two supervisors argued for keeping the system with better oversight.","summary_technical":"Monterey County BOS, Sept. 22, 2026, 3-2 (aye: Daniels, Root Askew, Church; no: Alejo, Lopez). The board declined to negotiate the Sheriff's requested $1.7M, 10-year Flock contract for 63 cameras and directed the Sheriff's Office to have Flock end access and remove the cameras as soon as possible, or within 60 days (by about Nov. 21, 2026). Grounds: data privacy and unauthorized outside-agency access. DA Jeannine Pacioni argued 'govern it well' rather than reject it. Status is 'enacted' until removal is confirmed. Distinct from ca-monterey-county-data-ai-governance-plan-2026.","who_is_protected":"Residents and drivers in Monterey County areas covered by the Sheriff's 63 Flock cameras","who_must_comply":"Monterey County Sheriff's Office; Flock Safety","citation":"Monterey County Board of Supervisors vote, Sept. 22, 2026 (3-2), rejecting the Flock contract and ordering camera removal","source_url":"https://www.montereycountynow.com/blogs/news_blog/county-supervisors-vote-to-take-down-all-sheriffs-flock-cameras/article_b7cfff00-8f45-4fdb-bd98-c8e86f0d02c9.html","source_title":"County supervisors vote to take down all Sheriff's Flock cameras — Monterey County Weekly","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Monterey County Board of Supervisors"},{"id":"ca-mountain-view-flock-cancellation-2026","title":"Mountain View, CA — City Council Unanimously Cancels Flock Safety ALPR Contract After Unauthorized Federal and Statewide Access (Feb. 24, 2026)","short_title":"Mountain View CA cancels Flock ALPR contract (Feb. 24, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Mountain View, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Santa Clara","city":"Mountain View","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-02-24","enacted_date":"2026-02-24","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Mountain View's police chief switched off all 30 of the city's Flock license plate cameras on February 2, 2026, after learning that more than 250 California agencies, and for a few months in 2024 federal agencies, had been able to search the city's data without permission. On February 24, the City Council voted unanimously to cancel the Flock contract. State law bars sharing this data with out-of-state or federal agencies.","summary_technical":"Mountain View: Chief Canfield disabled all 30 Flock ALPR cameras on Feb. 2, 2026 after finding that (1) Flock's 'national lookup' was active Aug.–Nov. 2024 without the city's knowledge, letting federal entities (ATF offices in KY and TN, Air Force bases in VA and OH) search the data, and (2) a 'statewide lookup' let 250+ California agencies search the data without required agreements from Aug. 2024 to Jan. 2026. The council voted unanimously on Feb. 24, 2026 to cancel the contract (about $154,650 paid since inception). No replacement ALPR vendor was planned, per the PA Daily Post. Grounds include SB 34 (Civ. Code § 1798.90.55) limits on ALPR data sharing.","who_is_protected":"Mountain View residents and drivers, who are no longer recorded by the city's 30-camera Flock network","who_must_comply":"Mountain View Police Department; Flock Safety (contract cancelled)","citation":"Mountain View City Council vote, Feb. 24, 2026 (unanimous), cancelling the Flock Safety ALPR contract","source_url":"https://padailypost.com/2026/02/24/mountain-view-council-votes-to-get-rid-of-license-plate-cameras/","source_title":"Mountain View council votes to get rid of license plate cameras — Palo Alto Daily Post","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Mountain View City Council; Mountain View Police Department"},{"id":"ca-oakley-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Oakley Data Center Moratorium (Urgency Ordinance, extended to April 14, 2027)","short_title":"Oakley data center moratorium (to Apr. 14, 2027)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Oakley, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Contra Costa","city":"Oakley","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","expires_date":"2027-04-14","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Oakley, in eastern Contra Costa County, has paused data centers as a land use. The council adopted an urgency moratorium in April 2026 and on May 12, 2026 voted 5-0 to extend it to April 14, 2027 while the city studies rules. The move followed a dispute over the Bridgehead industrial project, whose applicants had proposed and then withdrawn data center uses. Local press describe Oakley as the first Bay Area city with a data center moratorium.","summary_technical":"Interim urgency ordinance (Cal. Gov. Code 65858; 4/5 vote) prohibiting data centers as a permitted land use. Initial 45-day moratorium April 2026; first extension adopted May 12, 2026, 5-0, for 10 months 15 days, expiring April 14, 2027. The city attorney (Derek Cole) described a two-year, multi-step process, so one further one-year extension is legally available. Ordinance number not reported.","who_is_protected":"Oakley residents and ratepayers (energy, water and land-use impacts of data centers)","who_must_comply":"Applicants and developers proposing data centers in Oakley; City of Oakley planning staff","citation":"Oakley City Council urgency data center moratorium, extended May 12, 2026 to April 14, 2027","source_url":"https://contracosta.news/2026/05/16/oakley-agrees-to-extend-moratorium-on-data-centers-for-1-year/","source_title":"Oakley agrees to extend moratorium on data centers for 1 year — Contra Costa News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Oakley Community Development / Planning"},{"id":"ca-palm-desert-ai-policy-2026","title":"Palm Desert Citywide AI Use Policy (2026)","short_title":"Palm Desert AI use policy (Oct. 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Palm Desert, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Riverside","city":"Palm Desert","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","transparency"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-10-08","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Palm Desert adopted rules for how city staff use AI. Each use is rated low, moderate or high risk, and higher-risk uses, such as systems that influence decisions about residents or businesses, need extra review. The policy protects city data and commits the city to a public webpage listing approved AI tools and what they are used for. At the same meeting the council decided not to adopt an AI-assisted building plan review system, saying the technology was not ready.","summary_technical":"Internal municipal AI governance policy, approved 5-0 on Oct. 8, 2026. Three risk tiers (low/moderate/high) with tiered oversight; data-protection safeguards; additional review for high-risk applications (including systems affecting decisions about people or businesses); public inventory webpage of approved AI tools and uses. Council declined an AI-assisted plan-check tool. Administrative policy, not an ordinance; no penalties or private right of action.","who_is_protected":"Palm Desert residents and businesses affected by city AI use","who_must_comply":"City of Palm Desert departments and staff","citation":"Palm Desert City Council AI policy, approved Oct. 8, 2026 (5-0)","source_url":"https://kesq.com/news/2026/10/08/palm-desert-city-council-passes-new-ai-policy/","source_title":"Palm Desert City Council passes new AI policy — KESQ","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Palm Desert (city manager / IT)"},{"id":"ca-perris-dc-ban-2026","title":"Perris Proposed Citywide Data Center Ban (2026)","short_title":"Perris data center ban (proposed)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Perris, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Riverside","city":"Perris","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Perris is moving toward banning large data centers citywide. In June 2026 the City Council voted unanimously to have staff draft a ban, and all 27 public speakers supported it. On September 17, 2026 the Planning Commission recommended the ban, with possible exemptions for small server rooms such as those used for emergency services. The ban takes effect only after a final City Council vote. If adopted, Perris would follow Monterey Park, Coachella and Calexico as a California city that bans data centers.","summary_technical":"Zoning text amendment, in draft, to prohibit data centers with large electricity and water demand. Council direction to staff (unanimous), June 2026 meeting (reported June 10, 2026). Planning Commission recommendation of approval Sept. 17, 2026, which asked for clearer size and impact definitions and an exclusion for small residential or emergency-service server rooms. The ordinance returns to the City Council for introduction and adoption, date not set.","who_is_protected":"Perris residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and applicants in Perris","citation":"Perris proposed citywide data center ban; Planning Commission recommendation Sept. 17, 2026","source_url":"https://www.kvcrnews.org/local-news/2026-09-17/perris-planning-commission-recommends-data-center-ban-as-residents-oppose-state-fairgrounds-project","source_title":"Perris Planning Commission recommends data center ban — KVCR News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Perris Planning Division"},{"id":"ca-riverside-usd-ai-policy-2025","title":"Riverside Unified School District AI Policy (2025)","short_title":"Riverside USD AI policy (Oct. 2025)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Riverside Unified School District, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Riverside","city":"Riverside","topics":["education","children","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-10-16","enacted_date":"2025-10-16","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Riverside Unified's school board unanimously adopted a policy on how students and staff may use AI. It requires AI use to be ethical, transparent, equitable, accessible, secure and private, and accountable, and to come with staff training and community input. The policy is to be reviewed as the technology changes. The district planned an AI pilot in some high school classrooms, with a wider rollout to high school students the following year.","summary_technical":"Board policy adopted unanimously Oct. 16, 2025, with nine guiding principles: student/staff-centered; ethical and transparent; equitable and accessible; secure and private; accountability and responsibility; consistency with existing policies; professional development; community input; continuous evaluation. Implementation: high-school classroom pilot (Nov. 2025), then planned district-wide high-school rollout. Board policy number not reported.","who_is_protected":"RUSD students and staff","who_must_comply":"Riverside Unified School District staff and students","citation":"Riverside USD Board of Education AI policy, Oct. 16, 2025","source_url":"https://riversiderecord.org/rusd-adopts-ai-guidelines-as-it-moves-to-implement-tech-in-classrooms/","source_title":"RUSD adopts AI guidelines as it moves to implement tech in classrooms — The Riverside Record","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Riverside Unified School District"},{"id":"ca-rohnert-park-alpr-retention-2026","title":"Rohnert Park Flock ALPR Data Retention Cut to 30 Days (2026)","short_title":"Rohnert Park cuts ALPR retention to 30 days","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Rohnert Park, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Sonoma","city":"Rohnert Park","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-01-27","enacted_date":"2026-01-27","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"After residents pushed back, Rohnert Park cut how long it keeps data from its Flock license-plate cameras from one year to 30 days. The council vote was 4-0. The city kept its network of 32 Flock devices (30 plate readers and 2 pan-tilt-zoom cameras). The police chief suggested a civilian advisory group to review audits.","summary_technical":"Council action, Jan. 27, 2026 (4-0, one absent), amending ALPR policy retention from 365 to 30 days for Flock Safety data. 32 devices (30 ALPR, 2 PTZ) retained in service. A civilian advisory group for audit review was floated by the chief but not reported as adopted.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in Rohnert Park whose plates are captured by city ALPRs","who_must_comply":"Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety","citation":"Rohnert Park City Council ALPR retention change, Jan. 27, 2026 (4-0)","source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2026/01/29/rohnert-park-trims-license-plate-surveillance-after-residents-push-back/","source_title":"Rohnert Park trims license plate surveillance after residents push back — The Press Democrat","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety; City Council"},{"id":"ca-san-diego-aclu-flock-lawsuit-2026","title":"ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties (PANA) v. City of San Diego (Flock ALPR privacy suit)","short_title":"ACLU sues San Diego over Flock ALPRs (Sept. 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Diego, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"San Diego","city":"San Diego","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"litigation","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"The ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties sued the City of San Diego and its police department on behalf of the immigrant-rights group PANA. The suit says the city's Flock license plate cameras violate the privacy right in California's constitution. It asks the court to stop the city's plate-reader use, remove the cameras and delete the data collected. The plaintiffs cite the risk that the data could reach immigration enforcement and expose people seeking reproductive care, LGBTQ+ people and protesters.","summary_technical":"Civil action announced Sept. 30, 2026 (court not reported; likely San Diego Superior Court). Claim: violation of the Cal. Const. art. I, sec. 1 privacy right. Relief sought: injunction ending ALPR use, removal of Flock and other ALPR cameras, deletion of all collected data. Defendants: City of San Diego; SDPD. Related to the city's ALPR deployment approved under its surveillance-technology ordinance (see san-diego-smart-streetlights-surveillance-ord-2022).","who_is_protected":"People whose vehicles are captured by San Diego ALPRs (if the plaintiffs prevail)","who_must_comply":"City of San Diego; San Diego Police Department","citation":"PANA (ACLU SDIC) v. City of San Diego, filed/announced Sept. 30, 2026","source_url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/public-safety/2026/09/30/local-aclu-foundation-sues-city-of-san-diego-police-department-over-use-of-flock-cameras","source_title":"Local ACLU Foundation sues City of San Diego, police department over use of Flock cameras — KPBS","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"California courts"},{"id":"litig-cair-ca-v-san-jose-flock-alpr-2026","title":"CAIR-CA & SIREN v. City of San José — Santa Clara County Superior Court dismisses state constitutional privacy challenge to San José's Flock ALPR network (Oct. 2, 2026)","short_title":"CAIR-CA v. San Jose (Flock ALPR) dismissed (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"San Jose, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Santa Clara","city":"San Jose","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Civil-rights groups represented by the ACLU of Northern California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued San José in November 2025, arguing its network of nearly 500 Flock license-plate-reader cameras violates Californians' constitutional right to privacy. On October 2, 2026, a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge dismissed the case, finding the system meets constitutional privacy standards. The plaintiffs may appeal, and a separate federal lawsuit over the cameras is still pending.","summary_technical":"Santa Clara County Superior Court, Judge Jeffrey El-Hajj. Plaintiffs: California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CA) and Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network (SIREN), represented by ACLU of Northern California and EFF (filed Nov. 2025). Claim: Cal. Const. art. I, sec. 1 privacy challenge to the city's ~474-500 Flock ALPR cameras and searchable plate database. Ruling (Fri. Oct. 2, 2026): dismissed; court relied on a 2024 California Court of Appeal decision involving San Diego traffic/streetlight cameras. Status: adverse to privacy plaintiffs; appeal possible (EFF: 'considering all our options'). Separate federal suit against San José pending. Context: San José adopted 30-day retention safeguards in March 2026 (see san-jose-ca-alpr-30day-retention-safeguards-2026).","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in San José whose plates are captured by city ALPR cameras (claim rejected at trial level)","who_must_comply":"City of San José / San José Police Department","citation":"CAIR-CA & SIREN v. City of San José (Santa Clara Cnty. Super. Ct., dismissed Oct. 2, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kqed.org/news/12102922/south-bay-judge-rules-san-joses-flock-cameras-dont-invade-privacy","source_title":"South Bay Judge Rules San José's Flock Cameras Don't Invade Privacy — KQED (Oct. 5, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Santa Clara County Superior Court","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-santa-barbara-alpr-pause-review-2026","title":"Santa Barbara, CA — Flock ALPR contract ends; City Council votes 5-2 to go without a replacement camera system (Verkada) until a public review of its automated-camera policy (Sept. 2026)","short_title":"Santa Barbara CA ALPR pause pending policy review (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Santa Barbara, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Santa Barbara","city":"Santa Barbara","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-23","enacted_date":"2026-09-15","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Santa Barbara's contract with Flock Safety ended on August 23, 2026. Instead of quickly switching to a new vendor (Verkada), the City Council voted 5-2 in September to go without license-plate-reader cameras while the city publicly reviews its policy on automated cameras, a process that could take a year or more.","summary_technical":"Flock Safety ALPR contract expired Aug. 23, 2026. At the late-August council meeting the council took no vote but directed staff to return for a formal vote delaying a new Verkada contract. Mid-September 2026 (article Wed. Sept. 16; council meets Tuesdays, so likely Sept. 15): 5-2 vote to delay replacement and conduct a public review of the city's automated-camera / surveillance-technology policy before any new contract. Interim effect: SBPD has no ALPR cameras; review could take a year or more. Strength moderate: a pause, not a ban or binding ordinance.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in Santa Barbara","who_must_comply":"Santa Barbara Police Department; City of Santa Barbara","citation":"Santa Barbara City Council 5-2 vote delaying ALPR replacement pending policy review (Sept. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.independent.com/2026/09/16/santa-barbara-city-council-says-no-for-now-to-automated-cameras-will-review-policy/","source_title":"Santa Barbara City Council Says No for Now to Automated Cameras, Will Review Policy — Santa Barbara Independent (Sept. 16, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Santa Barbara City Council","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-santa-clara-county-flock-vendor-exit-2026","title":"Santa Clara County, CA — Board of Supervisors votes to stop using Flock Safety as Sheriff's ALPR vendor in Cupertino, Saratoga and Los Altos Hills pending surveillance-policy review (Feb. 24, 2026)","short_title":"Santa Clara County CA drops Flock ALPR vendor (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Santa Clara County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Santa Clara","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-02-24","enacted_date":"2026-02-24","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"In February 2026 Santa Clara County supervisors voted to stop using Flock Safety as the license-plate-reader vendor in the three cities the Sheriff patrols (Cupertino, Saratoga and Los Altos Hills). The vote followed reports that federal agencies had accessed Flock camera data without permission. The county is reviewing its surveillance-use policies.","summary_technical":"Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, Tuesday Feb. 24, 2026: Flock Safety removed as primary ALPR vendor for Sheriff's Office contract cities Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Altos Hills while the county analyzes its surveillance-use policies (under the 2016 Surveillance-Technology and Community-Safety Ordinance). Trigger: revelations of unauthorized federal access to Flock data; follows Mountain View's suspension. Replacement vendor not named in source. Strength limited: vendor change, not a ban on ALPR.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in Cupertino, Saratoga and Los Altos Hills","who_must_comply":"Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office","citation":"Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors vote, Feb. 24, 2026 (Flock ALPR vendor discontinued for Sheriff contract cities)","source_url":"https://abc7news.com/post/santa-clara-county-stop-using-flock-safety-cameras-several-cities-privacy-concerns/18646060/","source_title":"Santa Clara County to stop using Flock Safety cameras in several cities over privacy concerns — ABC7 News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-shasta-county-responsible-ai-resolution-2026","title":"Shasta County, CA — Board of Supervisors unanimously adopts resolution supporting responsible use of AI in county government (July 21, 2026)","short_title":"Shasta County CA responsible AI resolution (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Shasta County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Shasta","topics":["public-sector","automated-decisions","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-21","enacted_date":"2026-07-21","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Shasta County's supervisors unanimously adopted a resolution saying AI should help county employees, not replace human judgment. Staff remain accountable for decisions, and privacy, security and confidential information must be protected. The county IT department is writing a detailed policy on which AI tools employees may use.","summary_technical":"Shasta County Board of Supervisors, Tuesday July 21, 2026, unanimous. Non-binding principles resolution: AI assists employees and does not replace human judgment; employees remain accountable for decisions made on behalf of the public; protect privacy, security and confidential information; use AI thoughtfully and transparently to improve service. Follow-on: IT Department developing an employee policy on approved tools and acceptable use. Supervisor Matt Plummer called it 'a starting point.' Strength limited: resolution, no enforcement.","who_is_protected":"Shasta County residents served by county government","who_must_comply":"Shasta County departments and employees","citation":"Shasta County Board of Supervisors resolution on responsible use of AI (July 21, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.actionnewsnow.com/news/shasta-county-board-of-supervisors-adopts-resolution-supporting-responsible-use-of-artificial-intelligence/article_ac92cc52-51b3-4a23-b29a-15ef53867d08.html","source_title":"Shasta County Board of Supervisors adopts resolution supporting responsible use of artificial intelligence — Action News Now","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Shasta County Information Technology Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-south-pasadena-flock-nonrenewal-2026","title":"South Pasadena, CA — City Council declines to renew Flock Safety ALPR contract, decommissioning 14 cameras over ICE / out-of-state data access (Mar. 18, 2026)","short_title":"South Pasadena CA Flock non-renewal (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"South Pasadena, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Los Angeles","city":"South Pasadena","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-03-18","enacted_date":"2026-03-18","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"South Pasadena's City Council decided not to renew its contract with Flock Safety, so 14 license-plate-reader cameras will be taken down. The decision came after reports that federal immigration agents and out-of-state agencies had accessed Southern California police camera data. The council also discussed keeping data from the remaining cameras for 15 days instead of 30.","summary_technical":"South Pasadena City Council, Wednesday Mar. 18, 2026 (Fox LA article dated Mar. 20): declined to renew Flock Safety contract; 14 Flock ALPR cameras to be decommissioned. Rationale: ICE and out-of-state access to Southern California law-enforcement ALPR data. Discussed (not confirmed adopted): reducing retention on the remaining 13 cameras from 30 to 15 days; seeking an alternative vendor with geofencing to keep data in California.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in South Pasadena","who_must_comply":"South Pasadena Police Department","citation":"South Pasadena City Council decision not to renew Flock Safety contract (Mar. 18, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.foxla.com/news/south-pasadena-remove-flock-safety-cameras-over-privacy-concerns","source_title":"South Pasadena to remove Flock Safety cameras over privacy concerns — FOX 11 Los Angeles (Mar. 20, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"South Pasadena City Council","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-tuolumne-county-dc-ordinance-drafting-2026","title":"Tuolumne County, CA — Supervisors reject 45-day data center moratorium, vote 5-0 to have Community Development draft a data center ordinance (Sept. 1, 2026)","short_title":"Tuolumne County CA data center ordinance (drafting, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Tuolumne County, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Tuolumne","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Tuolumne County supervisors decided against a 45-day pause on data center projects. Instead they voted 5-0 to have county planners write rules for data centers. The county asked the public for input at an open house on October 7, 2026. No ordinance has been adopted yet.","summary_technical":"Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors, Tuesday Sept. 1, 2026 (myMotherLode, Sept. 3): a majority opposed Supervisor Campbell's proposed 45-day moratorium; the board voted 5-0 to direct the Community Development Department to develop data center ordinance codes and definitions. Public-input open house Wed. Oct. 7, 2026, 4-6 pm, Board chambers, Sonora (myMotherLode, Sept. 25). No draft text published. Strength proposed: staff direction only.","who_is_protected":"Tuolumne County residents (water and electricity impacts)","who_must_comply":"Prospective data center developers in unincorporated Tuolumne County","citation":"Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors direction to draft data center ordinance (5-0, Sept. 1, 2026)","source_url":"https://mymotherlode.com/news/local/11112947/tuolumne-supervisors-find-compromise-on-addressing-data-centers.html","source_title":"Tuolumne Supervisors Find Compromise On Addressing Data Centers — myMotherLode.com (Sept. 3, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Tuolumne County Community Development Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-visalia-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Visalia, CA — City Council adopts 45-day interim urgency moratorium on data center permits and entitlements (Ordinance 2026-10, Sept. 8, 2026)","short_title":"Visalia CA 45-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Visalia, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Tulare","city":"Visalia","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-08","enacted_date":"2026-09-08","expires_date":"2026-10-23","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Visalia paused all new data center permits for 45 days starting September 8, 2026, citing heavy energy and water use, noise and air-quality impacts seen elsewhere. The city has not received any data center applications. The council can extend the pause for up to about two more years or adopt a permanent ban.","summary_technical":"City of Visalia Ordinance 2026-10, interim urgency ordinance adopted Sept. 8, 2026 (4-0, one absent): 'temporary moratorium on the acceptance, processing, approval, or issuance of permits and entitlements for new data center development within the city of Visalia.' Initial term 45 days (to approx. Oct. 23, 2026); extendable under Gov. Code 65858 for 10 months 15 days, then 1 year. Findings cite intensive energy and water use, noise and air quality. No pending applications. Council Member Brian Poochigian framed it as making Visalia the first Tulare County city to formally reject data centers. Item first agendized Aug. 2026 (Sun-Gazette, Aug. 18).","who_is_protected":"Visalia residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking permits or entitlements in Visalia","citation":"City of Visalia Ordinance No. 2026-10 (interim urgency ordinance, Sept. 8, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/visalia-city-council-approves-45-185218044.html","source_title":"Visalia City Council approves 45-day data center moratorium — Visalia Times-Delta via Yahoo News (Sept. 9, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Visalia Community Development","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Permits and entitlements not accepted or processed during the moratorium"},{"id":"ca-watsonville-flock-limits-2026","title":"Watsonville, CA — City Council votes 4-3 to cut Flock ALPR cameras from 37 to 20, shorten retention from 30 to 7 days, end statewide sharing, and order a third-party audit (Sept. 22, 2026)","short_title":"Watsonville CA Flock ALPR limits (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Watsonville, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Santa Cruz","city":"Watsonville","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","data-retention"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-22","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Watsonville's City Council voted 4-3 to scale back the police department's Flock license-plate cameras. The city will cut the number of cameras from 37 to 20, keep data for 7 days instead of 30, and stop letting other California police departments search it. The council also ordered an independent audit and a town hall.","summary_technical":"Watsonville City Council, Tuesday Sept. 22, 2026, 4-3 (Pajaronian, Sept. 24): (1) Flock ALPR cameras reduced 37 to 20 (17 deactivated); (2) retention reduced from 30 to 7 days; (3) data no longer searchable by other California law-enforcement agencies; (4) third-party audit, public-safety research and a community town hall. Police Chief Brian Shab opposed limits. Status enacted (council direction); implementation date not stated.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in Watsonville","who_must_comply":"Watsonville Police Department","citation":"Watsonville City Council 4-3 vote restricting Flock ALPR use (Sept. 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://pajaronian.com/watsonville-city-council-limits-flock-cameras/","source_title":"Watsonville City Council limits Flock cameras — The Pajaronian (Sept. 24, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Watsonville City Council","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ca-west-hollywood-flock-safeguards-2026","title":"West Hollywood, CA — Council Votes 3-2 to Keep Flock Safety ALPRs and Directs City Manager to Negotiate Contract Safeguards (No Federal/ICE Sharing Without Court Mandate, 30-Day Deletion, $200,000 Penalty per Unauthorized Share) (July 20, 2026)","short_title":"West Hollywood CA Flock safeguards direction (3-2, Jul. 20, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"West Hollywood, CA","state_abbr":"CA","county":"Los Angeles","city":"West Hollywood","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","data-retention","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"West Hollywood's City Council voted 3-2 on July 20, 2026 to keep the city's Flock Safety license plate reader cameras, but only if the contract is changed to add new protections. The city manager was told to negotiate amendments that would bar sharing camera data with ICE or other federal agencies unless a court requires it, delete data after 30 days unless the city or a court needs it kept, charge Flock $200,000 for each unauthorized share, require monthly program reviews, require quick notice to the city when Flock gets a legal demand for data, and set out termination rights. These safeguards take effect only once the amended contract is signed, which had not been confirmed as of October 10, 2026.","summary_technical":"West Hollywood City Council, regular meeting July 20, 2026, item E.4. Motion carried 3-2 (Heilman, Hang, Meister aye; Byers, Erickson no). INSTRUMENT: direction to staff, not an ordinance or resolution; City Manager to negotiate amendments to the existing Flock Safety service agreement. DIRECTED TERMS: (1) no sharing of city ALPR data with ICE/federal agencies unless mandated by courts; (2) 30-day deletion unless preservation required by the city or courts; (3) $200,000 penalty per unauthorized sharing; (4) monthly program reviews; (5) prompt notification to the city of legal data requests received by Flock; (6) termination rights and compensation liabilities. Context: city safety director Danny Rivas said existing city policy already prohibits city contractors from assisting federal immigration enforcement with city-owned ALPR data except when legally required. STATUS 'proposed' because the protections depend on a contract amendment not yet confirmed executed.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents captured by West Hollywood's Flock ALPR cameras, particularly with respect to federal immigration-enforcement access to plate data","who_must_comply":"Flock Safety (as city contractor, once amended); City of West Hollywood","citation":"West Hollywood City Council, July 20, 2026, item E.4 (3-2 vote directing negotiation of Flock Safety contract amendments)","source_url":"https://beverlypress.com/2026/07/weho-keeps-flock-cameras-with-new-safeguards/","source_title":"WeHo keeps Flock cameras, with new safeguards — Beverly Press & Park Labrea News (Alfredo Santana, July 22, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of West Hollywood (City Manager; Public Safety Department)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"$200,000 per unauthorized data-sharing incident (proposed contract term)"},{"id":"ct-pa26-14-alpr-data-retention-2026","title":"Connecticut — Public Act 26-14 (Substitute SB 397): Automated License Plate Reader Use Limits, 21-Day Retention Cap, Bans on Immigration, Reproductive/Gender-Affirming Care and First Amendment Uses, Vendor Contract Rules (Approved May 4, 2026; ALPR Rules Effective October 1, 2026)","short_title":"Connecticut PA 26-14 ALPR limits and 21-day retention (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Connecticut","state_abbr":"CT","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","data-retention","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-10-01","enacted_date":"2026-05-04","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Connecticut's Public Act 26-14, signed May 4, 2026, puts the state's first detailed limits on automated license plate readers. From October 1, 2026, public agencies and their vendors may run plate readers only for listed purposes (for police: checking plates against hotlists and crime databases, or searching for a plate tied to a specific criminal investigation, warrant, missing person or stolen car, with a logged reason). Plate data must be deleted after 21 days unless held under a warrant or as evidence. Police may not use plate data to enforce immigration law, to investigate people who seek or provide abortion or gender-affirming care that is legal in Connecticut, or to target people for First Amendment activity, and may share data out of state only with New York, Rhode Island and Massachusetts agencies that sign a written promise to follow those rules. Vendor contracts must bar selling or freely sharing the data. The Attorney General can sue vendors (up to $2,500 per violation) and residents can sue agencies for injunctive relief. The same act also creates a state-law civil rights claim against federal or state officers who violate constitutional rights.","summary_technical":"Public Act 26-14, 'An Act Concerning Democracy and Government Accountability and the Use and Retention of Data Derived from Automated License Plate Reader Systems' (Substitute SB 397), approved May 4, 2026. ALPR PROVISIONS (Sec. 13, effective from passage; operative rules 'on and after October 1, 2026'): (b)(1) closed list of permitted uses for public agencies (weigh stations, fleet, access control, traffic analytics, parking, state facilities, motor vehicle tax) and for law enforcement (hotlist/COLLECT/NCIC/NCMEC/TSDB comparisons; plate queries tied to a specific active criminal investigation on reasonable suspicion with logged reason and case number, warrants, missing persons, stolen vehicles). (b)(2) 21-DAY RETENTION CAP for data held by public agencies or contracted vendors, with exceptions for warrant/court order, highway-usage fees (30 days after collection), supervisor-approved evidence retention. (d) PROHIBITED USES: First Amendment-protected activity, immigration violations/enforcement, investigating or prosecuting people who sought/received/provided reproductive or gender-affirming care lawful in CT; no fixed ALPR collection at or near notified gender-affirming care facilities or immigrant-serving nonprofits; SHARING limited to CT public agencies and NY/RI/MA law enforcement or multijurisdictional task forces that sign a written declaration (plus further limited categories). (e) ALPR data confidential. (f) non-police agencies adopt usage/privacy policy by Jan 1, 2027. (g)-(h) new or renewed vendor contracts must bar sale, third-party sharing without written authorization, access without warrant/court order (subpoenas excluded), sharing for immigration/reproductive/protected-activity purposes, and commingling; Connecticut choice of law and personal jurisdiction. (i) AG action against vendors, damages and civil penalties up to $2,500 per violation. (j) from Oct 1, 2026, aggrieved individuals may sue agencies for injunctive/declaratory relief. Sec. 14: POST Council model ALPR policy by Dec 1, 2026. Sec. 15: POST standardized ALPR usage-report form by Jan 1, 2027. OTHER: Sec. 1 creates a state civil action (with damages and mandatory attorney's fees) against any person, including federal or state officers, who under color of law deprives a person of federal constitutional rights.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and vehicle owners in Connecticut; people seeking or providing lawful reproductive or gender-affirming care; immigrants; people exercising First Amendment rights","who_must_comply":"Connecticut public agencies and law enforcement agencies that operate ALPRs or use ALPR data, and private vendors under contract with them","citation":"Conn. Public Act 26-14 (2026), Sec. 13-15 (ALPR); Sec. 1 (civil action for deprivation of constitutional rights)","source_url":"https://search.cga.state.ct.us/2026/PA/pdf/2026PA-00014-R00SB-00397-PA.pdf","source_title":"Public Act No. 26-14 (Substitute Senate Bill No. 397) — Connecticut General Assembly","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Connecticut Attorney General (vendor actions); private plaintiffs (injunctive/declaratory relief against agencies); POST Council (model policy)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"AG suits against vendors: injunctive/declaratory relief, damages, civil penalties up to $2,500 per violation; injunctive/declaratory relief against agencies"},{"id":"ct-south-windsor-flock-alpr-termination-2026","title":"South Windsor, Connecticut — Town Council Votes 6-3 to End Flock ALPR Use, Terminate the Contract, Remove Readers Within 60 Days and Purge Data (October 5, 2026)","short_title":"South Windsor CT ends Flock ALPR contract (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"South Windsor, CT","state_abbr":"CT","county":"Hartford County","city":"South Windsor","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-10-05","enacted_date":"2026-10-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"On October 5, 2026, South Windsor's Town Council voted 6-3 to stop using its Flock automated license plate readers. The resolution tells the town manager to end the Flock contract, have the readers removed within 60 days and purge the data collected. Bringing the technology back would require another public hearing and a public vote.","summary_technical":"Town Council resolution, South Windsor CT, adopted 6-3 on Monday October 5, 2026 after a public hearing. Directs the police chief to cease ALPR use immediately; directs the town manager to terminate the Flock Safety contract; ALPRs removed within 60 days; all collected data purged. Reinstatement condition: a new public hearing and public vote. CT Mirror counts South Windsor as at least the sixth CT community in 2026 to end or suspend ALPR use (after Windsor, Killingworth, Ledyard, Milford, Newtown).","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in South Windsor","who_must_comply":"South Windsor town manager and police department","citation":"South Windsor Town Council resolution on Flock ALPRs (October 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/south-windsor-votes-end-flock-100000031.html","source_title":"South Windsor votes to end Flock license plate readers — CT Insider via Yahoo News (Oct 7, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"South Windsor Town Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None"},{"id":"ct-milford-flock-camera-pause-2026","title":"Milford, Connecticut — Board of Aldermen Imposes Temporary Moratorium on Flock Condor Video Cameras Pending Technology Review Committee (October 5, 2026), After August Pause of Traffic and License Plate Reader Cameras","short_title":"Milford CT Flock camera moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Milford, CT","state_abbr":"CT","county":"New Haven County","city":"Milford","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-10-05","enacted_date":"2026-10-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Milford's Board of Aldermen voted on October 5, 2026 to temporarily stop the use of Flock Condor video cameras and send the question to the city's new technology review committee. A motion to remove the cameras permanently failed. The police chief said the department deactivated every camera covered by the resolution. In August the board had already voted to switch off most traffic and license plate reader cameras for review. This is a pause, not a ban, and could be reversed after the committee reports.","summary_technical":"Milford CT Board of Aldermen, Monday October 5, 2026: two votes — (1) motion to shut down the cameras altogether FAILED; (2) motion to temporarily pause use of Flock Condor PTZ video cameras and refer to the newly created technology review committee PASSED. Police Chief Keith Mello: the board 'voted to impose a temporary moratorium on the use of Flock Condor video cameras ... the Milford Police Department has deactivated all video cameras covered by the resolution.' PRIOR ACTION: August 2026 board vote to temporarily turn off traffic-enforcement and LPR cameras for review, except cameras at the city's borders/boards (exact August date not confirmed). No end date set; outcome depends on the committee.","who_is_protected":"Residents and drivers in Milford","who_must_comply":"Milford Police Department","citation":"Milford Board of Aldermen vote on Flock Condor cameras (October 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://newjersey.news12.com/2026/10/06/milford-aldermen-vote-to-pause-flock-condor-cameras-pending-committee-review/2u9M1XlCefFEA35SDNTcHe","source_title":"Milford aldermen vote to pause Flock Condor cameras pending committee review — News 12 (Oct 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Milford Board of Aldermen","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None"},{"id":"ct-ledyard-flock-alpr-termination-2026","title":"Ledyard, Connecticut — Mayor and Police Chief Terminate Flock ALPR Relationship After Flock Security Incident (Decision September 18, 2026; Announced September 29, 2026)","short_title":"Ledyard CT ends Flock ALPR use (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Ledyard, CT","state_abbr":"CT","county":"New London County","city":"Ledyard","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-09-18","enacted_date":"2026-09-18","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Ledyard's mayor and police chief decided on September 18, 2026 to end the town's use of Flock license plate cameras after a Flock security incident exposed customer device information. The town's four cameras were covered and stopped collecting data. This was an executive and police decision, not a council ordinance, so it could be reversed without a vote.","summary_technical":"Executive decision (Mayor Fred B. Allyn III with Police Chief Ken Creutz), Friday September 18, 2026, to terminate the relationship with Flock ALPR camera systems after 'disturbing information' about a Flock security incident; announcement Tuesday September 29, 2026. Four cameras covered, data collection stopped immediately. Town Council Chair Gary St. Vil voiced support; no council vote reported.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in Ledyard","who_must_comply":"Ledyard Police Department","citation":"Ledyard mayor and police decision to terminate Flock ALPR use (September 18, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/ledyard-police-raise-concerns-about-flock-cameras-after-recent-security-incident/3779608/","source_title":"Ledyard police raise concerns about Flock cameras after recent security incident — NBC Connecticut","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Ledyard Mayor's Office and Police Department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None"},{"id":"ct-newtown-alpr-pause-2026","title":"Newtown, Connecticut — Board of Police Commissioners and Police Department Pause All ALPR Use, With Regular Documentation That Readers Stay Off (August 2026)","short_title":"Newtown CT ALPR pause (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Newtown, CT","state_abbr":"CT","county":"Fairfield County","city":"Newtown","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-21","enacted_date":"2026-08-21","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Newtown's Board of Police Commissioners and police department paused all use of the town's automated license plate readers after hearing resident concerns about privacy. While the pause lasts, police must regularly show the board that the readers are still switched off. No end date was set, and the board says it will work with elected leaders on what happens next.","summary_technical":"Newtown CT: Board of Police Commissioners, in conjunction with the Newtown Police Department, paused ALPR use following resident feedback on privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns. Condition: NPD provides the board with regular documentation verifying the ALPRs remain non-operational. Indefinite; outcome to be decided with elected leadership. Exact decision date not stated; NBC Connecticut reported it 2026-08-21.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in Newtown","who_must_comply":"Newtown Police Department","citation":"Newtown Board of Police Commissioners ALPR pause (August 2026)","source_url":"https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/newtown-pauses-use-of-alprs-after-considering-resident-feedback/3767404/","source_title":"Newtown pauses use of ALPRs after considering resident feedback — NBC Connecticut","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Newtown Board of Police Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None"},{"id":"ct-windsor-flock-alpr-termination-2026","title":"Windsor, Connecticut — Town Council Votes 5-4 Against Bringing Back Flock ALPR Cameras, Ending the Contract and Removing 16 Cameras (July 6, 2026)","short_title":"Windsor CT ends Flock ALPR contract (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Windsor, CT","state_abbr":"CT","county":"Hartford County","city":"Windsor","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-06","enacted_date":"2026-07-06","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Windsor was the first Connecticut town to drop Flock. After switching its 16 license plate cameras off in February 2026 for a review, the Town Council voted 5-4 on July 6 not to turn them back on, ending the town's Flock contract. The council found the contract did not fit the data-use policy the town had adopted in January. The mayor said the tool matters but 'the vendor is not what we want.'","summary_technical":"Windsor CT Town Council: (1) January 5, 2026 adopted an ALPR data use and security policy; (2) February 2026 voted to turn off the Flock cameras pending review of the contract, privacy rules and data access/sharing; (3) July 6, 2026 voted 5-4 against bringing the 16 Flock cameras back, ending the contract, after finding the Flock contract did not comport with the town policy. Cameras to be removed by fall 2026. Mayor Nuchette Black-Burke: 'This tool is important; the vendor is not what we want.'","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in Windsor","who_must_comply":"Windsor Police Department and town administration","citation":"Windsor Town Council vote on Flock ALPR cameras (July 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/windsor-turns-off-automated-speed-cameras-due-to-privacy-concerns-killingworth-following-suit/amp/","source_title":"Windsor turns off Flock cameras due to privacy concerns, Killingworth following suit — WTNH","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Windsor Town Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None"},{"id":"ct-killingworth-flock-alpr-termination-2026","title":"Killingworth, Connecticut — First Selectman Ends Flock ALPR Contract and Removes Four Route 81 Cameras Over Privacy Concerns (July 2026)","short_title":"Killingworth CT ends Flock ALPR contract (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Killingworth, CT","state_abbr":"CT","county":"Middlesex County","city":"Killingworth","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-15","enacted_date":"2026-07-15","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Killingworth, the second Connecticut town to drop Flock, is ending its contract and taking down its four license plate cameras on Route 81, which went up in fall 2025. First Selectman Eric Couture said much more came out about Flock's privacy and security problems after the town signed. The town expects to pay a fee to leave the contract.","summary_technical":"Killingworth CT: First Selectman Eric Couture, at a Board of Selectmen meeting in July 2026, announced the town is ending/not renewing its Flock Safety contract and removing its four ALPR cameras on Route 81 (installed fall 2025, approved by the boards of selectmen and finance). Exit fee amount not yet known. Executive/selectmen decision; no formal ordinance reported. Exact meeting date not confirmed; NBC Connecticut reported it 2026-07-15.","who_is_protected":"Drivers on Route 81 and residents of Killingworth","who_must_comply":"Town of Killingworth","citation":"Killingworth decision to end Flock ALPR contract (July 2026)","source_url":"https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/two-towns-end-contracts-with-automated-license-plate-reader-company-flock-safety/3755508/","source_title":"Two towns end contracts with automated license plate reader company Flock Safety — NBC Connecticut (Jul 15, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Killingworth Board of Selectmen","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None"},{"id":"ct-trumbull-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Trumbull, Connecticut — Two-Year Moratorium on Establishing and Developing New Data Centers; Existing 80 Merritt Boulevard Facility Exempt (September 9, 2026)","short_title":"Trumbull CT data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Trumbull, CT","state_abbr":"CT","county":"Fairfield County","city":"Trumbull","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-09","enacted_date":"2026-09-09","expires_date":"2028-09-09","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Trumbull passed a two-year moratorium on new data centers on September 9, 2026. It covers only the establishment and development of new data centers. It does not cover the town's existing 50-year-old data center at 80 Merritt Boulevard, which could still be upgraded into one of Connecticut's first AI data centers, even though residents petitioned for it to be included.","summary_technical":"Trumbull CT: two-year moratorium on the 'establishment and development' of new data centers, passed Wednesday September 9, 2026. Carve-out: proposed upgrades/AI conversion of the existing data center at 80 Merritt Boulevard are not covered; a resident petition asked the town council to include it. Adopting body not confirmed from the source (CT Mirror refers to the town council; a Wednesday meeting could instead be the Planning and Zoning Commission). Expiry computed as two years from passage; actual effective date may differ.","who_is_protected":"Trumbull residents","who_must_comply":"Applicants proposing new data centers in Trumbull","citation":"Trumbull two-year data center moratorium (September 9, 2026)","source_url":"https://ctmirror.org/2026/09/11/trumbull-ai-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Trumbull AI data center moratorium — CT Mirror / Connecticut Public (Sep 11, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Town of Trumbull land-use officials","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications for new data centers not accepted or approved during the moratorium"},{"id":"ia-asbury-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Asbury, IA — City Council Unanimously Approves 180-Day Data Center Moratorium (July 14, 2026)","short_title":"Asbury IA 180-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Asbury, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Dubuque","city":"Asbury","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-14","enacted_date":"2026-07-14","expires_date":"2027-01-10","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Asbury, a city of about 6,000 on the west edge of Dubuque, unanimously adopted a 180-day moratorium that bars the city from approving the construction, establishment, placement, development, expansion or operation of any data center within city limits. Mayor Jim Adams described it as a proactive step, not a response to resident complaints. The city plans to use the pause to draft a data center ordinance.","summary_technical":"City of Asbury, IA (Dubuque County) — City Council, unanimous vote, Tuesday July 14, 2026 (Telegraph Herald, July 16, 2026). Scope: all data center construction, establishment, placement, development, expansion or operation inside Asbury city limits; the city may not approve any of these during the moratorium. Duration: 180 days (computed expiry approx. January 10, 2027; the source does not give an end date or a resolution/ordinance number). Purpose: time for the Planning and Zoning Commission and council to draft data center regulations. Context: it joins the Dubuque-area wave (Dubuque city, Dubuque County, Peosta).","who_is_protected":"Asbury, IA residents, from data center development until the city adopts regulations","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking city approvals in Asbury, IA","citation":"City of Asbury, IA, 180-day data center moratorium (adopted July 14, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.telegraphherald.com/news/tri-state/article_76b8a287-7569-4894-b246-b07a41b967ce.html","source_title":"Asbury council approves 6-month data center moratorium — Telegraph Herald (July 16, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Asbury, IA","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"City approvals not granted during the moratorium"},{"id":"ia-coralville-flock-termination-2026","title":"Coralville, IA — City Council Votes 3-1 to End Flock Safety License Plate Reader Contract (Feb. 24, 2026)","short_title":"Coralville IA Flock ALPR contract terminated (Feb. 24, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Coralville, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Johnson","city":"Coralville","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-02-24","enacted_date":"2026-02-24","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Coralville's City Council voted to cancel its contract with Flock Safety for automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras and to remove the two cameras already installed. The vote followed months of public opposition, ACLU of Iowa privacy objections, and anger that police leadership had signed the contract before the council approved it. The Iowa Attorney General had also told the city that its policy barring use of the cameras for immigration enforcement broke state law. Rather than drop that restriction, the city ended the program.","summary_technical":"City of Coralville, IA — resolution terminating Flock Safety ALPR agreement (2-year, $36,000), adopted 3-1 on Feb. 24, 2026. Only 2 of 6 planned cameras had been deployed; both to be removed. The contract (signed Sept. 2025) carried a use restriction barring immigration enforcement. The Iowa AG's Office warned that the restriction violated Iowa's law against local entities impeding immigration enforcement (per Iowa Public Radio, Aug. 27, 2026). Other drivers: ACLU of Iowa concerns about mass location records, public opposition, and a procurement-process dispute. A one-off termination, not a standing ordinance; there are no prospective limits on future ALPR procurement.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in Coralville, IA, from ALPR location tracking by the Flock system","who_must_comply":"Coralville Police Department; Flock Safety (contract terminated)","citation":"City of Coralville, IA, City Council resolution terminating Flock Safety agreement (Feb. 24, 2026)","source_url":"https://dailyiowan.com/2026/02/25/coralville-city-councilors-end-flock-camera-contract/","source_title":"Coralville city councilors end Flock camera contract — The Daily Iowan (Feb. 25, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Coralville, IA","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ia-henry-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Henry County, IA — Board of Supervisors Moratorium on Data Centers, Battery Storage and Data Mining While Drafting Policy (May 14 – Dec. 31, 2026)","short_title":"Henry County IA data center/BESS/data-mining moratorium (to Dec. 31, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Henry County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Henry","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-05-14","enacted_date":"2026-05-14","expires_date":"2026-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Henry County in southeast Iowa (county seat Mount Pleasant) paused data center, large battery storage and data mining (e.g. crypto) development from May 14 through the end of 2026. Supervisors said they want rules in place before any project arrives. No proposals had been filed. The county had already restricted wind turbines in 2025.","summary_technical":"Henry County, IA Board of Supervisors — temporary moratorium on data centers, battery energy storage systems (BESS) and data mining facilities. Effective noon May 14, 2026; runs through Dec. 31, 2026. Henry County is a planning-and-zoning county. Purpose: draft data center policy. No resolution number or vote tally in the source. No pending applications at adoption. Prior: July 2025 restriction on wind turbine construction.","who_is_protected":"Henry County, IA residents, from data center, BESS and data-mining development until the county adopts policy","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers, battery energy storage and data mining facilities in Henry County, IA zoning jurisdiction","citation":"Henry County, IA, Board of Supervisors data center/BESS/data-mining moratorium (effective May 14, 2026; through Dec. 31, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.southeastiowaunion.com/mt-pleasant/news/henry-county-imposes-moratorium-to-draft-policy-on-data-centers/article_f77b58eb-7ee3-498c-a16d-4e220d9da36e.html","source_title":"Henry County imposes moratorium to draft policy on data centers — Southeast Iowa Union (May 20, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Henry County, IA Board of Supervisors; county zoning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not processed during the moratorium"},{"id":"ia-indianola-flock-suspension-2026","title":"Indianola, IA — Police Department Suspends Flock Safety License Plate Readers, Cuts Off Outside-Agency Access and Purges Data (Aug. 17, 2026)","short_title":"Indianola IA police suspend Flock ALPR cameras (Aug. 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Indianola, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Warren","city":"Indianola","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-17","enacted_date":"2026-08-17","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Indianola police switched off all eight of their Flock license plate reader cameras after residents raised privacy concerns and filed records requests about data sharing with third parties. The department also blocked outside agencies from the data and said it would delete stored data not tied to an active case within 30 days. This is a suspension, not a cancellation. The department says it will revisit the program, taking account of expected state legislative discussion of the technology.","summary_technical":"Indianola, IA Police Department administrative action announced Aug. 17, 2026 (reported Aug. 18 by KCRG; Aug. 27 by Iowa Public Radio). Suspension (not termination) of the Flock Safety ALPR contract (~$24,000/yr). Measures: all 8 cameras deactivated; outside-agency data access disabled; non-investigative data purged within 30 days. Trigger: community feedback and FOIA requests about third-party data sharing (Lt. Tye Sparks). No council vote reported. Future reactivation possible pending review and Iowa legislative action. Waukee also suspended Flock service in August 2026 (IPR), but no details were available, so there is no separate entry.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in Indianola, IA, from ALPR collection and sharing of location data","who_must_comply":"Indianola Police Department","citation":"Indianola (IA) Police Department suspension of Flock Safety ALPR program (announced Aug. 17, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.iowapublicradio.org/ipr-news/2026-08-27/flock-cameras-privacy-concerns-indianola","source_title":"Flock cameras and privacy concerns in Indianola — Iowa Public Radio (Aug. 27, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Indianola Police Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ia-pottawattamie-county-ai-policy-2026","title":"Pottawattamie County, IA — Board of Supervisors Unanimously Adopts Three-Tier AI Use Policy for County Employees (May 5, 2026)","short_title":"Pottawattamie County IA three-tier employee AI policy (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Pottawattamie County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Pottawattamie","topics":["public-sector","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-05-05","enacted_date":"2026-05-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Pottawattamie County (Council Bluffs) adopted rules for how its employees may use AI. Uses are sorted into three tiers: basic tools with no sensitive data, county-licensed tools for advanced work, and tightly controlled tools for sensitive data. Staff must take training and must report and document when they use AI. Employees should not enter sensitive data into public AI tools, including criminal justice data, Social Security numbers, names, addresses and phone numbers. Compliance relies on employee self-reporting.","summary_technical":"Pottawattamie County, IA Board of Supervisors — unanimous approval of county AI policy at its Tuesday meeting, May 5, 2026 (KMAland, May 6, 2026). Tier 1: unlicensed or basic AI, no sensitive data. Tier 2: county-licensed AI for advanced tasks. Tier 3: highly controlled AI for sensitive data analysis. Requirements: in-person and online training (policy, techniques, tier classification, documentation); employees report and document AI use; no sensitive data in public AI tools (criminal justice information, SSNs, names, addresses, phone numbers). Scope: all county employees acting in official roles. Monitoring is self-reported, with no active surveillance. An internal policy with no external enforcement.","who_is_protected":"Pottawattamie County, IA residents whose personal and criminal-justice data the county holds","who_must_comply":"Pottawattamie County, IA employees","citation":"Pottawattamie County, IA, county AI use policy (adopted May 5, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kmaland.com/news/pottawattamie-county-board-backs-ai-policy/article_095d0716-604f-40c2-b6e4-12ab1a203f8d.html","source_title":"Pottawattamie County board backs AI policy — KMAland (May 6, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Pottawattamie County, IA administration / IT","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ia-sioux-county-ai-policy-2026","title":"Sioux County, IA — Board of Supervisors Adopts AI Use Policy for County Employees Barring Sensitive Personal Data in AI Tools (June 2026)","short_title":"Sioux County IA employee AI use policy (June 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Sioux County, IA","state_abbr":"IA","county":"Sioux","topics":["public-sector","privacy"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Sioux County in northwest Iowa set rules for employees who use AI at work. Staff may not put personal information, Social Security numbers, medical records or other sensitive data into AI tools. Employees and supervisors remain responsible for checking that anything the AI produces is accurate.","summary_technical":"Sioux County, IA Board of Supervisors — employee AI use policy adopted in June 2026 (reported by KTIV / Sioux County Radio, June 26, 2026; exact date and vote not given). Provisions reported: ban on entering personal information, SSNs, medical records and other sensitive data into AI platforms; users must fact-check and verify AI-generated output (Supervisor Craig Hoftyzer). Tool approval and disclosure provisions were not reported. An internal policy only. Separate from the county's data center moratorium (ia-sioux-county-dc-moratorium-2026).","who_is_protected":"Sioux County, IA residents whose personal and medical data the county holds","who_must_comply":"Sioux County, IA employees","citation":"Sioux County, IA, employee artificial intelligence policy (adopted June 2026)","source_url":"https://www.ktiv.com/2026/06/26/sioux-county-adopts-artificial-intelligence-policy-county-employees/","source_title":"Sioux County adopts artificial intelligence policy for county employees — KTIV (June 26, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Sioux County, IA Board of Supervisors","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"il-aurora-data-center-privacy-ordinance-2026","title":"Aurora, IL — City Council Adopts the Aurora Responsible Data Center Ordinance and a BIPA-Modeled Data Center Privacy Protection Ordinance with Annual Compliance Certification and a Private Right of Action (O26-021, March 24, 2026)","short_title":"Aurora IL data center standards + biometric privacy ordinance (O26-021, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Aurora, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Kane County","city":"Aurora","topics":["data-centers","biometrics","privacy","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-03-25","enacted_date":"2026-03-24","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Aurora, Illinois adopted two new chapters of city code for data centers. Chapter 50 sets energy, water and noise performance standards for new data centers, limits backup-generator testing to weekday business hours, and requires every data center to file yearly energy, water and noise reports, which the city must publish by June 1 each year. Chapter 51 is a local privacy law modeled on the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA): data centers and data center businesses in Aurora that handle fingerprints, face geometry or other biometric data must keep written retention and destruction policies, may not sell that data, must file a signed annual certificate of compliance (disclosing any BIPA lawsuits or investigations), and face city fines of $1,000-$5,000 per violation. People harmed can sue for $1,000 per negligent and $5,000 per intentional or reckless violation. The ordinance followed a September 2025 citywide moratorium on data centers and warehouses (O25-064).","summary_technical":"City of Aurora, IL, Ordinance O26-021 (Legistar 26-0092), adopted by City Council 2026-03-24; adds Code ch. 50 (Aurora Responsible Data Center Ordinance) and ch. 51 (Data Center Privacy Protection Ordinance). CH. 50: applies to all data centers in city limits; facilities without zoning entitlements as of 2026-03-25 must meet PUE/WUE/noise performance standards in Zoning Ord. s.49-104.3(c)(25); generator testing only 9am-5pm Mon-Fri, max two generators at once (applies to all facilities); s.50-4 annual reporting by April 1 to Development Services: ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager energy+water report and third-party day/night property-line noise reports; Director must publish reported data by June 1; s.50-5 violations are municipal offenses, fines up to $1,000/day/occurrence. CH. 51: purpose 'establish rules modeled on the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act'; adopts BIPA definitions of biometric identifier/information; retention-schedule and destruction policy, ban on selling/profiting, consent-based disclosure limits, reasonable-care safeguards; applies to data centers and data center businesses that collect, store, process or transmit biometric data; Annual Certificate of Compliance filed with City Clerk by April 1, signed under penalty of perjury by a corporate officer, attesting BIPA/ordinance compliance and disclosing pending BIPA litigation, settlements or investigations; City may require an independent privacy-professional audit summary on reasonable cause; administrative fines $1,000-$5,000 per violation, each day a separate offense; permit suspension/revocation for repeated or willful violations; ineligibility for local tax incentives during non-compliance; injunctive relief. s.51-8 private right of action in Kane County 18th Judicial Circuit: greater of $1,000 or actual damages (negligent), $5,000 or actual damages (intentional/reckless), plus attorneys' fees. Exemptions mirror BIPA (GLBA financial institutions, government contractors, HIPAA). EFFECTIVE: Section 3 of the final Exhibit A (redlined) reads 'take effect ... March 25, 2026'. PRIOR: O25-064 (Legistar 25-0731), temporary moratorium on data center facilities and warehouses in all zoning districts, adopted 2025-09-25.","who_is_protected":"Aurora residents and any person whose biometric data is handled by a data center operating in Aurora; nearby residents affected by data center noise, water and energy use","who_must_comply":"All data centers and data center businesses operating in the City of Aurora (performance standards for facilities lacking zoning entitlements as of March 25, 2026)","citation":"City of Aurora, IL, Ordinance O26-021 (adopted Mar. 24, 2026), adding Code chs. 50-51","source_url":"https://legistar1.granicus.com/aurora-il/attachments/95cdc787-84d1-4efd-99e8-8403b33cac63.pdf","source_title":"Legistar 26-0092 Exhibit A — Text Amendment 2026-3-25 FINAL (City of Aurora, IL)","source_type":"official-statute","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Aurora Corporation Counsel / designated enforcement officer; Department of Development Services; City Clerk (certificates)","private_right_of_action":true,"penalties":"Ch. 50: up to $1,000 per day per occurrence. Ch. 51: administrative fines $1,000-$5,000 per violation (each day separate), permit suspension/revocation, loss of local incentives, injunction; private suits $1,000 (negligent) / $5,000 (intentional or reckless) or actual damages plus fees"},{"id":"il-chicago-dc-benchmarking-disclosure-2026","title":"Chicago, IL — City Council Passes Ordinance Bringing Data Centers into Public Energy Benchmarking Disclosure and Expanding Public Water-Usage Data (SO2026-0027165, September 23, 2026)","short_title":"Chicago data center energy/water benchmarking disclosure (SO2026-0027165)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chicago, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Cook County","city":"Chicago","topics":["data-centers","transparency"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-09-23","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Chicago's energy benchmarking law requires large buildings to report energy use, but buildings dominated by data centers were left out and their scores kept private. This ordinance, passed September 23, 2026, makes any large covered building with a data center subject to benchmarking, defines 'data center', and removes the rule that let the city withhold the energy scores of buildings where data centers take up more than 10% of floor space, so those scores can be made public. It also strengthens the city's ability to publish buildings' water-usage data supplied by the Department of Water Management, with narrower grounds for owners to keep it private. It does not set limits on energy or water use.","summary_technical":"Chicago Municipal Code ch. 18-14 (Energy Benchmarking) amended by substitute ordinance SO2026-0027165 (introduced 2026-07-15, referred; substituted, amended and recommended to pass by Committee on Environmental Protection and Energy 2026-09-01; passed City Council 2026-09-23; status 90-Final). s.18-14-101.3: 'covered building' now expressly includes any Group 1 or Group 2 covered building with a data center (overriding the >10% A-5/F/H/S/U occupancy carve-out); new definition 'data center' = space designed and equipped for high-density computing equipment such as server racks, as defined by the benchmarking tool. s.18-14-101.4(b): Commissioner of Water Management may transmit water usage data; Chief Sustainability Officer may make covered buildings' water usage data public, with owner objections limited to grounds in s.18-14-102.1(c)(i),(iii),(iv); per eLMS title, water usage data reporting becomes mandatory. s.18-14-102.3: deletes the Exception that barred public release of individually attributable benchmarking information/energy ratings for buildings where data centers, TV studios or trading floors exceed 10% of gross floor area. Section 2: in force upon passage and publication. Text reviewed is the introduced substitute; the committee-amended version (scanned PDF) could not be text-extracted.","who_is_protected":"Chicago residents and ratepayers (public access to data center energy and water information)","who_must_comply":"Owners of large Chicago covered buildings that contain data centers","citation":"Chicago, IL, SO2026-0027165 (passed Sept. 23, 2026), amending Mun. Code ss.18-14-101.3, 18-14-101.4, 18-14-102.3","source_url":"https://api.chicityclerkelms.chicago.gov/matter/32262AFF-6580-F111-AB0E-001DD80216AA","source_title":"SO2026-0027165 — Chicago City Clerk eLMS","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Chicago Chief Sustainability Officer; Department of Water Management","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Existing ch. 18-14 benchmarking penalties (not changed by this ordinance)"},{"id":"il-chicago-ai-police-reports-ban-proposed-2026","title":"Chicago, IL — Ordinance Introduced to Prohibit Use of Artificial Intelligence in Writing Police Reports and Law Enforcement Records (O2026-0024089, March 18, 2026)","short_title":"Chicago AI police report ban (proposed, O2026-0024089)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chicago, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Cook County","city":"Chicago","topics":["law-enforcement","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"A proposed Chicago ordinance from Ald. Matt Martin would ban the use of artificial intelligence to write police reports or other law enforcement records, by adding a new section to the city code chapter on the Police Department. It was introduced March 18, 2026 and sent to the Committee on Police and Fire, where it has not had a hearing or vote.","summary_technical":"Chicago, IL, O2026-0024089 — amends Mun. Code ch. 2-84 by adding s.2-84-530 to 'prohibit use of artificial intelligence in creating written police reports or law enforcement records' (eLMS title). Introduced 2026-03-18, referred to Committee on Police and Fire; status 4-In Committee as of 2026-10-10. Ordinance text not reviewed: scope (e.g., treatment of AI transcription, Axon Draft One-type tools), definitions, and penalties unknown.","who_is_protected":"People named in Chicago police reports and criminal defendants","who_must_comply":"Chicago Police Department (if enacted)","citation":"Chicago, IL, O2026-0024089 (introduced Mar. 18, 2026; proposed Mun. Code s.2-84-530)","source_url":"https://api.chicityclerkelms.chicago.gov/matter/2CAF0DF2-F322-F111-8341-001DD80162BF","source_title":"O2026-0024089 — Chicago City Clerk eLMS","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"City of Chicago","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the eLMS record"},{"id":"il-carbondale-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Carbondale, IL — City Council Votes 4-1 for One-Year Moratorium on Data Center Development While Zoning Rules Are Drafted (June 23, 2026)","short_title":"Carbondale IL one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Carbondale, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Jackson County","city":"Carbondale","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-23","enacted_date":"2026-06-23","expires_date":"2027-06-23","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Carbondale, in southern Illinois, put a one-year hold on new data center projects on June 23, 2026, so city staff can study existing data centers and write zoning rules for a type of development the city does not currently regulate. Officials cited residents' concerns about water use, electricity demand, noise and light pollution raised at a May 18 community meeting. No developer had approached the city. The council vote was 4-1.","summary_technical":"City of Carbondale, Jackson County, IL — one-year moratorium on new data center development, approved by City Council 4-1 on 2026-06-23 (Maxwell no, citing need for more education and state-level regulation). Purpose: allow Community Development (Director John Lenzini) to study impacts of existing facilities and draft data-center-specific zoning regulations. Expiry approx. 2027-06-23 (exact expiry and instrument number — resolution vs ordinance — not established; WSIL headline/summary describes a resolution). Triggered by May 18, 2026 community meeting concerns (water, power demand, noise, light).","who_is_protected":"Carbondale residents","who_must_comply":"Prospective data center developers in Carbondale","citation":"Carbondale, IL City Council, one-year data center moratorium (June 23, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kfvs12.com/2026/06/25/city-leaders-discuss-moratorium-passed-data-centers-carbondale/","source_title":"City leaders discuss moratorium passed on data centers in Carbondale — KFVS12","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Carbondale Community Development Department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted/processed during the moratorium"},{"id":"il-bourbonnais-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Bourbonnais, IL — Village Board Adopts Data Center Moratorium Through January 31, 2027, First in Kankakee County (June 15, 2026)","short_title":"Bourbonnais IL data center moratorium to Jan. 31, 2027","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Bourbonnais, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Kankakee County","city":"Bourbonnais","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-15","enacted_date":"2026-06-15","expires_date":"2027-01-31","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"The Village of Bourbonnais passed a temporary ban on data center construction permits inside village limits on June 15, 2026, lasting until January 31, 2027. Officials said it gives the village time to protect itself from future data centers. More than 100 residents attended amid social-media rumors that a data center had been approved. It was the first data center moratorium in Kankakee County. It does not apply outside village boundaries.","summary_technical":"Village of Bourbonnais, Kankakee County, IL — ordinance imposing a moratorium on data center construction permits within village boundaries; passed by Village Board 4-0 (two absent) on Monday 2026-06-15 after 2026-06-10 committee meeting; expires 2027-01-31 per the ordinance. First local moratorium in Kankakee County (Daily Journal). Ordinance number not reported.","who_is_protected":"Bourbonnais residents","who_must_comply":"Prospective data center developers within Village of Bourbonnais limits","citation":"Village of Bourbonnais, IL, data center moratorium ordinance (June 15, 2026; expires Jan. 31, 2027)","source_url":"https://www.shawlocal.com/daily-journal/2026/06/18/bourbonnais-trustees-approve-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Bourbonnais trustees approve moratorium on data centers — Daily Journal (Shaw Local)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Village of Bourbonnais","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Permits not issued during the moratorium"},{"id":"il-arlington-heights-flock-penalty-contract-2026","title":"Arlington Heights, IL — Village Board Renews Flock Safety ALPR Contracts with Per-Incident Penalties ($22,000-$70,000) for Unauthorized Data Sharing or Access (March 2, 2026)","short_title":"Arlington Heights IL Flock renewal with unauthorized-sharing penalties (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Arlington Heights, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Cook County","city":"Arlington Heights","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2025-06-01","enacted_date":"2026-03-02","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Arlington Heights renewed its contracts for 35 Flock license-plate-reader cameras only after Flock agreed to pay penalties if it shares or allows access to the village's camera data without authorization: $22,000 per incident under the 11-camera agreement, $48,000 under the 24-camera agreement, or $70,000 if both are affected. Flock may not disclose footage or data except under lawful process, emergencies, or the village's written consent. The village board approved the extension unanimously on March 2, 2026; it runs through summer 2027 and costs about $110,843. Local press reported it as the only Illinois municipality with such penalty terms.","summary_technical":"Village of Arlington Heights, IL — Village Board unanimous vote 2026-03-02 approving extension of two Flock Safety ALPR agreements (11 cameras + 24 cameras = 35) through summer 2027, retroactive to May-June 2025, total $110,843. Data clause: Flock shall not 'disclose, enable access to, or otherwise make available any footage (and any data generated therefrom)' except lawful process, emergency response, or customer's written consent. Liquidated penalties per 'single, discrete act or incident of unauthorized disclosure or access': $22,000 (11-camera agreement), $48,000 (24-camera agreement), $70,000 combined. Exemptions: lawful subpoena, emergency, judicial compulsion, authorized federal access via local police download.","who_is_protected":"Drivers whose plates are captured by Arlington Heights ALPR cameras","who_must_comply":"Flock Safety (vendor)","citation":"Village of Arlington Heights, IL, Village Board approval of Flock Safety contract extensions (Mar. 2, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.arlingtoncardinal.com/2026/03/arlington-heights-flock-safety-agree-to-first-flock-camera-system-contract-with-privacy-and-unauthorized-usage-penalties-in-illinois/","source_title":"Arlington Heights, Flock Safety agree to first Flock camera system contract with privacy and unauthorized usage penalties in Illinois — Cardinal News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Village of Arlington Heights (contractual)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"$22,000 / $48,000 / $70,000 per incident of unauthorized disclosure or access (contractual)"},{"id":"il-eo-2026-07-ai-cabinet","title":"Illinois Executive Order 2026-07 — Gov. Pritzker Creates the Illinois Artificial Intelligence Cabinet (Sept. 22, 2026)","short_title":"IL EO 2026-07 AI Cabinet (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Illinois","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["public-sector","data-centers","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-09-22","enacted_date":"2026-09-22","expires_date":"2027-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Governor Pritzker created an unpaid AI Cabinet of outside experts and senior officials from seven state agencies to study AI risks to Illinois residents and critical infrastructure, plan for AI incidents, and recommend policies. It is told to look at whether the state should tie data center tax incentives and permits to AI safety standards, how to address data centers' burden on the power grid and ratepayers, AI safety terms in state contracts, and whether current law lets people hold AI companies accountable for harm. It is advisory only and ends by December 31, 2027.","summary_technical":"EO 2026-07 (issued and filed 2026-09-22 under Ill. Const. art. V §11) establishes the Illinois Artificial Intelligence Cabinet: academic/expert members appointed by the Governor within 30 days, plus senior leaders of DoIT, IEMA-OHS, IDFPR, ICC, ISP, IDPH and IEPA; DoIT provides administrative support; members uncompensated; Governor designates chair/co-chair. Duties: AI incident preparedness and response policies; protection of public assets (buildings, water systems, education systems, information storage); analysis of emerging AI incidents; risk-management recommendations to state agencies; feasibility review of regulatory options including conditioning data center tax incentives/permits/approvals on safety, accountability and transparency standards, addressing data center grid/ratepayer burden, AI safety requirements in state procurement, and adequacy of legal remedies against AI companies. Sunset no later than 2027-12-31. Creates no binding private-sector obligations.","who_is_protected":"Illinois residents and critical infrastructure (advisory)","who_must_comply":"Illinois state government (AI Cabinet and participating agencies)","citation":"Ill. Exec. Order No. 2026-07 (Sept. 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.illinois.gov/government/executive-orders/executive-order.executive-order-2026-07.2026.html","source_title":"Executive Order 2026-07 — Executive Order to Create Illinois Artificial Intelligence Cabinet (illinois.gov)","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Office of the Governor; Illinois Department of Innovation and Technology (administrative support)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None (advisory executive order)"},{"id":"il-isbe-k12-ai-guidance-2026","title":"Illinois State Board of Education Issues Statewide Guidance on AI in K-12 Schools Under SB 1920 / P.A. 104-0399 (July 9, 2026)","short_title":"ISBE K-12 AI guidance (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Illinois","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["education","children","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-09","enacted_date":"2026-07-09","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Illinois' state education board published long-form, non-binding guidance to help schools and districts decide whether and how to use AI in teaching, grading, lesson planning and school operations, including academic-integrity issues. A 2025 state law required the board to produce it. It sets out recommendations, not rules, and stresses that AI is a tool, not a substitute for human teaching.","summary_technical":"ISBE guidance on artificial intelligence in K-12 education (409 pages), released 2026-07-09 pursuant to SB 1920 (Public Act 104-0399, 2025). Non-binding: 'does not lay out rules or mandates about how schools and districts should use AI.' Covers student and educator use cases (lesson planning, grading, academic integrity) and school operations. ISBE disclosed that portions were drafted/refined with generative AI tools.","who_is_protected":"Illinois K-12 students and educators","who_must_comply":"None (advisory guidance to Illinois school districts)","citation":"Illinois State Board of Education, AI guidance for K-12 schools (July 2026), issued under P.A. 104-0399","source_url":"https://capitolnewsillinois.com/news/illinois-state-board-of-education-issues-ai-guidance-written-with-help-from-ai/","source_title":"Illinois State Board of Education issues AI guidance written with help from AI — Capitol News Illinois","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Illinois State Board of Education","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None (non-binding guidance)"},{"id":"il-icc-comed-large-load-deposit-2026","title":"Illinois Commerce Commission Approves ComEd Large-Load (Data Center) Security-Deposit Tariff and Opens Further Ratepayer-Protection Proceeding (Docket P2025-0677, Mar. 19, 2026)","short_title":"ICC ComEd large-load deposit rule (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Illinois","state_abbr":"IL","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-03-19","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Illinois' utility regulator let ComEd require bigger upfront security deposits from developers of very large electricity users such as data centers, scaled to how much power they request, so that costs of abandoned projects are less likely to land on household customers. The commission also opened a follow-up proceeding to consider stronger protections.","summary_technical":"ICC Docket P2025-0677 (approved 2026-03-19): replaces ComEd's flat $1M large-load security deposit with a scaled deposit — $1M for 50-200 MW requests, plus $500,000 per additional 100 MW. Deposits are applied to development costs for completed projects and returned net of incurred expenses if a project is cancelled. Commission directed staff to file a report and draft order by 2026-04-23 opening an additional investigation into further ratepayer protections, to be completed within roughly eight months. Effective date of the tariff not stated in the source.","who_is_protected":"ComEd residential and other ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Developers of large-load projects (e.g. data centers) in ComEd territory","citation":"Ill. Commerce Comm'n, Docket P2025-0677 (Mar. 19, 2026)","source_url":"https://capitolnewsillinois.com/news/regulators-ok-comeds-plan-to-increase-deposit-costs-for-large-load-projects-like-data-centers/","source_title":"Regulators OK ComEd's plan to increase deposit costs for large-load projects like data centers — Capitol News Illinois","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Illinois Commerce Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Deposit required as a condition of large-load service requests"},{"id":"il-effingham-dc-crypto-moratorium-2026","title":"Effingham, IL — City Council Passes 12-Month Moratorium on Applications and Permits for Data Centers and Cryptocurrency Mines (June 2026)","short_title":"Effingham IL 12-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Effingham, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Effingham County","city":"Effingham","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-02","enacted_date":"2026-06-02","expires_date":"2027-06-02","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Effingham paused new data center and cryptocurrency-mining applications and permits for 12 months, inside city limits and in the surrounding area the city controls for zoning, so it can write rules for these facilities and watch for state action. A data center already approved and under construction is not affected.","summary_technical":"City of Effingham, IL — temporary 12-month moratorium on acceptance of applications, permitting and permit approval for cryptocurrency mines, data centers and facilities of similar use, within corporate and extraterritorial limits. Purpose: adopt rules, procedures and regulations and observe possible state regulatory action. Exempts a previously approved data center at 13244 County Road 1600 North (under construction; 5.38-acre solar array, no water cooling). Exact adoption date, vote and ordinance number not stated in source; dated approx. 2026-06-02 (week of publication).","who_is_protected":"Effingham residents","who_must_comply":"Prospective data center and crypto-mining developers in Effingham and its extraterritorial jurisdiction","citation":"City of Effingham, IL, 12-month data center/cryptocurrency mine moratorium (June 2026)","source_url":"https://www.effinghamdailynews.com/news/local_news/effingham-places-temporary-hold-on-new-data-centers/article_d6be3c64-5710-4b2b-9462-a6a0255c780a.html","source_title":"Effingham places temporary hold on new data centers — Effingham Daily News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Effingham","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted or approved during the moratorium"},{"id":"il-grayslake-dc-open-meetings-suit-2026","title":"Preservation of Community Well-Being Collective v. Village of Grayslake, T5 Data Centers and Alter Asset Management — Suit to Void Approvals for $18B Data Center Campus (filed July 31, 2026)","short_title":"Grayslake IL data center lawsuit (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Grayslake, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Lake County","city":"Grayslake","topics":["data-centers","transparency"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Residents sued Grayslake and the developers of a planned $18 billion, 472-acre, 18-building data center campus, saying village officials deliberated improperly behind closed doors and approved a use the zoning code does not allow. They want the court to cancel the approvals and the development agreement and block new permits.","summary_technical":"Suit filed 2026-07-31 (court and case number not stated in source; presumably Lake County Circuit Court). Claims: Illinois Open Meetings Act violations (closed-door deliberations, private communications); Grayslake zoning code does not expressly permit data centers; 2024-2025 approvals violated due process. Relief: nullify prior approvals, enjoin issuance of new permits, cancel the village-T5 development agreement. Project: $18B, 472 acres in the Cornerstone business park, 18 buildings; early site work began 2025; T5 paused a wetland remediation permit application (~16 acres) in July 2026.","who_is_protected":"Grayslake-area residents (if plaintiffs prevail)","who_must_comply":"Village of Grayslake; T5 Data Centers; Alter Asset Management","citation":"Preservation of Community Well-Being Collective et al. v. Village of Grayslake et al. (Ill. Cir. Ct., filed July 31, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/illinois-residents-sue-stop-18-000900925.html","source_title":"Illinois residents sue to stop $18B data center — The Cool Down via Yahoo News (citing Daily Herald)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Illinois circuit court (Lake County, presumed)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Requested relief: voiding of approvals and development agreement; injunction"},{"id":"il-cortland-flock-termination-2026","title":"Cortland, IL — Town Terminates Flock Safety License Plate Reader Contract Over Resident Privacy Concerns (Aug. 21, 2026)","short_title":"Cortland IL ends Flock ALPR contract (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Cortland, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"DeKalb County","city":"Cortland","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-21","enacted_date":"2026-08-21","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"The Town of Cortland ended its police department's contract for Flock Safety license plate reader cameras after residents raised privacy and tracking concerns and reports of data misuse elsewhere, and ordered the five cameras removed.","summary_technical":"Town of Cortland (DeKalb County), IL — termination of Flock Safety ALPR contract for the police department; Mayor Mark Pietrowski directed cancellation on 2026-08-21 (administrative action; no board vote reported). Reasons: resident privacy/tracking concerns, data-breach/misuse reports in other communities, third-party data control. Five cameras and poles to be removed via work order.","who_is_protected":"Cortland residents and motorists","who_must_comply":"Cortland Police Department","citation":"Town of Cortland, IL, termination of Flock Safety ALPR contract (Aug. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.shawlocal.com/daily-chronicle/2026/08/25/town-of-cortland-terminates-flock-camera-contract-for-police/","source_title":"Town of Cortland terminates Flock camera contract for police — Shaw Local / Daily Chronicle","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Town of Cortland","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None"},{"id":"il-cook-county-personal-info-disclosure-ordinance-proposed-2026","title":"Cook County, IL — Proposed Ordinance Amendment 26-2426 Prohibiting County Disclosure of Personal Information (Incl. Biometrics and License Plates) to Immigration Agents and Data Brokers","short_title":"Cook County personal-info disclosure ban (proposed 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Cook County, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Cook County","topics":["privacy","biometrics","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"A proposed change to the Cook County Code would bar county staff and county vendors from handing over residents' personal information, including biometric data and license plate data, to immigration agents without a criminal warrant or court order, from selling it to data brokers, and from using it for commercial or risk-assessment purposes. It has been held in committee and is not law.","summary_technical":"Cook County Board of Commissioners, File 26-2426 (Ordinance Amendment to Cook County Code Ch. 34): prohibits disclosure of personal information by county personnel, and by county vendors/third parties of information acquired from the County, absent a criminal warrant or court order, except where required by non-immigration law; bars sale to data brokers and commercial or risk-assessment uses. Personally identifiable information defined to include biometric information and personal license plates. Introduced 2026-09-21; agenda 2026-09-24; Held/Deferred in Committee.","who_is_protected":"Cook County residents whose data the County holds","who_must_comply":"Cook County personnel, vendors and third parties receiving County data","citation":"Cook County, IL, File 26-2426 (proposed ordinance amendment, 2026)","source_url":"https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/cook-county/matters/81239","source_title":"Cook County Legistar — File 26-2426, Proposed Ordinance Amendment: Prohibiting Disclosure of Personal Information","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Cook County","penalties":"Not established from source"},{"id":"il-lee-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Lee County, IL: County Board Adopts 90-Day Moratorium on Data Center and Tech Development Proposals (Aug. 20, 2026; through Nov. 19, 2026)","short_title":"Lee County IL 90-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Lee County, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Lee County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-20","enacted_date":"2026-08-20","expires_date":"2026-11-19","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"On August 20, 2026 the Lee County Board in northern Illinois unanimously voted to pause proposals for data centers and other tech developments for 90 days, until November 19, 2026. The county wants time to write stronger rules first. Residents had raised concerns after a 387-acre site along Interstate 88 and U.S. 30 was advertised as prime data center land. No applications had been filed when the pause was adopted. The board can extend it.","summary_technical":"Lee County, Illinois (county seat Dixon). INSTRUMENT: 90-day moratorium adopted unanimously by the Lee County Board on Thursday, Aug. 20, 2026, on accepting or processing proposals for data centers and other technology developments. TERM: through 11:59 p.m. Nov. 19, 2026; may be extended. PURPOSE: allow amendment of county regulations covering impacts on neighboring property, roads and infrastructure, water and energy use, noise, emergency response, public safety and long-term project management (County Administrator Jeremy Englund). TRIGGER: 387-acre parcel at I-88/U.S. 30 marketed as 'prime data center development land'; no applications pending at adoption.","who_is_protected":"Residents of Lee County, IL near potential data center sites","who_must_comply":"Developers proposing data centers or other technology developments in Lee County, IL","citation":"Lee County, Ill., County Board 90-day moratorium on data center and technology development proposals (adopted Aug. 20, 2026; expires Nov. 19, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/lee-county-board-approves-90-183100670.html","source_title":"Lee County Board approves 90-day moratorium on data centers, tech developments (Sauk Valley Daily Gazette, via Yahoo)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Lee County Board / Lee County zoning administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Proposals not accepted or processed during the moratorium"},{"id":"il-morgan-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Morgan County, IL: Commissioners Adopt Six-Month Data Center Moratorium (Apr. 27, 2026); Advisory Referendum on Data Center Restrictions Nov. 3, 2026","short_title":"Morgan County IL 6-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Morgan County, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Morgan County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-04-27","enacted_date":"2026-04-27","expires_date":"2026-10-27","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Morgan County, Illinois (around Jacksonville) put a six-month pause on large data centers on April 27, 2026, after residents asked for time to weigh the costs and benefits. More than 360 people signed a petition. The county has no zoning ordinance, so the pause gives officials time to set standards before any proposal arrives. The pause runs to about late October 2026. On November 3, 2026, voters will also answer an advisory (non-binding) question on whether the county should restrict data centers.","summary_technical":"Morgan County, Illinois. INSTRUMENT: six-month moratorium on large-scale data center development adopted by the three-member Board of Commissioners on April 27, 2026. A 12-month review was proposed (Woods) and shortened to six months on the State's Attorney's advice as more legally workable. CONTEXT: county has no zoning ordinance, so the moratorium works as a planning window to research and set standards. TERM: about Apr. 27 to Oct. 27, 2026 (exact end date not confirmed). BALLOT: Nov. 3, 2026 countywide advisory question on restricting data center construction and operation (non-binding).","who_is_protected":"Morgan County, IL residents (water, power, tax impacts of large data centers)","who_must_comply":"Developers of large-scale data centers in Morgan County, IL","citation":"Morgan County, Ill., Board of Commissioners six-month data center moratorium (adopted Apr. 27, 2026); Nov. 3, 2026 advisory referendum","source_url":"https://www.nprillinois.org/2026-04-29/more-counties-consider-data-center-moratoriums-first-listen","source_title":"More counties consider data center moratoriums (NPR Illinois, Apr. 29, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Morgan County Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data center applications not accepted during moratorium"},{"id":"il-plainfield-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Plainfield, IL: Village Board Adopts 180-Day Data Center Moratorium (Apr. 20, 2026), Extended Another 180 Days (Oct. 2026)","short_title":"Plainfield IL data center moratorium (2026, extended)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Plainfield, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Will County","city":"Plainfield","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-04-20","enacted_date":"2026-04-20","expires_date":"2027-04-15","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"The Village of Plainfield, Illinois (Will County) unanimously paused applications for data centers and computing-infrastructure warehouses for 180 days on April 20, 2026. The village is writing a new development code that deals with data centers. In early October 2026 the board unanimously extended the pause by another 180 days, to about mid-April 2027. Nearby Joliet and Yorkville approved large data center projects earlier in 2026 over resident opposition.","summary_technical":"Village of Plainfield, Illinois (Will/Kendall/Kane/DuPage counties; mostly Will). INSTRUMENT: 180-day moratorium on applications for data centers and warehouses used primarily for computing infrastructure, approved unanimously at the Monday village board meeting before an Apr. 21, 2026 article (Apr. 20, 2026). PURPOSE: allow adoption of a new Unified Development Ordinance addressing data center land use, infrastructure and regulatory considerations. EXTENSION: second 180-day term approved unanimously in early October 2026 (Herald-News Oct. 7, 2026). Administrator Joshua Blakemore expects the UDO in late winter or early spring 2027. Computed expiry is about mid-April 2027 (exact date not sourced).","who_is_protected":"Plainfield, IL residents near potential data center sites","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers / computing-infrastructure warehouses in the Village of Plainfield","citation":"Village of Plainfield, Ill., 180-day data center moratorium (adopted Apr. 20, 2026; extended 180 days Oct. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.shawlocal.com/the-herald-news/2026/10/07/plainfield-extends-its-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Plainfield extends its moratorium on data centers (The Herald-News / Shaw Local, Oct. 7, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Village of Plainfield (Planning / Village Board)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted during moratorium"},{"id":"il-sangamon-county-cyrusone-litigation-2026","title":"Caruthers et al. v. Sangamon County: Waverly-Area Residents Sue to Overturn County Rezoning for CyrusOne Hyperscale Data Center (Filed July 6, 2026)","short_title":"Waverly residents v. Sangamon County (CyrusOne data center)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Sangamon County, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Sangamon County","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"unknown","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"On July 6, 2026, several residents near Waverly, Illinois sued Sangamon County and its County Board to overturn the board's April 7, 2026 approval of a rezoning. The rezoning covers four farmland parcels, about 280 acres, for a CyrusOne hyperscale data center. The residents say the approval fails the county's own mandatory zoning standards and has no rational basis. They also say it threatens nearby farms, homes and a dog-kennel business. The county is defending the case. As of mid-July no hearing dates were set, and the land sale had not closed.","summary_technical":"Sangamon County Circuit Court (Judge Adam Giganti). Plaintiffs: Waverly-area residents (discovery lists caption as Caruthers et al. v. Sangamon County; caption not confirmed in opened source). Defendants: Sangamon County and Sangamon County Board, represented by the State's Attorney's Office. Challenged action: April 7, 2026 County Board zoning approval for four agricultural parcels (~280 acres) for a CyrusOne hyperscale data center; plaintiffs also note the approval is misdated March 23. Claims: approval lacks rational basis and fails mandatory standards of the county zoning ordinance; due process. Filed July 6, 2026, the last day of the 90-day Illinois limitations period for challenging the zoning decision.","who_is_protected":"Residents and landowners near the proposed CyrusOne site (Waverly area)","who_must_comply":"Sangamon County (zoning approval under challenge); CyrusOne","citation":"Waverly-area residents v. Sangamon County and Sangamon County Board (Ill. Cir. Ct. Sangamon Cnty., filed July 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.illinoistimes.com/news/residents-sue-sangamon-county-cyrusone/","source_title":"Residents sue Sangamon County over CyrusOne data center approval (Illinois Times, July 16, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Sangamon County Circuit Court","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"il-springfield-flock-alpr-safeguards-2026","title":"Springfield, IL: City Council Renews Flock License Plate Reader Contract With Amended Transparency and Oversight Safeguards (July 7, 2026)","short_title":"Springfield IL Flock ALPR renewal w/ safeguards (Jul. 7, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Springfield, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Sangamon County","city":"Springfield","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-07","enacted_date":"2026-07-07","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"On July 7, 2026, Springfield, Illinois renewed its Flock license plate camera contract for two years, about $508,000. The council voted unanimously after adding privacy safeguards proposed by Alderman Shawn Gregory and modeled on ACLU guidance. The ordinance as amended calls for regular public reports on the cameras and their effectiveness, and for greater transparency. Reports also describe a requirement to tell the council quickly about any data breach or misuse. The cameras stay in use.","summary_technical":"City of Springfield, Illinois. Ordinance authorizing payment of roughly $508,000 for Flock Safety automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) cameras (renewal of a subset of the city's cameras), term about March 2026 to February 2028. Ward 2 Ald. Shawn Gregory's amendment was adopted. Per Illinois Times it codifies camera policies into city code, requires detailed annual reports and tightens transparency standards. Per search-listing text, it also requires SPD to notify council within 24 hours of a data breach or misuse. Passed unanimously on Tuesday, July 7, 2026. STRENGTH: limited, because it adds oversight and reporting to continued ALPR use and does not restrict or ban it.","who_is_protected":"People whose vehicles are captured by Springfield ALPR cameras","who_must_comply":"Springfield Police Department; Flock Safety (vendor)","citation":"City of Springfield, Ill., ordinance renewing Flock Safety ALPR services, as amended (passed July 7, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.illinoistimes.com/watch-public-meetings/springfieldcitycouncil/springfield-approves-license-plate-cameras-with-privacy-safeguards/","source_title":"Springfield approves license plate cameras with privacy safeguards (Illinois Times, July 8, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Springfield City Council (oversight via reports)","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"il-stickney-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Stickney, IL: Village Board Adopts Moratorium Barring Zoning Changes or Approvals for Data Centers (Aug. 20, 2026; Hawthorne Race Course Site)","short_title":"Stickney IL data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Stickney, IL","state_abbr":"IL","county":"Cook County","city":"Stickney","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-20","enacted_date":"2026-08-20","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"On August 20, 2026, the Village of Stickney, Illinois, a Cook County suburb next to Cicero, voted unanimously to block data center proposals. Under the moratorium the village will not accept zoning changes or approvals that would allow a data center. The vote came after the 135-year-old Hawthorne Race Course closed. A real estate publication identified data center developer Digital Realty as the buyer of the track. The mayor cited water and power use and round-the-clock noise from cooling systems and generators.","summary_technical":"Village of Stickney, Cook County, Illinois. INSTRUMENT: moratorium adopted unanimously by the Board of Trustees on Thursday, Aug. 20, 2026. The village will not accept changes of zoning or approvals that would allow a data center. FORM (ordinance or resolution) and DURATION not stated in the opened source. CONTEXT: Hawthorne Race Course (last races July 19, 2026) bought for $90 million by Allimac 2023 LLC. The Real Deal tied the purchase to Digital Realty. Mayor Mitch Milenkovic pledged a 'no' vote, citing water demand, power use and noise.","who_is_protected":"Stickney and nearby Cicero residents near the Hawthorne Race Course site","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking zoning or approvals in the Village of Stickney","citation":"Village of Stickney, Ill., data center moratorium (adopted Aug. 20, 2026)","source_url":"https://chicago.suntimes.com/environment/2026/08/21/data-center-hawthorne-race-course-horse-racing-stickney-cicero-digital-realty-moratorium-nuisance-environment","source_title":"Stickney blocks data centers as Hawthorne Race Course sale draws scrutiny (Chicago Sun-Times, Aug. 21, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Village of Stickney Board of Trustees","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Zoning changes and approvals for data centers not accepted"},{"id":"in-bloomington-alpr-surveillance-data-ban-proposed-2026","title":"Bloomington, IN — City Council Introduces Ordinance 2026-22 to Bar the City From Acquiring or Using License Plate Readers and Third-Party-Shared Surveillance Camera Data (Introduced Sept. 16, 2026; Vote Set Oct. 14)","short_title":"Bloomington IN proposed ALPR/shared surveillance data ban (Ord. 2026-22)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Bloomington, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Monroe County","city":"Bloomington","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Bloomington's City Council is considering an ordinance that would stop the city and anyone acting for it from buying or using automated license plate readers, and from using surveillance camera data that is shared with any third party. It follows a March 2026 council resolution demanding transparency and limits on plate readers (including Flock Safety) and the city's April 2026 exit from its Flock contract. A vote is planned for Oct. 14, 2026.","summary_technical":"City of Bloomington, IN, Ordinance 2026-22, introduced 2026-09-16. Would prohibit the City and any city agent from acquiring and using any automated license plate reader technology and surveillance camera system data that is shared with any third party. Sponsors: Piedmont-Smith, Nti Asare, Zulich. Background: Resolution 2026-04 (passed 2026-03-04) called for immediate transparency, limits and a public review process for ALPR technology including Flock Safety; city ended Flock contract 2026-04-15; Monroe County terminated its own Flock contract 2026-07-23. Second reading/vote scheduled 2026-10-14. Final text, exemptions and enforcement not reviewed.","who_is_protected":"People driving or moving through Bloomington, IN","who_must_comply":"City of Bloomington and its agents, including the police department","citation":"City of Bloomington, IN, Ordinance 2026-22 (introduced Sept. 16, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.idsnews.com/article/2026/09/city-council-discusses-affordable-housing-overhaul-introduces-license-plate-reader-ban","source_title":"City council discusses affordable housing overhaul, introduces license plate reader ban — Indiana Daily Student (Sept. 17, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Bloomington","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"in-charlestown-dc-bess-moratorium-2026","title":"Charlestown, IN — Common Council Unanimously Adopts One-Year Moratorium on New Data Centers and Battery Storage Facilities (Aug. 3, 2026)","short_title":"Charlestown IN one-year data center/battery storage moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Charlestown, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Clark County","city":"Charlestown","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-03","enacted_date":"2026-08-03","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Charlestown, Indiana paused new data center and battery storage proposals for one year so the city can update its development rules. The pause does not affect a data center by QLEVR that was already approved in July 2026.","summary_technical":"Charlestown (Clark County), IN Common Council, unanimous vote Mon. 2026-08-03 (News and Tribune, Aug. 5: 'on Monday'; rules suspended for first and second readings). One-year halt on consideration of further data centers and battery storage facilities to allow update of the city's Unified Development Ordinance. Does not apply to QLEVR's ~55,000 sq ft data center approved 4-3 by the Advisory Plan Commission in July 2026. Ordinance number not reported. Expiry ~2027-08-03 by computation, not stated by source.","who_is_protected":"Charlestown, IN residents","who_must_comply":"Developers proposing data centers or battery storage facilities in Charlestown","citation":"Charlestown, IN Common Council, one-year data center and battery storage moratorium (adopted Aug. 3, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.newsandtribune.com/news/charlestown-council-approves-one-year-moratorium-on-data-centers/article_e65aef39-4efd-4c3e-9773-593d4232bd53.html","source_title":"Charlestown council approves one-year moratorium on data centers — News and Tribune (Aug. 5, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Charlestown Common Council / Building Commissioner","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Proposals not considered during the moratorium"},{"id":"in-chesterton-flock-alpr-discontinuation-2026","title":"Chesterton, IN — Town Council Votes to End Flock License Plate Reader Contract After Officer Misuse (Last Day Oct. 31, 2026)","short_title":"Chesterton IN ends Flock ALPR contract (Sept. 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Chesterton, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Porter County","city":"Chesterton","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-10-31","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Chesterton, Indiana's town council voted to end the town's contract for Flock license plate reader cameras after a police officer misused the system for personal purposes and resigned. The contract's last day is Oct. 31, 2026. The council president said the town could reconsider if Flock adds stronger safeguards and there is meaningful accountability.","summary_technical":"Town of Chesterton (Porter County), IN Town Council vote to discontinue Flock Safety ALPR contract; WGN report updated 2026-09-15 (vote date not stated in the article). Trigger: internal investigation by Police Chief Tim Richardson found an officer misused Flock for personal purposes; officer resigned; officer access deactivated except chief/command staff pending audit. Contract end 2026-10-31. Council President Erin Collins: town would consider resuming if Flock implements stronger safeguards, department improves internal review, and meaningful accountability exists. Procurement decision, not an ordinance.","who_is_protected":"People whose vehicles pass through Chesterton, IN","who_must_comply":"Chesterton Police Department","citation":"Town of Chesterton, IN Town Council vote to discontinue Flock Safety contract (Sept. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.aol.com/articles/chesterton-votes-discontinue-flock-contract-181514000.html","source_title":"Chesterton votes to discontinue Flock contract — WGN (via AOL, Sept. 15, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Town of Chesterton","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None (contract termination)"},{"id":"in-dearborn-county-solar-bess-dc-rezoning-moratorium-2026","title":"Dearborn County, IN — Commissioners Adopt Up-to-One-Year Moratorium on Rezoning Applications for Commercial Solar, Battery Storage and Data Centers (Feb. 24, 2026)","short_title":"Dearborn County IN solar/battery/data center rezoning moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Dearborn County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Dearborn County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-02-25","enacted_date":"2026-02-24","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Dearborn County, Indiana stopped processing rezoning requests for commercial solar farms, battery storage sites and data centers for up to a year while it gathers feedback and considers changing its zoning rules.","summary_technical":"Dearborn County, IN Board of Commissioners, approved Tue. 2026-02-24 (WVXU, Feb. 25: 'voted Tuesday'), effective Wed. 2026-02-25. Halts processing of rezoning applications for commercial solar, battery storage facilities and data centers; duration up to one year (~2027-02-25, computed). Context: Linea Energy weighing a ~1,200-acre solar farm in Manchester Township. Ordinance number and vote tally not reported.","who_is_protected":"Dearborn County, IN residents","who_must_comply":"Applicants seeking rezoning for commercial solar, battery storage or data centers in Dearborn County","citation":"Dearborn County, IN Board of Commissioners rezoning moratorium (approved Feb. 24, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wvxu.org/environment/2026-02-25/dearborn-county-moratorium-solar-farms-data-center","source_title":"Dearborn County approves moratorium on solar farms, data centers — WVXU (Feb. 25, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Dearborn County Board of Commissioners / Plan Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Rezoning applications not processed during the moratorium"},{"id":"in-decatur-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Decatur County, IN — Commissioners Adopt Ordinance 2026-15, a Data Center Moratorium (2 MW+) Through Dec. 31, 2026 (Sept. 21, 2026)","short_title":"Decatur County IN data center moratorium (Ord. 2026-15)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Decatur County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Decatur County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-09-21","enacted_date":"2026-09-21","expires_date":"2026-12-31","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Decatur County, Indiana paused applications for data centers of 2 megawatts or more in unincorporated areas until Dec. 31, 2026, while it updates its ordinances and comprehensive plan. Projects already filed are not affected.","summary_technical":"Decatur County, IN Board of Commissioners, Ordinance 2026-15, adopted Mon. 2026-09-21 (Greensburg Daily News, Sept. 22). Bars data centers with capacity of 2.0 MW or more from applying to operate in unincorporated Decatur County; effective on signing, in force until 5 p.m. 2026-12-31; not retroactive to previously submitted petitions/applications; may be shortened or extended pending updated ordinances and comprehensive plan. Commissioner President Jeremy Pasel absent. Separate existing solar/wind moratorium unaffected. Vote tally not reported.","who_is_protected":"Unincorporated Decatur County, IN residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers of 2 MW or more in unincorporated Decatur County","citation":"Decatur County, IN Ordinance 2026-15 (adopted Sept. 21, 2026; expires Dec. 31, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.greensburgdailynews.com/news/local_news/commissioners-vote-on-data-center-moratorium/article_11e661a8-1411-438b-b05e-79cf8aff50fb.html","source_title":"Commissioners vote on data center moratorium — Greensburg Daily News (Sept. 22, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Decatur County Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted during the moratorium"},{"id":"in-dekalb-county-dc-standards-proposed-2026","title":"DeKalb County, IN — Plan Commission Recommends Data Center Zoning Standards Banning Evaporative Cooling and Requiring Municipal Water/Sewer, Following a Six-Month Moratorium (Oct. 7, 2026; Commissioners' First Reading Oct. 12)","short_title":"DeKalb County IN proposed data center standards (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"DeKalb County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"DeKalb County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"DeKalb County, Indiana is close to adopting rules for data centers after a six-month pause that began in April 2026. The proposed rules sort data centers into three tiers, limit the biggest ones to heavy-industry zones, cap campuses at 640 acres, require hookups to city water and sewer, ban evaporative cooling, and set noise and generator standards.","summary_technical":"DeKalb County, IN. Moratorium: County Commissioners adopted a six-month development moratorium on data centers and accessory facilities in April 2026, set to expire 2026-10-08 (no extension reported). Text amendment: Plan Commission favorable recommendation Wed. 2026-10-07 (KPC News, Oct. 8). Tiers: Tier 1 (colocation, enterprise, edge) in low-intensity industrial; Tiers 2-3 (hyperscale) only in high-impact districts; max campus 640 contiguous acres; mandatory municipal water and sewer (no private wells/systems); evaporative cooling prohibited; day/night property-line noise limits; emergency generators to highest EPA standards; landscape buffers and equipment siting rules. Next: Commissioners first reading Mon. 2026-10-12; may approve, modify (returns to plan commission) or reject.","who_is_protected":"DeKalb County, IN residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in DeKalb County planning jurisdiction","citation":"DeKalb County, IN proposed data center zoning text amendment (Plan Commission recommendation Oct. 7, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kpcnews.com/thestar/article_373fd96d-fabf-4bc9-853d-6359ad5ab670.html","source_title":"KPC News / The Star (Auburn, IN), Oct. 8, 2026 — DeKalb County data center standards","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"DeKalb County Plan Commission / Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated"},{"id":"in-fort-wayne-flock-alpr-contract-rejection-2026","title":"Fort Wayne, IN — City Council Unanimously Rejects $120,250 Flock License Plate Reader Contract Renewal; City Takes All 36 Cameras Offline (Aug. 25, 2026)","short_title":"Fort Wayne IN rejects Flock ALPR contract (Aug. 25, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Fort Wayne, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Allen County","city":"Fort Wayne","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-25","enacted_date":"2026-08-25","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Fort Wayne's City Council voted unanimously not to renew the police department's contract for Flock license plate reader cameras after many residents complained about privacy and mass surveillance. The mayor said the vote was final; the contract was ended and all 36 cameras were switched off and are being removed. Council members said they plan to keep working on local rules for license plate readers and other monitoring systems.","summary_technical":"Fort Wayne, IN Common Council, Tue. 2026-08-25: 8-0 vote rejecting a $120,250 Flock Safety maintenance contract renewal for the Fort Wayne Police Department (council approval required as contract exceeded $100,000). FWPD Chief P.J. Smith briefly considered a smaller contract, then discontinued the program; Mayor Sharon Tucker said the council vote was the final say. WBOI (Aug. 31): contract terminated, 36 ALPRs offline and coming down. Council members said they would continue developing local rules governing license-plate readers and other monitoring systems (InkFreeNews). Procurement decision, not an ordinance.","who_is_protected":"People whose vehicles pass through Fort Wayne, IN","who_must_comply":"Fort Wayne Police Department","citation":"Fort Wayne, IN Common Council vote rejecting Flock Safety contract renewal (Aug. 25, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wboi.org/2026-08-31/fort-waynes-flock-cameras-are-offline-and-coming-down","source_title":"Fort Wayne's Flock cameras are offline and coming down — WBOI (Aug. 31, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Fort Wayne Common Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None (contract not funded)"},{"id":"in-howard-county-dc-permit-moratorium-2026","title":"Howard County, IN — Commissioners Adopt One-Year Moratorium on Data Center Permit Applications in Unincorporated Areas (Ordinance 2026-BCCO-32, Aug. 17, 2026)","short_title":"Howard County IN one-year data center moratorium (2026-BCCO-32)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Howard County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Howard County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-17","enacted_date":"2026-08-17","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Howard County, Indiana stopped accepting permit applications for new data centers in unincorporated parts of the county for one year while officials write rules for them. It does not cover Kokomo or other towns. It may end early if permanent rules are finished, or be extended.","summary_technical":"Howard County, IN Board of Commissioners, Ordinance 2026-BCCO-32, approved Mon. 2026-08-17 (Kokomo Tribune, Aug. 18). Temporarily prevents companies from applying for or obtaining permits to develop data centers in unincorporated Howard County for one year (~2027-08-17, computed); may end early on adoption of permanent regulations or be extended. County Attorney Alan Wilson: data centers may need oversight beyond existing zoning. Excludes Kokomo and other incorporated communities (see in-kokomo-dc-zoning-standards-2026). Vote tally not reported.","who_is_protected":"Unincorporated Howard County, IN residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in unincorporated Howard County","citation":"Howard County, IN Ordinance 2026-BCCO-32 (adopted Aug. 17, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kokomotribune.com/news/local_news/howard-county-approves-one-year-moratorium-on-data-center-permits/article_d89d9ee1-00f5-430a-9dbb-530a712c4912.html","source_title":"Howard County approves one-year moratorium on data center permits — Kokomo Tribune (Aug. 18, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Howard County Board of Commissioners / Plan Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Permit applications not accepted during the moratorium"},{"id":"in-huntington-county-dc-bess-moratorium-2026","title":"Huntington County, IN — Commissioners Impose Temporary Moratorium on Permits for Data Centers, Battery Storage and Carbon Capture Projects While Plan Commission Drafts Rules (2026)","short_title":"Huntington County IN data center/BESS/carbon capture moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Huntington County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Huntington County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Huntington County, Indiana paused permits for data centers, battery storage facilities and carbon capture projects in early 2026 so officials could study water use, energy demand, infrastructure costs and carbon sequestration safety. Officials called it 'not a ban but a precaution'; there were no active applications. The Plan Commission is drafting permanent rules that would confine data centers to industrial zones.","summary_technical":"Huntington County, IN Board of Commissioners — temporary moratorium on permits for data centers, Battery Energy Storage Systems and carbon capture/carbon sequestration projects, adopted early 2026 (WLZZ report dated 2026-03-02; vote date and ordinance number not published in sources opened). Duration not specified; officials said the review 'could take a year or longer.' Follow-on: Plan Commission ordinance drafting (July 2026) favoring permitted use only in M1/M2 districts.","who_is_protected":"Huntington County residents (approx. 37,000) from unregulated data center, battery storage and carbon capture development during the study period","who_must_comply":"Developers seeking permits for data centers, BESS or carbon capture projects in Huntington County's planning jurisdiction","citation":"Huntington County, Indiana, Board of Commissioners temporary moratorium on data center, BESS and carbon capture permits (early 2026)","source_url":"https://wlzzradio.com/view_article.php?id=2243","source_title":"Huntington County imposes temporary moratorium — WLZZ (2026-03-02)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Huntington County Board of Commissioners; Huntington County Plan Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Permits not issued during moratorium"},{"id":"in-indianapolis-public-schools-ai-policy-2025","title":"Indianapolis Public Schools, IN — Board Unanimously Adopts Staff Generative AI Policy Limiting Use to District-Approved Tools and Restricting Student Data in AI Systems (June 26, 2025)","short_title":"Indianapolis Public Schools staff AI policy (2025)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Indianapolis Public Schools, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Marion County","city":"Indianapolis","topics":["education","privacy","children","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-06-26","enacted_date":"2025-06-26","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Indianapolis Public Schools adopted rules for how teachers and staff may use AI. Staff may only use district-approved AI tools, must sign responsible-use agreements, and may not load full student IEPs (special-education plans) into AI systems. The policy covers staff only, not student use, and creates an AI advisory board.","summary_technical":"IPS board policy (adopted unanimously 2025-06-26) governing staff/teacher use of generative AI: restricts use to district-approved tools; permitted uses include generating quiz questions, practice materials, instructional content and drafting communications; prohibits loading full Individualized Education Programs into AI tools; requires responsible-use agreements; guiding principles of equity, transparency, privacy/data protection, human oversight and accountability; establishes an AI advisory board. Phase Two pilot uses Google Gemini (~$122/person/yr) with monthly PD. Does not address student AI use.","who_is_protected":"IPS students (student data privacy, including special-education records) and families","who_must_comply":"IPS teachers and staff","citation":"Indianapolis Public Schools Board of School Commissioners, Generative AI policy for staff (adopted June 26, 2025)","source_url":"https://www.chalkbeat.org/indiana/2025/06/27/ips-school-board-approves-ai-policy","source_title":"IPS school board approves AI policy — Chalkbeat Indiana (2025-06-27)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Indianapolis Public Schools administration","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Employment discipline under district policy (not specified)"},{"id":"in-jay-county-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026","title":"Jay County, IN — Commissioners Adopt Data Center Ordinance With 1,000/2,500-Foot Setbacks, 35-Foot Height Cap, Closed-Loop Cooling and 50 dB Noise Limit; Moratoriums Repealed (May 11, 2026)","short_title":"Jay County IN data center zoning ordinance (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Jay County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Jay County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"strong","effective_date":"2026-05-11","enacted_date":"2026-05-11","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Jay County, Indiana adopted strict rules for data centers: they must sit 1,000 feet from property lines and 2,500 feet from homes, churches, schools, businesses and public buildings, can be no taller than 35 feet, must use closed-loop water cooling, and cannot exceed 50 decibels at the property line, with a 6-foot sound berm. A battery storage ordinance was approved at the same time, replacing earlier moratoriums.","summary_technical":"Jay County, IN Board of Commissioners — data center ordinance (2026-05-11): setbacks 1,000 ft from property lines and 2,500 ft from residential dwellings, churches, schools, businesses and public buildings; max height 35 ft; any water-based cooling must be closed-loop; noise max 50 dB measured at property lines; 6-ft berm sound buffer. Companion battery energy storage ordinance adopted same day; earlier moratoriums retroactively repealed. Ordinance number not reported.","who_is_protected":"Jay County residents and neighboring property owners (water, noise, visual impacts)","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators in Jay County's zoning jurisdiction","citation":"Jay County, Indiana, data center ordinance (adopted by Board of Commissioners May 11, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.thecr.com/news/rules-approved-for-data-centers-and-battery-storage/article_d1e08843-27f1-4d1a-8ef3-742607be0bad.html","source_title":"Rules approved for data centers and battery storage — The Commercial Review (2026-05-11)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Jay County Board of Commissioners; Jay County Planning/Zoning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Non-conforming projects cannot obtain approval"},{"id":"in-kosciusko-county-flock-alpr-termination-2026","title":"Kosciusko County, IN — Council Defunds Flock ALPR, Prosecutor Orders Cameras Shut Down and Removed, Commissioners Void Flock Contract and Dissolve Donation Fund (Sept. 2026)","short_title":"Kosciusko County IN ends Flock ALPR program (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Kosciusko County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Kosciusko County","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-11","enacted_date":"2026-09-22","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Kosciusko County, Indiana shut down its Flock license-plate-reader camera network. The county council refused to fund it for 2027-28 (Sept. 10), the prosecutor ordered all routine searches and live tracking stopped and the cameras removed (Sept. 11), and commissioners declared the Flock contract void and dissolved the fund that paid for it (Sept. 22). Data could be preserved only for open criminal cases.","summary_technical":"(1) County Council, 2026-09-10: voted not to appropriate funds for Flock Safety ALPR services in 2027 and 2028. (2) Prosecuting Attorney Brad Voelz administrative order, 2026-09-11: immediately halted new routine searches and live tracking countywide; 7-day window through 2026-09-18 to preserve evidence for active cases; then access terminated except restricted sheriff command-staff audit access; equipment removal directed. (3) Board of Commissioners, 2026-09-22, 3-0: declared the 2024-01-31 Flock contract invalid/void in its entirety (County Attorney: 'No valid contract was ever formed'); dissolved Flock Donation Fund by ordinance revoking Ord. 23-04-25-001. 31 of 32 units removed; Silver Lake unit offline pending Flock recovery.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in Kosciusko County (vehicle location tracking)","who_must_comply":"Kosciusko County law enforcement agencies","citation":"Kosciusko County, Indiana: Council non-appropriation vote (Sept. 10, 2026); Prosecutor administrative order (Sept. 11, 2026); Commissioners 3-0 contract voidance and donation-fund dissolution (Sept. 22, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.inkfreenews.com/2026/09/23/flock-contract-invalidated-donation-fund-dissolved-by-kosciusko-commissioners/","source_title":"Flock contract invalidated, donation fund dissolved by Kosciusko commissioners — InkFreeNews (2026-09-23)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Kosciusko County Prosecutor; Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None specified"},{"id":"in-laporte-county-dc-ordinance-2026","title":"LaPorte County, IN — Commissioners Unanimously Approve Data Center Ordinance Limiting Data Centers to Industrial Zones With BZA Approval, Setback, Noise and Fire-Training Standards (May 6, 2026)","short_title":"LaPorte County IN data center ordinance (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"LaPorte County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"LaPorte County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-05-06","enacted_date":"2026-05-06","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"LaPorte County, Indiana now allows data centers only in industrial zones and only with approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The ordinance also sets standards for setbacks, noise and training for local fire departments. Commissioners called it a 'living document' that may be amended.","summary_technical":"LaPorte County, IN Board of Commissioners — data center ordinance approved unanimously 2026-05-06: data centers limited to industrial zones (M1/M2 per discovery); special approval by Board of Zoning Appeals required; standards for setbacks, noise, and required local fire department training. Applies in unincorporated county zoning jurisdiction. Further amendments expected from county data center committee.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated LaPorte County near potential data center sites","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in LaPorte County's zoning jurisdiction","citation":"LaPorte County, Indiana, Data Center Ordinance (approved by Board of Commissioners May 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wvpe.org/wvpe-news/2026-05-08/laporte-county-commissioners-approve-data-center-regulations-with-more-expected","source_title":"LaPorte County commissioners approve data center regulations, with more expected — WVPE (2026-05-08)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"LaPorte County Board of Zoning Appeals; Plan Commission; Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Projects outside industrial zones or without BZA approval not permitted"},{"id":"in-marshall-county-flock-alpr-defund-2026","title":"Marshall County, IN — Council Strips Flock ALPR Funding From 2027 Budget (4-3) and Commissioners Vote 2-1 to Bag the County's Flock Cameras; Prosecutor Weighs Court Challenge (Oct. 2026)","short_title":"Marshall County IN Flock ALPR defund + cameras bagged (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Marshall County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Marshall County","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-10-06","enacted_date":"2026-10-06","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Marshall County, Indiana moved to shut off its Flock license-plate-reader cameras. The county council voted 4-3 to cut Flock funding from the 2027 budget, and commissioners voted 2-1 to cover the cameras. The prosecutor's office, which signed the Flock contract running through 2028, objects and may go to court, so the outcome is not final.","summary_technical":"(1) County Council, 2026-09-14, 4-3: removed Flock Safety ALPR funding from the 2027 budget. (2) Board of Commissioners special meeting 2026-10-06 (addressing termination requirements under IC 5-22-17-5), 2-1: bag/disable Flock cameras. Contract is between the Prosecutor's Office and Flock (runs through 2028; ~$15,000 annual invoice expected Oct. 2026); Prosecutor Nelson Chipman calls the action improper seizure of private property and is considering court intervention.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in Marshall County (vehicle location tracking)","who_must_comply":"Marshall County Prosecutor's Office and law enforcement using Flock ALPR","citation":"Marshall County, Indiana: Council 4-3 2027 budget vote (Sept. 14, 2026); Commissioners 2-1 vote to bag Flock cameras (Oct. 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.abc57.com/news/marshall-county-prosecutors-office-talks-next-step-after-commissioners-vote-to-bag-cameras","source_title":"Marshall County Prosecutor's Office talks next step after commissioners vote to bag cameras — ABC57 (2026-10-07)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Marshall County Board of Commissioners; County Council","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None specified"},{"id":"in-merrillville-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Merrillville, IN — Town Council Adopts One-Year Moratorium on New Data Center Project Approvals (June 1, 2026 – May 31, 2027)","short_title":"Merrillville IN one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Merrillville, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Lake County","city":"Merrillville","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-01","enacted_date":"2026-05-26","expires_date":"2027-05-31","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Merrillville, Indiana paused approvals of new data center projects for one year, from June 1, 2026 to May 31, 2027, so the town can watch how a neighboring Hobart data center campus affects infrastructure, utilities, traffic, noise and tax revenue before deciding on four developer proposals.","summary_technical":"Town of Merrillville (Lake County, IN) Town Council — moratorium on new data center project approvals, adopted at the 2026-05-26 meeting, effective 2026-06-01 through 2027-05-31. Purpose: observation period to study impacts of the Hobart hyperscale campus (infrastructure, utilities, traffic, noise, economic development, tax revenue, neighborhood compatibility). Four developers had approached the town. Ordinance number not published on the town page.","who_is_protected":"Merrillville residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Merrillville","citation":"Town of Merrillville, Indiana, data center moratorium (adopted May 26, 2026; effective June 1, 2026 – May 31, 2027)","source_url":"https://www.merrillville.in.gov/business-building-economic-development/data-centers/","source_title":"Data Centers — Town of Merrillville","source_type":"official-agency","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Merrillville Town Council; Plan Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Approvals not granted during moratorium"},{"id":"in-monroe-county-flock-termination-2026","title":"Monroe County, Indiana — Commissioners Terminate Flock Safety Contract and Order Removal of Six ALPR Cameras (July 23, 2026)","short_title":"Monroe County IN Flock contract termination (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Monroe County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Monroe","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-23","enacted_date":"2026-07-23","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Monroe County commissioners voted 2-0 on July 23, 2026 to end the county's contract with Flock Safety and take down its six automated license plate reader cameras. Sheriff Ruben Marté supported the move. The contract would otherwise have run until September 2027, and ending it early may cost the county up to about $3,000. Commissioners specifically chose to remove the cameras, not just cancel the contract, because other agencies could keep using the data if the cameras stayed up. Monroe County, home to Bloomington, was among the first Indiana counties to drop Flock.","summary_technical":"Monroe County, Ind. Board of Commissioners action of Thursday, July 23, 2026 (2-0, members present): approval of a termination letter to Flock Safety (Atlanta) and authorization to remove all six county ALPR cameras. Contract term otherwise ran to September 2027; early termination cost up to ~$3,000 (~$500/camera). Sheriff Ruben Marté supported termination. Removal (not just non-use) was adopted on the stated rationale that other agencies could continue to access data from cameras left in place. Contract action, not an ordinance: the technology is not banned and a later board could re-contract.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in Monroe County whose vehicle movements were captured by the county's six Flock cameras","who_must_comply":"Monroe County government and Sheriff's Office; Flock Safety as vendor","citation":"Monroe County, Ind. Board of Commissioners — termination of Flock Safety ALPR contract (July 23, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.inkfreenews.com/2026/07/30/monroe-county-commissioners-vote-to-remove-flock-cameras-end-contract/","source_title":"Monroe County commissioners vote to remove Flock cameras, end contract — InkFreeNews","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Monroe County Board of Commissioners","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None; contract terminated and cameras removed"},{"id":"in-new-albany-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"New Albany, Indiana — City Council Unanimously Passes One-Year Data Center Moratorium (July 16, 2026)","short_title":"New Albany IN one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"New Albany, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Floyd","city":"New Albany","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-07-16","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"New Albany's City Council unanimously passed a one-year ban on building new data centers on July 16, 2026. Mayor Jeff Gahan proposed the pause in June so the city could study what data centers would mean for it and update its zoning rules before any proposals arrive. No company had approached the city about a data center yet. The ordinance takes effect once the mayor signs it. One council member worried the ban could hold back companies already in New Albany.","summary_technical":"City of New Albany, Ind. ordinance imposing a one-year moratorium on new data center construction. Proposed by Mayor Jeff Gahan (announced June 9, 2026), advanced by the Plan Commission, first reading June 2026, passed on final reading unanimously Thursday, July 16, 2026. Per News and Tribune, takes effect upon the mayor's signature (signature date not confirmed). Unopened search snippet (WDRB) says it covers new data centers over 100,000 sq ft and multi-building campuses totalling over 100,000 sq ft; not confirmed from an opened source. Purpose: study impacts and update zoning/land-use rules. Ordinance number not reported. New Albany is in Floyd County, adjacent to Jeffersonville/Clark County, which adopted similar one-year moratoria.","who_is_protected":"New Albany residents, through a one-year pause on new data center construction while zoning rules are reviewed","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking to build in New Albany; city planning and permitting staff","citation":"City of New Albany, Ind. — one-year data center moratorium ordinance (final reading July 16, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.newsandtribune.com/indiana/city-council-pauses-data-center-development-in-new-albany-for-1-year/article_dc3733a3-b9a5-4197-b780-9ffd5035aa89.html","source_title":"City council pauses data center development in New Albany for 1 year — News and Tribune","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of New Albany Plan Commission / Building and zoning staff","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"New data center construction is not approved during the moratorium"},{"id":"in-parke-county-dc-ordinance-2026","title":"Parke County, Indiana — Commissioners Sign Data Center Ordinance Requiring Independent Water and Self-Supplied Power (June 15, 2026)","short_title":"Parke County IN data center ordinance (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Parke County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Parke","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-15","enacted_date":"2026-06-15","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Parke County commissioners signed an ordinance on June 15, 2026 setting rules any future data center would have to meet. A data center must be completely independent of the county's water system, and the developer must supply its own electricity so the project does not raise power costs or reduce supply for residents. It is not a ban or a pause. No data center is planned in the county. Local coverage called Parke one of the first Wabash Valley counties to adopt such rules.","summary_technical":"Parke County, Ind. Board of Commissioners ordinance on data centers, signed Monday, June 15, 2026 (formalizing restrictions announced earlier). Reported requirements: (1) the facility must be completely independent of the county water system; (2) the developer must provide the facility's electricity so it does not negatively affect availability or cost of electricity to residents. Other provisions (setbacks, noise, zoning district) not reported. Standards, not a moratorium or ban. Ordinance number not reported.","who_is_protected":"Parke County residents and county water and electric customers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers proposing projects in Parke County","citation":"Parke County, Ind. — data center ordinance (signed June 15, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/articles/parke-county-makes-data-center-restrictions-official","source_title":"Parke County makes data center restrictions official — Inside INdiana Business","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Parke County Board of Commissioners / county planning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Projects that do not meet the water and power requirements cannot proceed"},{"id":"in-sellersburg-dc-solar-battery-moratorium-2026","title":"Sellersburg, Indiana — Town Council One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers, Solar Farms and Battery Storage (August 10, 2026)","short_title":"Sellersburg IN one-year data center/solar/battery moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Sellersburg, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Clark","city":"Sellersburg","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-10","enacted_date":"2026-08-10","expires_date":"2027-08-10","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Sellersburg's Town Council voted unanimously on August 10, 2026 to stop approving or building data centers, solar farms and battery storage sites for one year, starting immediately. The town had no proposals pending; the town manager said there was nowhere in Sellersburg one would fit. The town is updating its development rules by the end of the year and will make a final recommendation after that. Sellersburg is in Clark County, which along with Jeffersonville passed its own one-year data center pause.","summary_technical":"Town of Sellersburg (Clark County), Ind. — immediate one-year moratorium on the approval or development of data centers, solar farms and battery energy storage facilities, adopted unanimously by the Town Council on Monday, August 10, 2026 (News and Tribune, Aug. 12, 2026, 'on Monday'). No pending applications (Town Manager Charlie Smith). The town is updating its Unified Development Ordinance by year-end, with a final recommendation to council afterward. Ordinance/resolution number not reported. Exceptions not reported.","who_is_protected":"Sellersburg residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers, solar farms and battery storage in Sellersburg; town planning staff","citation":"Town of Sellersburg, Ind. — one-year moratorium on data centers, solar farms and battery storage (Aug. 10, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.newsandtribune.com/news/sellersburg-imposes-one-year-moratorium-on-data-centers-with-no-proposals-so-far/article_d5879a54-c231-4ad6-8066-64ffe292ef75.html","source_title":"Sellersburg imposes one-year moratorium on data centers with no proposals so far — News and Tribune","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Town of Sellersburg planning/zoning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No approvals or development of covered facilities during the moratorium"},{"id":"in-shelby-county-dc-overlay-2026","title":"Shelby County, Indiana — Commissioners Adopt UDO Revision with Data Center Overlay Text Amendment as Six-Month Moratorium Ends (August 24, 2026)","short_title":"Shelby County IN data center overlay (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Shelby County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Shelby","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-24","enacted_date":"2026-08-24","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Shelby County commissioners adopted new zoning rules for data centers on August 24, 2026, the day after a six-month pause on data center proposals in the unincorporated county ran out. The rules are part of a revised development ordinance and add a data center overlay. The plan director called them fairly restrictive and said it would be hard for a data center to meet all of them. They went through three rounds of review in response to public concerns. The article did not list the specific requirements.","summary_technical":"Shelby County, Ind. Board of Commissioners adoption of a Unified Development Ordinance revision including a Data Center Overlay Text Amendment, Monday, August 24, 2026. Applies to unincorporated Shelby County. Preceded by a six-month moratorium on data center proposals that expired the day before (~Feb 23 to Aug 23, 2026). Three iterations of review; Plan Director Desirée Calderella: 'fairly restrictive', 'difficult for a data center to come in and meet all of these requirements'. Specific standards (districts, setbacks, water, noise) not reported. Vote count not reported.","who_is_protected":"Residents of unincorporated Shelby County","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in unincorporated Shelby County","citation":"Shelby County, Ind. — UDO revision with Data Center Overlay Text Amendment (Aug. 24, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.shelbynews.com/news/commissioners-approve-data-center-ordinance-coroner-building-bond-resolution/article_f6eed11e-7897-5104-9d14-c601007fa441.html","source_title":"Commissioners approve data center ordinance, coroner building bond resolution — Shelby County Post / Shelby News","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Shelby County Plan Commission / Department of Planning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Data centers must meet overlay standards to be approved"},{"id":"in-south-bend-dc-nda-executive-order-2026","title":"South Bend, Indiana — Mayor's Executive Order 01-2026 Bars Data Center Confidentiality Agreements (September 16, 2026)","short_title":"South Bend IN data center NDA ban executive order (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"South Bend, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"St. Joseph","city":"South Bend","topics":["data-centers","transparency","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-16","enacted_date":"2026-09-16","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"South Bend Mayor James Mueller signed an executive order on September 16, 2026 that stops city departments, employees and mayoral appointees from signing confidentiality agreements about data centers. Any data center agreement must say plainly that it is a public record under Indiana's public records law. It covers agreements signed, approved, changed, renewed or extended after that date. The order followed a public works official's refusal to tell the council what is in the Amazon data center's wastewater, citing an NDA. Two council members separately filed a bill to bar city officials from signing NDAs; its outcome was not confirmed.","summary_technical":"City of South Bend, Ind. Executive Order No. 01-2026, 'Data Center Transparency & Accountability Order', signed by Mayor James Mueller Wednesday, Sept. 16, 2026, effective immediately. Prohibits city departments, employees and mayoral appointees from entering confidentiality/nondisclosure agreements involving data centers; agreements must state they are public records under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act. Applies to data center agreements entered into, approved, amended, renewed or extended after signing. Context: AWS wastewater services agreement (Dec. 2023, expiring Dec. 2026); Public Works Director Eric Horvath declined an Aug. 20 Utilities Committee invitation citing the NDA. Separate Common Council bill (Oliver Davis Jr., Sherry Bolden-Simpson), filed for first reading Sept. 14, 2026, would bar city officials from entering NDAs; final passage not confirmed.","who_is_protected":"South Bend residents seeking access to records on city data center agreements","who_must_comply":"South Bend city departments, employees and mayoral appointees","citation":"City of South Bend, Ind. Executive Order No. 01-2026, Data Center Transparency & Accountability Order (Sept. 16, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/articles/south-bend-mayor-bans-confidentiality-agreements-for-data-centers","source_title":"South Bend mayor bans confidentiality agreements for data centers — Inside INdiana Business","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Office of the Mayor, City of South Bend","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None specified; confidentiality agreements prohibited and agreements must declare public-record status"},{"id":"in-starke-county-flock-nonrenewal-2026","title":"Starke County, Indiana — Sheriff's Office Will Not Renew Flock License Plate Reader Contract (September 8, 2026)","short_title":"Starke County IN Flock non-renewal (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Starke County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Starke","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-09-08","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"The Starke County Sheriff's Office announced on September 8, 2026 that it will not renew its contract for Flock license plate reader cameras. Sheriff Rosa cited community trust, transparency and open communication, and said the office had followed its policies while using the cameras. This was a sheriff's decision, not a county ordinance, so the technology is not banned. When the contract ends was not reported.","summary_technical":"Starke County, Ind. Sheriff's Office decision not to renew its Flock Safety ALPR contract, announced by Sheriff Rosa via social media on Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2026 (95.3 MNC, Sept. 9). Stated reasons: community trust, transparency, open communication; office says it followed its policies. Contract end date and camera count not reported. No commissioner or council vote reported by MNC. Agency non-renewal, not a prohibition. Separate from starke-county-in-dc-mora-2025-37 (data center moratorium).","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in Starke County","who_must_comply":"Starke County Sheriff's Office; Flock Safety as vendor","citation":"Starke County, Ind. Sheriff's Office — non-renewal of Flock ALPR contract (announced Sept. 8, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.953mnc.com/2026/09/09/starke-county-ending-flock-camera-contract/","source_title":"Starke County ending Flock camera contract — 95.3 MNC","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Starke County Sheriff's Office","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None; contract not renewed"},{"id":"in-switzerland-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Switzerland County, Indiana — Commissioners Pass One-Year Data Center Moratorium at Special Meeting (August 31, 2026)","short_title":"Switzerland County IN one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Switzerland County, IN","state_abbr":"IN","county":"Switzerland","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-08-31","enacted_date":"2026-08-31","expires_date":"2027-08-31","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Switzerland County commissioners passed a one-year moratorium on data centers at a special meeting on August 31, 2026. The county is in Indiana's southeast corner on the Ohio River. Only one news report was found, and it gave no details beyond the date, the body and the one-year term.","summary_technical":"Switzerland County, Ind. Board of Commissioners — one-year moratorium on data centers, passed at an Aug. 31, 2026 special meeting (The Bond Buyer, citing The Madison Courier). Instrument number, vote count, scope and exceptions not reported. Bond Buyer context: 25 of Indiana's 92 counties had data center moratoriums and three had banned the projects.","who_is_protected":"Switzerland County residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Switzerland County","citation":"Switzerland County, Ind. — one-year data center moratorium (Aug. 31, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.bondbuyer.com/news/indiana-counties-response-to-data-centers-reflects-broader-political-risk","source_title":"Indiana counties' response to data centers reflects broader political risk — The Bond Buyer","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Switzerland County Board of Commissioners / Area Plan Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"New data center projects not approved during the moratorium"},{"id":"ks-dickinson-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Dickinson County, KS — County Commission Three-Year Moratorium on Data Centers, Battery Storage and Renewable Energy Projects (2026)","short_title":"Dickinson County KS 3-year data center moratorium","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Dickinson County, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Dickinson","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"The Dickinson County, Kansas County Commission passed a three-year moratorium on data centers, battery energy storage and alternative or renewable energy projects such as wind turbines. KCLY Radio reported it on Aug. 26, 2026. Commissioner Kenny Roelofsen called it an 'exploratory moratorium' to help the county define and regulate these industries, not a prohibition. The county plans to take up one category per year. For data centers it will look at energy use, noise, water use, land use and how to classify different types of facility. No permit requests had been received.","summary_technical":"County Commission moratorium, reported Aug. 26, 2026 (exact vote date and resolution number not stated in the source). Duration 3 years. Scope: data centers, battery storage, alternative/renewable energy (e.g. wind turbines). Regulations to be drafted one category per year by Planning and Zoning (Director Tim Hamilton), who is taking public comment. Geographic scope (unincorporated only vs. county-wide zoning jurisdiction) not stated. NOT ESTABLISHED: vote date, resolution number, vote count, exact expiry date.","who_is_protected":"Dickinson County, KS residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of data centers, battery storage and renewable energy projects in Dickinson County, KS","citation":"Dickinson County, KS County Commission — 3-year moratorium on data centers, battery storage and renewable energy (reported Aug. 26, 2026)","source_url":"https://kclyradio.com/blog/dickinson-county-approves-three-year-moratorium-on-data-centers-battery-storage-and-renewable-energy-projects/","source_title":"Dickinson County approves three-year moratorium on data centers, battery storage and renewable energy projects — KCLY Radio (Aug. 26, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Dickinson County, KS County Commission; Planning and Zoning Department","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ks-edgerton-dc-ban-petition-suit-2026","title":"Edgerton, KS — City Suit to Void Citizen-Initiated Ordinance Banning High-Impact Data Centers (Johnson County District Court, 2026)","short_title":"Edgerton KS suit to void data center ban petition","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Edgerton, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Johnson","city":"Edgerton","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"litigation","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Edgerton, Kansas residents gathered enough valid signatures for a citizen-initiated ordinance that would ban high-impact data centers in the city. Under state law the city had to either adopt the ordinance or put it to a public vote. On July 23, 2026 the City Council declined to adopt it and voted to sue instead. The city then asked Johnson County District Court to declare the petition void, arguing it is legally and factually deficient. The ban is not in effect, and no election has been set.","summary_technical":"Citizen initiative (K.S.A. 12-3013 process) to prohibit high-impact data centers. Signatures certified by Johnson County Election Office. Council declined adoption July 23, 2026 and authorized suit. Declaratory judgment action filed early Aug. 2026, Johnson County District Court, City of Edgerton v. Carrie Schmidt, Kimberly Twente, Public Trust Collective, Inc., et al. City's arguments: false factual statements, references to nonexistent agreements, provisions on water/electric service control, selective targeting of data centers. NOT ESTABLISHED: case number, exact filing date, ordinance thresholds.","who_is_protected":"Edgerton, KS residents (if the ordinance is ultimately adopted)","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Edgerton, KS (if adopted)","citation":"City of Edgerton v. Schmidt et al., Johnson County (KS) District Court (filed Aug. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kctv5.com/2026/08/14/edgerton-calls-citizen-petition-void-invalid-files-suit-block-data-center-ban/","source_title":"Edgerton calls citizen petition void, invalid; files suit to block data center ban — KCTV5 (Aug. 14, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Edgerton, KS; Johnson County District Court","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ks-el-dorado-dc-bess-ban-ballot-2026","title":"El Dorado, KS — Citizen-Initiated 10-Year Ban on High-Impact Data Centers and Tier 2/3 Battery Storage on the Nov. 3, 2026 Ballot","short_title":"El Dorado KS data center/BESS ban ballot question","level":"city","jurisdiction":"El Dorado, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Butler","city":"El Dorado","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"El Dorado, Kansas voters will decide in the November 2026 general election whether to adopt a citizen-proposed 10-year ban on high-impact data centers and on Tier 2 and Tier 3 battery energy storage systems. The group Protect the Heartland gathered about 700 signatures. The city went to court to argue the petition was invalid and lost on Aug. 21, 2026. The City Commission then voted unanimously to put the measure on the ballot. Earlier, on June 1, 2026, the Commission had unanimously updated the zoning code to define data centers and battery storage and to set standards for them.","summary_technical":"Initiated ordinance: 10-year prohibition on 'High Impact Data Centers' and Tier 2/Tier 3 BESS. ~700 signatures (Protect the Heartland). City sought a ruling that the measure was administrative; the district court held on Aug. 21, 2026 that it is legislative and eligible for initiative. Ballot resolution adopted 5-0 at a special meeting on Aug. 25, 2026; the ballot will carry the ordinance title, the definitions and the 10-year duration. Separate, earlier action: a zoning code amendment defining data centers/BESS with standards, adopted unanimously at the June 1, 2026 Commission meeting (ordinance number not reported). NOT ESTABLISHED: data center MW/water thresholds, whether the city appealed.","who_is_protected":"El Dorado, KS residents","who_must_comply":"Data center and battery storage developers in El Dorado, KS (if approved)","citation":"El Dorado, KS initiated ordinance prohibiting High Impact Data Centers and Tier 2/3 BESS (Nov. 2026 ballot)","source_url":"https://www.kwch.com/2026/08/27/el-dorado-voters-have-say-potential-future-data-centers/","source_title":"El Dorado voters to have say on potential future of data centers — KWCH 12 (Aug. 27, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of El Dorado, KS","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ks-gardner-flock-nonrenewal-2026","title":"Gardner, KS — City Council Declines to Renew Flock Safety ALPR Contract (Aug. 17, 2026)","short_title":"Gardner KS Flock non-renewal (Aug. 17, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Gardner, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Johnson","city":"Gardner","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-08-17","enacted_date":"2026-08-17","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"The Gardner, Kansas City Council voted on Aug. 17, 2026 not to renew the city's contract with Flock Safety, the license plate reader company. The city's one Flock camera will be discontinued. The city said the decision came from an ongoing review of which tools give the police department the most value. Johnson County runs separate, non-Flock cameras in the area.","summary_technical":"Council vote (count not reported) on Aug. 17, 2026: Flock ALPR contract not renewed; one city-owned Flock camera discontinued. Stated rationale is value and resource evaluation; privacy and mass-surveillance concerns are national context per KCTV. Johnson County's non-Flock cameras are unaffected. No data deletion terms reported. Protective decision, status 'effective' per dataset convention (cf. kaukauna-wi-flock-nonrenewal-2026). Strength limited: a single camera.","who_is_protected":"Gardner, KS residents and drivers","who_must_comply":"Gardner Police Department; City of Gardner","citation":"Gardner, KS City Council — Flock Safety contract non-renewal (Aug. 17, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.kctv5.com/2026/08/19/city-gardner-cancels-contract-over-flock-security-cameras/","source_title":"City of Gardner cancels contract over Flock security cameras — KCTV5 (Aug. 19, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Gardner, KS; Gardner Police Department"},{"id":"ks-wichita-grimmett-flock-alpr-suit-2026","title":"Grimmett v. City of Wichita — State Constitutional Challenge to Wichita's Flock ALPR Camera Network (Sedgwick County District Court, 2026)","short_title":"Grimmett v. Wichita (Flock ALPR suit)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Wichita, KS","state_abbr":"KS","county":"Sedgwick","city":"Wichita","topics":["privacy","law-enforcement"],"status":"litigation","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"A Wichita resident, Mason Grimmett, represented by the Kansas Justice Institute, has sued the City of Wichita in Sedgwick County District Court over its network of nearly 200 Flock license plate reader cameras. The suit says that recording and logging every passing vehicle without a warrant violates the Kansas Constitution. It asks the court to declare the program unconstitutional and stop it. The case rests on the state constitution, not the Fourth Amendment.","summary_technical":"Grimmett v. City of Wichita, Sedgwick County (KS) District Court, filed ~July 30, 2026. Counsel: Kansas Justice Institute (Sam MacRoberts). Claims: Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights Sections 15 (search and seizure) and 20 (reserved rights); declaratory and injunctive relief. Program: Flock cameras since 2020, ~190-200 units, ~900,000 vehicle images/month, minimum 30-day retention (longer in some cases), nationwide sharing. NOT ESTABLISHED: case number, any ruling.","who_is_protected":"Wichita, KS residents and drivers","who_must_comply":"City of Wichita; Wichita Police Department","citation":"Grimmett v. City of Wichita, Sedgwick County (KS) District Court (2026)","source_url":"https://www.kcur.org/news/2026-08-01/kansas-flock-license-plate-camera-lawsuit-wichita-police","source_title":"Kansas lawsuit challenges Wichita Police license plate cameras as unconstitutional — KCUR (Aug. 1, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Sedgwick County District Court","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ky-bowling-green-dc-zoning-ordinance-2026","title":"Bowling Green, KY — City Commission Gives Final Approval to Data Center Zoning Ordinance (June 16, 2026)","short_title":"Bowling Green KY data center zoning ordinance (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Bowling Green, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Warren","city":"Bowling Green","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-06-16","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Bowling Green adopted zoning rules for data centers instead of a pause. New data centers face limits on energy and water use, noise and light pollution, must stay 1,500 feet from homes, must cover their own utility costs and must file a decommissioning plan. A six-month moratorium was voted down 3-2.","summary_technical":"City of Bowling Green, KY (Warren County) — Board of Commissioners, final (second) reading, unanimous, June 16, 2026 (WKU Public Radio). Zoning ordinance applies to new data center/tech facilities in specified zones: energy and water consumption restrictions, noise and light pollution controls, 1,500-foot buffer from residential areas, requirement that data centers cover utility costs, and a decommissioning plan. Motion for a six-month moratorium failed 3-2 (Beasley-Brown, Bailey yes; Hill, Parrigin, Mayor Alcott no). No data center project was pending. Ordinance number and effective date not given in source. Warren County Fiscal Court was expected to vote on mirroring rules June 25, 2026 (not verified here).","who_is_protected":"Bowling Green residents and utility ratepayers near prospective data centers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Bowling Green, KY","citation":"City of Bowling Green, KY, data center zoning ordinance (final approval June 16, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wkyufm.org/news/2026-06-16/bowling-green-city-leaders-give-final-approval-to-zoning-restrictions-on-data-centers","source_title":"Bowling Green city leaders give final approval to zoning restrictions on data centers — WKU Public Radio (June 16, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Bowling Green, KY (Planning and Zoning)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Zoning approval withheld / zoning enforcement"},{"id":"ky-boyd-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Boyd County, KY — Fiscal Court Adopts Six-Month Data Center Moratorium, EastPark Exempt (July 2026)","short_title":"Boyd County KY six-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Boyd County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Boyd","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-21","enacted_date":"2026-07-21","expires_date":"2027-01-21","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Boyd County (Ashland area) paused new data centers for six months to study environmental impacts, utility capacity and local rules. The pause does not cover the EastPark regional industrial park, where TeraWulf plans a 1-gigawatt data center.","summary_technical":"Boyd County Fiscal Court, KY — ordinance imposing a six-month moratorium on data centers within county jurisdiction. First reading at a special meeting Thursday July 9, 2026 (WCHS, July 10); adopted unanimously on second reading (Daily Independent, July 21, 2026; meeting date inferred as Tuesday July 21). Exemption: property owned by or located within the North East Kentucky Regional Industrial Park (EastPark), covering TeraWulf's planned 1-GW data center. Purpose: consider environmental impacts, utility capacity, economic benefits and best practices, and update local regulations. Expiry computed as adoption + 6 months (~Jan 21, 2027); ordinance number not given.","who_is_protected":"Boyd County residents outside EastPark","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Boyd County outside EastPark","citation":"Boyd County, KY, six-month data center moratorium ordinance (second reading July 2026)","source_url":"https://www.dailyindependent.com/news/boyd-approves-data-center-moratorium/article_f56ffafa-d2a7-4c69-b0d3-154bd192fc59.html","source_title":"Boyd approves data center moratorium — The Daily Independent (July 21, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Boyd County Fiscal Court","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No approvals during the moratorium"},{"id":"ky-butler-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Butler County, KY — Fiscal Court Approves One-Year Data Center Moratorium (June 2026)","short_title":"Butler County KY one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Butler County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Butler","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Butler County paused data centers for about a year so officials can study what one would do to the electric co-op (Warren Rural Electric), the water system and ratepayers. No data center is currently proposed there.","summary_technical":"Butler County Fiscal Court, KY — countywide one-year moratorium on data center development, reported by WBKO on June 26, 2026. Purpose: study impacts on Warren Rural Electric and the county water system and on ratepayers before any proposal arrives. Exact vote date, ordinance number and whether this was first or second reading are not in the source. Not to be confused with Butler County, OH (butler-county-oh-dc-mora-2026).","who_is_protected":"Butler County, KY residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Butler County, KY","citation":"Butler County, KY, one-year data center moratorium (approved June 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wbko.com/2026/06/26/butler-county-approves-one-year-moratorium-data-centers/","source_title":"Butler County approves one year moratorium on data centers — WBKO (June 26, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Butler County Fiscal Court","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No approvals during the moratorium"},{"id":"ky-columbia-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Columbia, KY — City Council Establishes Six-Month Data Center Moratorium (July 6, 2026)","short_title":"Columbia KY six-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Columbia, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Adair","city":"Columbia","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-06","enacted_date":"2026-07-06","expires_date":"2027-01-06","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Columbia, the Adair County seat, paused data centers inside city limits for six months while its planning commission writes a data center ordinance. The six-month length followed Kentucky League of Cities advice that longer pauses hold up less well in court.","summary_technical":"City of Columbia, KY (Adair County) — City Council, unanimous, Monday meeting (July 6, 2026), approving the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation; Adair County Community Voice (posted Wed. July 8, 2026) calls it 'the final step needed to establish a six-month moratorium that will prevent any data center from constructing or locating within the city limits.' Duration recommended by the Kentucky League of Cities. P&Z to draft an ordinance and request extension if needed. Expiry computed (~Jan 6, 2027); ordinance number not given.","who_is_protected":"Columbia, KY residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Columbia city limits","citation":"City of Columbia, KY, six-month data center moratorium (July 2026)","source_url":"https://adairvoice.com/stories/six-month-halt-on-data-centers-in-effect-in-city-of-columbia,66657","source_title":"Six-month halt on data centers in effect in City of Columbia — Adair County Community Voice (July 8, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Columbia, KY","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No approvals during the moratorium"},{"id":"ky-covington-alpr-restrictions-2026","title":"Covington, KY — Commission Bans Fixed License Plate Reader Cameras and Drops Cruiser ALPRs in Axon Contract (Sept. 8, 2026)","short_title":"Covington KY fixed ALPR ban + 7-day retention (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Covington, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Kenton","city":"Covington","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","data-retention"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-08","enacted_date":"2026-09-08","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Covington will not use fixed license plate reader cameras like Flock's, and police cars will no longer carry plate readers. Any plate-reader images that are captured may be kept only seven days unless they are part of an active investigation.","summary_technical":"City of Covington, KY — Board of Commissioners, Tuesday Sept. 8, 2026 (Spectrum News 1, Sept. 9). Approved 10-year, $6M Axon public-safety contract with last-minute amendment language: (1) prohibits fixed automated license plate reader cameras (e.g., Flock Safety) in Covington; (2) removes four Axon Fleet 3 dash-cam/ALPR units from the contract and discontinues existing Motorola vehicle-mounted ALPR; (3) ALPR images retained only 7 days unless part of an active investigation. Vehicle of action is a contract approval with amendments, not a standalone ordinance; vote count not reported.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in Covington, KY","who_must_comply":"Covington Police Department; Axon (contract vendor)","citation":"City of Covington, KY, Axon contract approval with ALPR amendments (Sept. 8, 2026)","source_url":"https://spectrumnews1.com/ky/louisville/news/2026/09/09/covington-drops-car-mounted-plate-readers-bans-flock-style-cameras","source_title":"Covington drops car-mounted plate readers, bans Flock-style cameras — Spectrum News 1 (Sept. 9, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Covington, KY","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Contract terms; none specified"},{"id":"ky-daviess-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Daviess County, KY — Fiscal Court Approves One-Year Moratorium on Data Center Applications (May 28, 2026)","short_title":"Daviess County KY one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Daviess County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Daviess","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-05-28","enacted_date":"2026-05-28","expires_date":"2027-05-28","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Daviess County (Owensboro area) stopped accepting data center applications for a year so the county can study how a data center would affect the area and residents.","summary_technical":"Daviess County Fiscal Court, KY — unanimous vote May 28, 2026 approving a one-year (12-month) moratorium on data center applications (14 News WFIE, May 29, 2026). Purpose per the judge-executive: time to investigate impacts on the area and residents. Ordinance number and reading not given. Expiry computed ~May 28, 2027.","who_is_protected":"Daviess County residents","who_must_comply":"Data center applicants in Daviess County","citation":"Daviess County, KY, one-year moratorium on data center applications (May 28, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.14news.com/2026/05/29/daviess-co-fiscal-court-approves-moratorium-data-center-applications/","source_title":"Daviess Co. Fiscal Court approves moratorium on data center applications — 14 News (May 29, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Daviess County Fiscal Court","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted during the moratorium"},{"id":"ky-edmonson-county-dc-moratorium-ec26-18-2026","title":"Edmonson County, KY — Ordinance EC26-18: One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers, AI Facilities and Crypto Mining (June 8, 2026)","short_title":"Edmonson County KY data center/AI/crypto moratorium EC26-18","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Edmonson County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Edmonson","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-08","enacted_date":"2026-06-08","expires_date":"2027-06-08","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Edmonson County paused new data centers, AI processing facilities, crypto mines and similar power- and water-hungry computing operations for one year while it writes a permanent ordinance. Existing legal operations and ordinary office computers are not affected.","summary_technical":"Edmonson County Fiscal Court, KY — Ordinance No. EC26-18, adopted unanimously on second reading June 8, 2026, effective upon adoption (Edmonson Voice). One-year moratorium (subject to repeal, amendment or extension) on approval, construction, development or operation of data centers, AI processing facilities, cryptocurrency mining and 'high-intensity computing' operations requiring significant power, cooling, water or telecom resources. Existing lawfully operating facilities grandfathered; normal business computing exempt.","who_is_protected":"Edmonson County residents","who_must_comply":"Developers/operators of data centers, AI facilities and crypto mining in Edmonson County","citation":"Edmonson County, KY, Ordinance No. EC26-18 (June 8, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.edmonsonvoice.com/-news/edmonson-county-fiscal-court-enacts-one-year-moratorium-on-new-data-centers-ai-facilities-and-crypto-mining-operations","source_title":"Edmonson County Fiscal Court Enacts One-Year Moratorium on New Data Centers, AI Facilities, and Crypto Mining Operations — Edmonson Voice (June 8, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Edmonson County Fiscal Court","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"No approvals/operation during the moratorium"},{"id":"ky-georgetown-dc-ban-proposed-2026","title":"Georgetown, KY — City Council Directs Counsel to Draft Ordinance Banning (Hyperscale) Data Centers (Sept. 29, 2026)","short_title":"Georgetown KY proposed data center ban (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Georgetown, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Scott","city":"Georgetown","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Georgetown's council asked its lawyer to write an ordinance banning data centers, aimed mainly at very large 'hyperscale' facilities. Council members said the city lacks the water, land and infrastructure. Nothing is law yet; the planning commission must approve a ban first.","summary_technical":"City of Georgetown, KY (Scott County) — City Council, unanimous vote Tuesday Sept. 29, 2026 (WKYT, Sept. 30) directing legal counsel to prepare an ordinance banning data centers and defining 'hyperscale data center'. Members indicated the target is large facilities, not small operations. Planning and Zoning Commission approval is required for a complete ban. No ordinance text, number or hearing date yet. Scott County separately extended its moratorium to March 2027 (ky-scott-county-dc-moratorium-extended-2027).","who_is_protected":"Georgetown, KY residents","who_must_comply":"Prospective (hyperscale) data center developers in Georgetown","citation":"Georgetown City Council directive to draft data center ban ordinance (Sept. 29, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wkyt.com/2026/09/30/georgetown-council-votes-draft-ordinance-banning-data-centers/","source_title":"Georgetown council votes to draft ordinance banning data centers — WKYT (Sept. 30, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Georgetown, KY","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not yet drafted"},{"id":"ky-greenup-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Greenup County, KY — Fiscal Court Adopts Six-Month Data Center Moratorium (TeraWulf EastPark Project Not Included) (July 2026)","short_title":"Greenup County KY six-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Greenup County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Greenup County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-17","enacted_date":"2026-07-17","expires_date":"2027-01-17","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Greenup County's Fiscal Court passed a six-month pause on data centers in the county, effective immediately, so it can set rules on things like noise and lighting. The large TeraWulf project already planned at the EastPark industrial park is not included in the pause.","summary_technical":"Greenup County, KY Fiscal Court ordinance (number not reported), adopted unanimously on second reading c. July 17, 2026; six-month moratorium on data center operation/development, effective upon passage (expires approx. Jan. 2027). Purpose per Judge-Executive Bobby Hall: put 'guardrails' in place on noise, lights and other restrictions so projects come back through the fiscal court. Carve-out: TeraWulf's planned 1-gigawatt facility at EastPark Industrial Park (regional industrial park) is not subject to the pause.","who_is_protected":"Greenup County residents during the period the county develops data center rules","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Greenup County (except the TeraWulf/EastPark project)","citation":"Greenup County, KY Fiscal Court data center moratorium ordinance (second reading, c. July 17, 2026; six months)","source_url":"https://www.dailyindependent.com/news/greenup-county-places-moratorium-on-data-centers-hall-on-terawulf-not-included-in-the-pause/article_085b0070-ecdb-412f-90a6-f3ab60ae11f9.html","source_title":"Greenup County places moratorium on data centers; Hall: TeraWulf not included in the pause — The Daily Independent (Ashland)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Greenup County Fiscal Court","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Development not approved during the moratorium"},{"id":"ky-letcher-county-dc-moratorium-2yr-2026","title":"Letcher County, KY — Fiscal Court Orders Two-Year Halt on New Data Centers and Requires Environmental Impact Studies (July 20, 2026)","short_title":"Letcher County KY two-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Letcher County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Letcher County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-20","enacted_date":"2026-07-20","expires_date":"2028-07-20","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Letcher County in eastern Kentucky voted to stop new data centers from being built for two years and to require environmental impact studies before any future project can go ahead. Residents had raised concerns about a proposed gas-fired power plant meant to serve AI data centers.","summary_technical":"Letcher County, KY Fiscal Court action of July 20, 2026 (unanimous): two-year moratorium on construction of new data centers countywide plus a requirement that environmental impact studies be completed before any future data center project proceeds. Context: resident opposition to a proposed natural-gas-fired power plant intended to supply AI data centers. Instrument type (ordinance reading vs. order) not stated in source.","who_is_protected":"Letcher County residents and environment","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Letcher County","citation":"Letcher County, KY Fiscal Court two-year data center moratorium (July 20, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.themountaineagle.com/articles/county-orders-two-year-halt-on-data-centers/","source_title":"County orders two-year halt on data centers — The Mountain Eagle (Whitesburg)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Letcher County Fiscal Court","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Construction not permitted during moratorium"},{"id":"ky-metcalfe-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Metcalfe County, KY — Fiscal Court Adopts Ordinance #26-0709 Data Center Moratorium (July 23, 2026)","short_title":"Metcalfe County KY data center moratorium (Ord. 26-0709)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Metcalfe County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Metcalfe County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2026-07-23","enacted_date":"2026-07-23","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Metcalfe County's Fiscal Court adopted an ordinance placing a moratorium on data centers. News coverage did not report how long the pause lasts.","summary_technical":"Metcalfe County, KY (seat: Edmonton) Ordinance #26-0709 'Data Center Moratorium', second reading and adoption at the July 23, 2026 regular Fiscal Court meeting. Duration and scope not reported in coverage.","who_is_protected":"Metcalfe County residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Metcalfe County","citation":"Metcalfe County, KY Ordinance #26-0709 (adopted July 23, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.jobenews.com/2026/07/27/data-center-moratorium-passed/","source_title":"Data Center Moratorium Passed — Jobe Publishing / The Herald-News (Edmonton)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Metcalfe County Fiscal Court","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not reported"},{"id":"ky-nelson-county-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Nelson County, KY — Fiscal Court Passes One-Year Moratorium on Data Centers of Any Size (July 7, 2026)","short_title":"Nelson County KY one-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Nelson County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Nelson County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-07","enacted_date":"2026-07-07","expires_date":"2027-07-07","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Nelson County (Bardstown) passed a one-year ban on new data centers of any size so officials can review county policies and whether local infrastructure can handle them.","summary_technical":"Nelson County, KY Fiscal Court, July 7, 2026: one-year moratorium covering data centers of any size, effective upon approval. Stated purpose: evaluate existing policies and infrastructure capacity before accepting further data center proposals. Ordinance number and vote tally not reported.","who_is_protected":"Nelson County residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Nelson County","citation":"Nelson County, KY Fiscal Court one-year data center moratorium (July 7, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wlky.com/article/nelson-county-data-center-moratorium/71859768","source_title":"Nelson County Fiscal Court passes 1-year moratorium for data centers — WLKY","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Nelson County Fiscal Court","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Proposals not accepted during moratorium"},{"id":"ky-laurel-county-dc-ordinance-proposed-2026","title":"Laurel County, KY — Fiscal Court Approves First Reading of Data Center Development Ordinance (Oct. 6, 2026)","short_title":"Laurel County KY data center ordinance (first reading, 2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Laurel County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Laurel County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Laurel County is drafting rules for data center development. The county judge-executive said the aim is to stall or hinder data centers from coming to the county. The first of two required votes passed; no company has proposed a data center there yet.","summary_technical":"Laurel County, KY Fiscal Court: first reading (unanimous) Oct. 6, 2026 of an ordinance establishing the county's data center development process/regulations; full text to be released after second reading (expected at the regular monthly meeting, Monday Oct. 12, 2026). Judge-Executive Westerfield: 'This is to try to do anything we can to stall, or possibly hinder them from coming into the county.' No data center inquiries had been received. Related: City of London (county seat) two-year moratorium, ky-london-dc-moratorium-2026.","who_is_protected":"Laurel County residents","who_must_comply":"Prospective data center developers in Laurel County","citation":"Laurel County, KY data center development ordinance (first reading Oct. 6, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.sentinel-echo.com/news/laurel-fiscal-court-approves-first-reading-of-data-center-development-ordinance/article_2679b924-7ecc-4d3b-9a03-a521a7234998.html","source_title":"Laurel Fiscal Court approves first reading of data center development ordinance — The Sentinel-Echo (London)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Laurel County Fiscal Court","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ky-hb58-alpr-privacy-2026","title":"Kentucky HB 58 (2026) — Automated License Plate Reader Privacy Protections (Acts Ch. 71)","short_title":"Kentucky HB 58 ALPR limits and 90-day retention (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Kentucky","state_abbr":"KY","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","data-retention","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-15","enacted_date":"2026-04-10","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Kentucky's new license plate reader law limits who can use plate-reader cameras and for what, restricts selling the data, and generally requires deleting captured plate data after 90 days unless it is needed for an investigation or a preservation request. Police agencies must adopt written policies and publish where their cameras are.","summary_technical":"2026 Ky. Acts Ch. 71 (HB 58, 'AN ACT relating to privacy protection'). Defines ALPR systems/data; permits use by the Transportation Cabinet (revenue collection, commercial vehicle enforcement), law enforcement and contracted third parties (criminal investigations, public safety), and insurers/financial institutions (fraud investigation, collateral recovery); limits use and sale of captured data; 90-day retention cap except for active criminal/insurance investigations or preservation requests; requires law enforcement agencies to adopt written ALPR policies and to maintain and publicly disclose ALPR location lists updated every 180 days. Votes: House 89-9 (Feb. 18), Senate 34-3 (Mar. 24), House concurrence 70-19 (Mar. 31); signed Apr. 10, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and vehicle owners in Kentucky","who_must_comply":"Kentucky law enforcement agencies, the Transportation Cabinet, ALPR vendors/third parties, insurers and financial institutions using ALPR data","citation":"2026 Ky. Acts Ch. 71 (HB 58)","source_url":"https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/26rs/hb58.html","source_title":"HB 58 — 2026 Regular Session — Kentucky Legislative Research Commission","source_type":"official-bill","confidence":"verified-official","enforcement_agency":"Not specified in LRC summary","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not specified in LRC summary"},{"id":"ky-ag-character-ai-chatbot-suit-2026","title":"Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Character Technologies — AG Coleman Sues Character.AI Under Consumer Protection and Consumer Data Protection Acts (Jan. 8, 2026)","short_title":"KY AG v. Character.AI chatbot suit (2026)","level":"state","jurisdiction":"Kentucky","state_abbr":"KY","topics":["children","consumer-protection","privacy"],"status":"litigation","strength":"moderate","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Kentucky's attorney general sued the company behind Character.AI, saying its chatbot companions prey on children who can't tell real friends from artificial ones and have encouraged self-harm, suicide and isolation. The state asks the court to stop deceptive practices and impose penalties. It was described as the first state lawsuit against an AI chatbot company.","summary_technical":"Commonwealth ex rel. Coleman v. Character Technologies, Inc., Franklin Circuit Court (filed Jan. 8, 2026). Claims under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (KRS 367) and Kentucky Consumer Data Protection Act, among other laws; alleges the platform induces users, including minors, to divulge private thoughts and exposes minors to self-harm/suicide encouragement, isolation, psychological manipulation and sexual content. Relief: injunction barring 'false, misleading, deceptive, and/or unfair acts or practices' in creation, design, promotion and distribution of Character.AI in Kentucky; civil penalties ($2,000 per count, among other requests). Some claims redacted. Billed by the state as the first US regulatory suit against a chatbot company.","who_is_protected":"Kentucky children and other users of Character.AI","who_must_comply":"Character Technologies, Inc.","citation":"Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Character Technologies, Inc. (Franklin Cir. Ct., filed Jan. 8, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wkms.org/government-politics/2026-01-09/kentucky-ags-lawsuit-says-ai-company-preys-on-youth","source_title":"Kentucky AG's lawsuit says AI company 'preys' on youth — WKMS (Kentucky Lantern)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Kentucky Office of the Attorney General","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Civil penalties sought ($2,000 per count) plus injunctive relief"},{"id":"ky-independence-flock-removal-2026","title":"Independence, KY — Mayor Announces Removal of All Flock Safety ALPR Cameras After Resident Opposition (Aug. 2026)","short_title":"Independence KY ends Flock ALPR cameras (Aug. 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Independence, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Kenton County","city":"Independence","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"The mayor of Independence, in Northern Kentucky, said the city will take down all of its Flock license-plate cameras after residents raised privacy and data-safety concerns, even though he personally supported the technology.","summary_technical":"Independence, KY (Kenton County): mayoral/administrative decision announced by press release in August 2026 to remove all Flock Safety ALPR cameras (15 installed; 5 additional purchased July 2026) following a public meeting at which residents raised privacy and data-security concerns. No council vote reported; no removal timeline given. Part of a Northern Kentucky wave (Newport, Fort Thomas, Fort Mitchell, Erlanger, Taylor Mill, Edgewood) after state HB 58 took effect July 15, 2026.","who_is_protected":"Drivers in Independence, KY","who_must_comply":"Independence Police Department","citation":"City of Independence, KY mayoral announcement on Flock camera removal (Aug. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wvxu.org/local-news/2026-08-17/independence-removing-flock-cameras","source_title":"Independence removing Flock cameras — WVXU","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Independence","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ky-newport-flock-pilot-nonadoption-2026","title":"Newport, KY — City Declines Permanent Flock ALPR Program After Pilot, Citing Public Feedback and Fourth Amendment Developments (July 2026)","short_title":"Newport KY declines permanent Flock ALPR program (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Newport, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Campbell County","city":"Newport","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Newport, Kentucky tested 17 Flock license-plate cameras for free but, after residents raised privacy concerns, the city said it will not sign up for a permanent plate-reader program.","summary_technical":"Newport, KY (Campbell County): administrative decision announced by the city/Police Capt. Kevin Drohan c. July 14, 2026 not to adopt a permanent ALPR program after a Flock free-trial pilot (17 cameras), citing pilot results, public feedback and 'recent developments in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence'. No city commission vote; as of reporting, trial cameras still installed and no end date announced.","who_is_protected":"Drivers in Newport, KY","who_must_comply":"Newport Police Department","citation":"City of Newport, KY announcement declining permanent ALPR program (July 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wvxu.org/local-news/2026-07-08/newport-residents-flock-cameras","source_title":"Newport residents push back on Flock cameras — WVXU","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Newport","private_right_of_action":false},{"id":"ky-oldham-county-dc-moratorium-2025","title":"Oldham County, KY — Fiscal Court data center moratorium (adopted July 2025 as 150-day pause; still in force Aug 2026 after regulations were sent back for redrafting)","short_title":"Oldham County KY data center moratorium (2025, still in force)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Oldham County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Oldham County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"limited","effective_date":"2025-07-01","enacted_date":"2025-07-01","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Oldham County, Kentucky paused all data center applications in July 2025 after a fight over a proposed $6 billion data center. The pause was first set for 150 days, but it is still in force: in August 2026 the county rejected draft data center rules and decided to bring in an expert to rewrite them, which keeps the moratorium in place until new rules pass.","summary_technical":"Oldham County Fiscal Court approved, 4-2 on July 1, 2025, a 150-day moratorium pausing any application to build a data center in the county, striking draft language that would have exempted Western Hospitality Partners' pending application (100 MW, after its original 600 MW / $6B proposal on KY 53 was withdrawn). Reporting at the time describes scope covering data centers, private utilities and data storage facilities. The 150-day term would have lapsed around late Nov 2025; WAVE reporting in Aug 2026 states the moratorium remains in place and will stay until a data center ordinance is passed (the extension instrument and date were not located). On Aug 18, 2026 the Fiscal Court denied the planning commission's proposed regulations (1,000 ft setback from neighboring properties, 1,500 ft from schools) to retain an expert for redrafting; a magistrate floated a permanent moratorium, which Judge-Executive David Voegele cautioned against.","who_is_protected":"Oldham County residents, pending adoption of data center zoning standards","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking approvals in Oldham County","citation":"Oldham County, KY Fiscal Court data center moratorium (adopted 4-2, July 1, 2025; 150 days; continued pending regulations as of Aug 18, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wdrbwave.com/2026/08/19/oldham-county-data-center-moratorium-remains-place/","source_title":"Oldham County data center moratorium remains in place — WAVE","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Oldham County Fiscal Court; Oldham County Planning and Zoning","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Applications not accepted or processed during the moratorium"},{"id":"ky-scottsville-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Scottsville, KY — City Council adopts 24-month data center moratorium (July 2026)","short_title":"Scottsville KY 24-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Scottsville, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Allen County","city":"Scottsville","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-07-13","enacted_date":"2026-07-13","expires_date":"2028-07-13","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Scottsville, the seat of Allen County, Kentucky, paused new data center construction inside city limits for two years while officials study effects on water, electricity and local utilities. It complements Allen County's own 24-month moratorium on the unincorporated county.","summary_technical":"Scottsville City Council (Allen County, KY) — ordinance adopted unanimously on second and final reading (reported July 13, 2026) imposing a 24-month moratorium on construction and development of new data centers within city limits, to study impacts on infrastructure, utilities (water, electricity) and the community. Ordinance number not reported. Expiry approx. July 2028 (computed from reported adoption date).","who_is_protected":"Scottsville city residents and utility ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers within Scottsville city limits","citation":"City of Scottsville, KY data center moratorium ordinance (24 months; final reading approved unanimously, July 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wnky.com/scottsville-approves-two-year-data-center-moratorium/","source_title":"Scottsville approves two-year data center moratorium — WNKY","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Scottsville","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Construction/development approvals for data centers not issued during moratorium"},{"id":"ky-simpson-county-dc-cup-ordinance-2025","title":"Simpson County, KY — Fiscal Court data center ordinance: heavy-industrial zoning + conditional use permit for data centers and integrated energy systems (Dec 2025; amended Ord. 920.133, May 5, 2026; under challenge in TenKey LandCo v. Simpson County)","short_title":"Simpson County KY data center CUP ordinance (2025/2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Simpson County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Simpson County","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-05-05","enacted_date":"2025-12-01","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Simpson County, Kentucky requires large data centers and on-site power systems to get a conditional use permit and limits them to heavy-industrial land, countywide including inside the city of Franklin. The developer of a proposed Franklin data center sued to strike the rule down, arguing the county cannot impose conditions inside city limits; a judge is expected to rule in October 2026.","summary_technical":"Simpson County Fiscal Court adopted an ordinance in December 2025 requiring 'advanced technology' data storage centers and integrated energy systems to obtain a conditional use permit and restricting them to Heavy Industrial (I-2) zones in incorporated and unincorporated areas, with oversight of energy/water use, noise and emissions. On May 5, 2026 the court adopted (majority vote, second reading) amended Ordinance No. 920.133 defining 'advanced technology centers' (incl. data centers) as conditional uses countywide. LITIGATION: TenKey LandCo I LLC (developer of the OTN Group Franklin project) filed suit in Simpson Circuit Court on Jan 20, 2026 arguing the county planning commission lacks authority under KRS ch. 100 to impose conditions within Franklin city limits; Chief Circuit Judge Thurmond took the case under submission Aug 6, 2026 with an opinion expected Oct 14, 2026. A separate April 2026 citizens' suit (Franklin Citizens for Responsible Development) challenges the Franklin P&Z Commission's March 2026 preliminary plan approval.","who_is_protected":"Simpson County and Franklin residents near proposed large data centers and on-site energy facilities","who_must_comply":"Data center and integrated energy system developers in Simpson County, including within Franklin","citation":"Simpson County, KY Ordinance No. 920.133 (amended, adopted May 5, 2026; original data center CUP ordinance Dec 2025); TenKey LandCo I LLC v. Simpson County (Simpson Cir. Ct., filed Jan. 20, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wnky.com/simpson-county-approves-amended-ordinance-regulating-data-centers-amid-lawsuit/","source_title":"Simpson County approves amended ordinance regulating data centers amid lawsuit — WNKY","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"Simpson County Fiscal Court; Simpson County Planning and Zoning Commission","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Development not permitted without a conditional use permit"},{"id":"ky-warren-county-dc-zoning-regs-2026","title":"Warren County, KY — Fiscal Court adopts city-county planning commission data center zoning regulations (setbacks, utility cost protection, decommissioning; June 25, 2026)","short_title":"Warren County KY data center zoning regulations (2026)","level":"county","jurisdiction":"Warren County, KY","state_abbr":"KY","county":"Warren County","topics":["data-centers","consumer-protection"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-06-25","enacted_date":"2026-06-25","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Warren County, Kentucky (Bowling Green area) adopted data center zoning rules that confine data centers to designated areas, require 500-foot setbacks from property lines and 1,500 feet from homes and schools, make developers cover all associated utility costs, and require decommissioning plans. Bowling Green adopted the same rules.","summary_technical":"Warren County Fiscal Court adopted on second reading (June 25, 2026) zoning amendments drafted by the City-County Planning Commission of Warren County after ~8 months of research: data centers limited to designated zones; 500 ft setback from property lines and 1,500 ft from homes and schools; design standards; utility protections requiring developers to cover all costs associated with utility service; decommissioning requirements. Bowling Green City Commission adopted identical regulations. Some residents had asked for a six-month moratorium instead. Full text: warrenpc.org/zoning-ordinance-changes/.","who_is_protected":"Warren County residents, schools, and utility ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Warren County","citation":"Warren County, KY data center zoning text amendment (City-County Planning Commission; Fiscal Court second reading June 25, 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wbko.com/2026/06/25/warren-county-fiscal-court-passes-data-center-regulations-second-reading/","source_title":"Warren County Fiscal Court passes data center regulations on second reading — WBKO","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City-County Planning Commission of Warren County; Warren County Fiscal Court","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Zoning approval withheld for non-conforming projects"},{"id":"ma-agawam-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Agawam, MA — City Council Adopts a 270-Day Moratorium on Data Centers, Extendable by 90 Days, Sponsored by Mayor Christopher Johnson and Council President Anthony Russo (2026)","short_title":"Agawam MA 270-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Agawam, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Hampden County","city":"Agawam","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-09-08","expires_date":"2027-06-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Agawam, a city in Hampden County next to Springfield, has paused data centers for 270 days. The moratorium was sponsored by Mayor Christopher Johnson and City Council President Anthony Russo, passed its first reading unanimously in August 2026, and was reported approved in September. No developer is currently trying to build a data center in Agawam; the mayor said the city wanted to act first because the state is actively soliciting data centers, and the definition is written broadly enough to cover future projects. During the pause the council plans to consult experts and draft a permanent data center ordinance. The council can extend the pause by 90 days.","summary_technical":"Agawam, Mass. (Hampden County) — 270-DAY MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTERS, with a 90-DAY EXTENSION available by council vote. SPONSORS: Mayor Christopher Johnson and City Council President Anthony Russo. FIRST READING: approved unanimously (The Reminder, 2026-08-10). FINAL ADOPTION: The Reminder (2026-09-10) reports that Agawam 'approved a 270-day moratorium'; the discovery source (MassLive) reports an 11-0 vote on Tuesday, September 8, 2026 and that a separate proposal for a permanent ban on centers over 12 MW failed for lack of a second — MassLive could not be opened (HTTP 403), so the vote count, the exact date and the failed 12 MW ban are NOT independently verified. SCOPE: data centers 'of any size'; Mayor Johnson described the definition as 'sufficiently broad' to cover prospective projects. PURPOSE: time to research data centers and draft a protective ordinance. expires_date is COMPUTED as 270 days from 2026-09-08 and is presumptive. STATE CONTEXT: ma-eo-658-responsible-data-center-development-2026 conditions large data centers on local approval.","who_is_protected":"Agawam residents","who_must_comply":"Data center developers seeking to build in Agawam during the moratorium","citation":"Agawam, Mass. — 270-day data center moratorium (final vote reported 2026-09-08)","source_url":"https://thereminder.com/?p=103766","source_title":"The Reminder (Sept. 10, 2026), Northampton City Council considers data center moratorium (reports Agawam approved a 270-day moratorium); also The Reminder (Aug. 10, 2026), Agawam moves toward 270-day moratorium on data centers","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Agawam","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"ma-attleboro-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Attleboro, MA — City Council Unanimously Passes a Two-Year Moratorium on Data Centers, Lengthened From a One-Year Proposal (August 2026)","short_title":"Attleboro MA two-year data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Attleboro, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Bristol County","city":"Attleboro","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-08-20","expires_date":"2028-08-20","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Attleboro's City Council voted unanimously in August 2026 to pause data centers for two years. Councilor Diana Holmes first proposed a one-year pause in July so the city could study whether it can supply the water and electricity a data center would need, and whether noise and power bills would suffer. The council lengthened it to two years; a push for five years did not pass. The council can extend it again later if it needs more time.","summary_technical":"Attleboro, Mass. (Bristol County) — TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM ('ban', as the council calls it) ON DATA CENTERS, passed UNANIMOUSLY by the City Council on Thursday evening, reported by The Sun Chronicle on 2026-08-21 (so the vote date is 2026-08-20). ORIGIN: Councilor Diana Holmes proposed a one-year moratorium in July 2026. AMENDMENT HISTORY: Vice President Laura Dolan proposed extending to five years; the two-year version passed instead, and Councilor Brendan McIntyre said he would consult the city solicitor on the legality of a five-year term. PURPOSE: research whether the city can reasonably accommodate a data center given water use, electricity costs and noise. SCOPE NOT STATED: whether the measure is a zoning amendment and whether it bars applications, permits or construction is not given in the accessible text. expires_date is COMPUTED (two years from adoption).","who_is_protected":"Attleboro residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Data center developers in Attleboro during the moratorium","citation":"Attleboro, Mass. — two-year data center moratorium passed unanimously August 20, 2026","source_url":"https://www.thesunchronicle.com/news/local_news/attleboro-city-council-approves-two-year-ban-on-data-centers/article_dd3192df-6ccb-45d1-99eb-87eac180f3d7.html","source_title":"Attleboro City Council approves two-year ban on data centers — The Sun Chronicle (Aug. 21, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Attleboro","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"ma-ayer-flock-alpr-termination-2026","title":"Ayer, MA — Select Board Unanimously Terminates the Town's Flock Safety License-Plate Reader Contract and Orders Its Nine Cameras Taken Down (August 31, 2026)","short_title":"Ayer MA ends Flock ALPR contract (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Ayer, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Middlesex County","city":"Ayer","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-09-01","enacted_date":"2026-08-31","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Ayer, a town of about 10,000 people, had nine Flock Safety cameras that photograph passing cars and read their license plates. After residents told the Select Board the cameras invaded their privacy and could be misused, the three-member board voted unanimously on August 31, 2026 to end the town's contract with Flock immediately. The cameras were switched off the next day. Flock owns the cameras and poles and still has to remove them; the police chief is checking that they stay off until then.","summary_technical":"Town of Ayer, Mass. (Middlesex County) — SELECT BOARD, three members, UNANIMOUS vote at its AUGUST 31, 2026 meeting to terminate the town's contract with Flock Safety (Flock Group Inc.) 'immediately' and take down the NINE Flock automated license plate reader cameras. Motion by Vice Chair Jannice Livingston, adopted in re-worded form. Chairman Chris Tavares said installing the cameras was legal but the way collected data has reportedly been used elsewhere is not. IMPLEMENTATION: per the town/Ayer Police Department website post, cameras were DEACTIVATED SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 and 'the contract with Flock Camera and the Town of Ayer is no longer in effect'; physical removal is Flock's responsibility (it owns the cameras and poles) and is delayed by a nationwide backlog; Police Chief Brian Gill is monitoring that they remain deactivated. CONTEXT: Lowell Sun (2026-09-23) lists Ayer among at least 31 Massachusetts cities and towns that have dropped Flock. Compare ma-city-council-cambridge-ma-cambridge-terminates-flock-safety-alpr-contract-for-mat-2025.","who_is_protected":"Drivers and residents in Ayer whose vehicle and plate images were captured by the cameras","who_must_comply":"Town of Ayer and Ayer Police Department; Flock Safety (camera removal)","citation":"Ayer, Mass. Select Board vote of August 31, 2026 terminating Flock Safety ALPR contract","source_url":"https://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/2026/09/17/ayer-select-board-terminates-flock-contract/","source_title":"Ayer Select Board terminates Flock contract — Sentinel & Enterprise (Sept. 17, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Ayer Select Board; Ayer Police Department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None — contract termination"},{"id":"ma-boston-dc-zoning-ban-proposed-2026","title":"Boston, MA — Councilor Miniard Culpepper Proposes a Zoning Code Amendment Prohibiting New Data Centers Citywide; Existing Facilities Grandfathered but Barred From Expanding (September 2026)","short_title":"Boston MA proposed citywide data center zoning ban (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Boston, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Suffolk County","city":"Boston","topics":["data-centers"],"status":"proposed","strength":"proposed","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Boston City Councilor Miniard Culpepper has proposed changing Boston's zoning code so that no new data centers can be built anywhere in the city. The ban would cover facilities for data storage, artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency and cloud computing. Existing data centers, including Markley Group's 30-megawatt facility in Downtown Crossing, could keep running but could not expand. Businesses, telecom companies and research labs could still run servers for their own use. No data center is currently proposed in Boston. The proposal still needs approval from the Boston Zoning Commission.","summary_technical":"City of Boston — PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT by Councilor MINIARD CULPEPPER, raised at the Wednesday council meeting reported by WBUR on 2026-09-18 (i.e., 2026-09-16). SCOPE: prohibits NEW facilities housing equipment for digital data management, artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency and cloud computing anywhere in the city. EXISTING FACILITIES may continue operating but may NOT EXPAND (the ~30 MW Markley Group Downtown Crossing facility, operating since 1998, would be grandfathered). CARVE-OUT: businesses, telecommunications companies and research labs may operate servers for their own operations. PROCESS: requires Boston Zoning Commission approval to take effect (Boston zoning is under the Boston Zoning Code/Enabling Act, not G.L. c. 40A). No docket number located. CONTEXT: follows ma-eo-658-responsible-data-center-development-2026 giving municipalities authority over large data center approvals.","who_is_protected":"Boston residents and ratepayers","who_must_comply":"Developers of new data centers and operators seeking to expand existing data centers in Boston (if adopted)","citation":"Boston City Council — Culpepper zoning amendment proposal to prohibit new data centers (Sept. 2026)","source_url":"https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/09/18/boston-data-center-ban-proposal","source_title":"Boston data center ban proposal — WBUR (Sept. 18, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Boston Zoning Commission; Boston Inspectional Services Department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not applicable — proposal"},{"id":"ma-easthampton-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Easthampton, MA — City Council Amends the Zoning Ordinance to Impose an 18-Month Moratorium on New Data Center Construction (October 7, 2026)","short_title":"Easthampton MA 18-month data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Easthampton, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Hampshire County","city":"Easthampton","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"moderate","enacted_date":"2026-10-07","expires_date":"2028-04-07","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Easthampton's City Council voted on October 7, 2026 to stop new data center construction for 18 months while the city writes permanent rules. The pause is written into the city's zoning ordinance. It covers buildings used mainly for computer servers, cryptocurrency mining and AI infrastructure, but not small server rooms under 2,500 square feet, and it still lets existing equipment be repaired, replaced or modestly expanded. No data center is proposed in Easthampton. During the pause, the council's ordinance subcommittee and the Planning Board will draft rules on permits, water use, noise and energy demand.","summary_technical":"City of Easthampton, Mass. (Hampshire County) — ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT adding a TEMPORARY 18-MONTH MORATORIUM on new data center construction, passed by the City Council on WEDNESDAY night (Daily Hampshire Gazette, 2026-10-08, i.e., 2026-10-07). PRIOR STEPS: Planning Board approved unanimously in September 2026; council ordinance subcommittee (chair Kiam Jamrog-McQuaid) recommended. DEFINITION: 'a building or group of buildings used primarily to run technology such as computer systems, servers, cryptocurrency mining equipment and artificial intelligence infrastructure.' EXEMPTIONS: accessory equipment under 2,500 sq ft; replacement, repair and limited expansion of existing equipment. WORK PLAN: ordinance subcommittee and Planning Board to study permanent regulations — permitting criteria, water use, noise, energy demand. Vote count not reported. expires_date COMPUTED as 18 months from passage. Mayoral action not reported.","who_is_protected":"Easthampton residents","who_must_comply":"Developers of new data centers in Easthampton","citation":"Easthampton, Mass. Zoning Ordinance amendment — temporary data center moratorium (passed 2026-10-07)","source_url":"https://www.gazettenet.com/2026/10/08/easthampton-approves-18-month-moratorium-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Easthampton approves 18-month moratorium on data centers — Daily Hampshire Gazette (Oct. 8, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"City of Easthampton (Building Commissioner / Planning Board)","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"},{"id":"ma-lowell-dc-moratorium-2026","title":"Lowell, MA — City Council Imposes a 360-Day Moratorium on Permits and Approvals for New or Expanded Data Centers, Extendable by 180 Days, Amid the Markley Expansion Fight (March 10, 2026)","short_title":"Lowell MA 360-day data center moratorium (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lowell, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Middlesex County","city":"Lowell","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"effective","strength":"moderate","effective_date":"2026-03-10","enacted_date":"2026-03-10","expires_date":"2027-03-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"On March 10, 2026, Lowell's City Council voted to pause permits and approvals for new or expanded data centers for 360 days, with the option of a 180-day extension, while the city rewrites its zoning. It was described as the first such moratorium fully in place in Massachusetts. The fight is over the Markley Group's large data center in the Sacred Heart neighborhood, whose diesel backup generators have grown from 7 to 23. Markley sued, arguing the pause did not apply to it, but later agreed to drop the case. In October 2026 city planners are taking two options to the council: limit future data centers to 15 megawatts, or ban them in every zoning district. Markley's existing campus and recent property purchases would be grandfathered either way.","summary_technical":"City of Lowell, Mass. (Middlesex County) — 360-DAY MORATORIUM on permitting and approval of NEW OR EXPANDED data centers until zoning and planning regulations are updated (buffer zones, noise standards, screening, protections against water and electric rate impacts). ADOPTED: Tuesday, MARCH 10, 2026 (Boston Business Journal via NBC Boston, 2026-03-10; search snippet reports a 10-0 vote, not confirmed on an opened page). TERM: Lowell Sun says 360 days; BBJ describes it as 'one-year' with an option to extend by 180 days. EFFECT ON MARKLEY: BBJ says work already underway may continue; Lowell Sun says Markley's main campus at 1 Markley Way and its Tanner, Bolt and Newhall Street purchases are not subject to the moratorium or proposed zoning. LITIGATION: Markley Lowell LLC and Tanner Street Investco LLC sued claiming exemption; dismissed by joint stipulation. Separate state-court generator case is litig-lowell-ma-markley-diesel-generator-injunction-2026. NEXT: DPD forum 2026-10-07; mid-October presentation of Option 1 (cap 15 MW, climate-friendly infrastructure) vs Option 2 (prohibit in all districts) as part of a zoning code overhaul. expires_date COMPUTED as 360 days from 2026-03-10; a 180-day extension is available.","who_is_protected":"Lowell residents, particularly in the Sacred Heart neighborhood near the Markley facility","who_must_comply":"Developers of new or expanded data centers in Lowell","citation":"Lowell, Mass. City Council — 360-day data center moratorium adopted March 10, 2026","source_url":"https://www.lowellsun.com/2026/10/01/data-center-zoning-back-on-lowells-agenda/","source_title":"Data center zoning back on Lowell's agenda — Lowell Sun (Oct. 1, 2026); corroborated by Boston Business Journal via NBC Boston, 'Lowell imposes moratorium on data centers targeting state's largest facility' (Mar. 10, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"verified-secondary","enforcement_agency":"City of Lowell Department of Planning and Development; land-use boards","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located sources"},{"id":"ma-lowell-flock-alpr-suspension-2026","title":"Lowell, MA — City Council Votes 6-5 to Suspend Use of the Flock Safety License-Plate Reader System Indefinitely Pending a Policy Review and Data-Use Audit (September 22, 2026)","short_title":"Lowell MA suspends Flock ALPR use (2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Lowell, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Middlesex County","city":"Lowell","topics":["law-enforcement","privacy","public-sector","transparency"],"status":"enacted","strength":"limited","enacted_date":"2026-09-22","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"Lowell's police use 37 Flock cameras that read license plates and share the data with other police agencies, including more than 100 departments across New England and a federal agency. After Boston said Flock had shared its data nationwide against its contract, Lowell's City Council voted 6-5 on September 22, 2026 to suspend the city's use of Flock indefinitely while it reviews how the system is used, how Flock uses the data and how searches are audited. The council also asked for a list of alternatives that do not share data with any outside database. The city manager said the city could arrange the suspension with the company; whether and when it actually took effect was not reported.","summary_technical":"City of Lowell, Mass. — CITY COUNCIL MOTION approved 6-5 on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2026, to INDEFINITELY SUSPEND the city's use of the FLOCK SAFETY ALPR system pending a policy review of usage, Flock's use of data and the data audit process. YES: Councilors Kim Scott and Vice Mayor Vesna Nuon (makers), Mayor Erik Gitschier, Councilors Sidney Liang, Belinda Juran, Sean McDonough. NO: Sokhary Chau, John Descoteaux, Rita Mercier, Corey Robinson, Daniel Rourke. FACTS: 37 ALPR cameras per the LPD Flock Transparency Portal; 30-day retention; data shared with MA State Police, NH State Police, MA DOC, >100 departments in CT/RI/NH/ME, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (New York also named by City Manager Tom Golden). The council never voted to approve the Flock system originally. IMPLEMENTATION: City Manager Golden said suspension could be accomplished 'working with the company'; Lowell has a Plan E (council-manager) charter, so a council motion directs rather than itself executes administrative action — implementation not confirmed. COMPANION MOTION (Robinson/Gitschier, unanimous): list of alternatives that do not share information to any database. NEXT: executive session on Flock in October 2026. TRIGGER: Boston's disclosure that a Flock 'vendor error' enabled nationwide lookups during its 2025 pilot.","who_is_protected":"Drivers in Lowell whose plates are captured by the city's ALPR network","who_must_comply":"City of Lowell; Lowell Police Department","citation":"Lowell City Council motion of September 22, 2026 suspending Flock Safety ALPR use","source_url":"https://www.lowellsun.com/2026/09/23/lowell-suspends-use-of-flock-cameras/","source_title":"Lowell suspends use of Flock cameras — Lowell Sun (Sept. 23, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Lowell City Council; City Manager; Lowell Police Department","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"None"},{"id":"ma-mansfield-dc-zoning-bylaw-2026","title":"Mansfield, MA — Annual Town Meeting Adopts a Data Center Zoning Bylaw (Article 23) Banning Facilities Over 2 MW Town-Wide and Allowing Smaller Ones Only by Special Permit (May 5, 2026)","short_title":"Mansfield MA data center zoning bylaw (Article 23, 2026)","level":"city","jurisdiction":"Mansfield, MA","state_abbr":"MA","county":"Bristol County","city":"Mansfield","topics":["data-centers","public-sector"],"status":"enacted","strength":"strong","enacted_date":"2026-05-05","last_verified_date":"2026-10-10","summary_plain":"At its May 5, 2026 Annual Town Meeting, Mansfield voted for a zoning bylaw that bans mid-size and large data centers everywhere in town. Facilities over 2 megawatts are prohibited. Smaller ones, up to 2 megawatts, are allowed only in industrial and planned business districts and only with a special permit, and are banned in residential and business districts. Applicants must study electricity demand, cooling, water use, noise and air quality. Permits expire after five years, and noise is capped at 50 decibels by day and 45 at night near homes, schools and hospitals. Town officials worked with Mansfield's own electric and water departments to set the limits. It was reported as the first dedicated data center bylaw in Massachusetts.","summary_technical":"Town of Mansfield, Mass. (Bristol County) — ANNUAL TOWN MEETING, MAY 5, 2026, ARTICLE 23: zoning amendment creating a DATA CENTER BYLAW with a TIERED SCHEME. TIER I (up to 2 MW): allowed only in industrial and planned business districts, by SPECIAL PERMIT. TIER II (2-10 MW) and TIER III (10+ MW): PROHIBITED TOWN-WIDE. All data centers banned in residential and business districts. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: engineering reports on electrical demand, cooling systems, water consumption, noise and air quality. SPECIAL PERMITS EXPIRE after FIVE YEARS (renewal required). NOISE: 50 dBA daytime / 45 dBA nighttime at sensitive receptors (homes, schools, hospitals). Developed with the town's municipal electric and water departments. Reported (Boston.com, Boston Globe) as the first dedicated data center zoning bylaw in Massachusetts. AG APPROVAL: Massachusetts town bylaws take effect only after Attorney General approval and posting (G.L. c. 40, § 32); no AG decision was located, so status is enacted, not effective. Vote count not reported.","who_is_protected":"Mansfield residents, and the town's municipal electric and water systems","who_must_comply":"Data center developers and operators in Mansfield","citation":"Town of Mansfield, Mass. — 2026 Annual Town Meeting Article 23 (data center zoning bylaw)","source_url":"https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2026/05/13/mansfield-becomes-first-town-in-mass-to-pass-near-total-ban-on-data-centers/","source_title":"Mansfield becomes first town in Mass. to pass near-total ban on data centers — Boston.com (May 13, 2026); also reported by The Boston Globe (May 13, 2026)","source_type":"journalism","confidence":"needs-confirmation","enforcement_agency":"Mansfield Planning Board / special permit granting authority; Building Commissioner","private_right_of_action":false,"penalties":"Not stated in the located source"}]}