Home › Jurisdictions › California
AI Laws in California
As of 2026-08-12, AI Laws USA tracks 128 AI rules in California: 65 state-level rules and 63 county or city rules. Federal AI protections apply statewide on top of these — see the federal page. Each entry links to its official source.
California state-level AI rules (65)
-
In effect
CA CPPA ADMT Regs
CA · Effective 2026-01-01 · 11 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 7200-7232
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.
-
In effect
CCPA/CPRA + ADMT Regulations
California · Effective 2026-01-01 · Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, div. 6
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.
-
In effect
California CRC rules (FEHA anti-bias law applied to AI hiring/employment tools)
California · Effective 2025-10-01 · Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 (Civil Rights Council ADS regulations); Cal. Gov. Code 12940 et seq. (FEHA)
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.
-
Blocked / in litigation
CA SB 942 (challenged)
CA · Effective 2026-08-02 · Cal. SB 942 (2024) — pending First Amendment challenge
California SB 942 mandates AI-content disclosures and watermarking by large generative AI providers, effective August 2, 2026. A First Amendment challenge was filed by industry plaintiffs in late 2025 and is pending preliminary injunction motion.
-
In effect
CA EO N-6-26 (AI Workforce)
California · Effective 2026-05-21 · California Executive Order N-6-26 (May 21, 2026)
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.
-
In effect
California AB 489 (AI healthcare chatbot misrepresentation ban)
California · Effective 2026-01-01 · Cal. AB 489 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.), effective January 1, 2026
California AB 489, signed October 11, 2025 and in effect since January 1, 2026, prohibits AI systems from using post-nominal letters (M.D., R.N., etc.), icons, phrases, or other design elements that imply a user is receiving care from a licensed health care professional unless actual licensed professional oversight exists. It also bars marketing language suggesting clinical expertise — such as 'doctor-level,' 'clinician-guided,' or 'expert-backed' — unless the product is genuinely supported by licensed professionals. The law expands California professional licensing boards' authority to investigate and enforce violations, with each misleading representation treated as a separate offense.
-
Blocked / in litigation
X.AI v. Bonta (AB 2013 training-data disclosure)
California · Effective 2025-12-29 · 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
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.
-
Blocked / in litigation
Raine v. OpenAI
CA · Effective 2025-08-26 · Raine v. OpenAI, Inc., No. CGC-25-628528 (Cal. Super. Ct., S.F. Cty.)
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.
-
In effect
CPPA Honda ADMT settlement
CA · Effective 2025-03-12 · CPPA, In re American Honda Motor Co. (Mar. 12, 2025)
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.
-
In effect
CA SB 1120 (AI prior auth)
CA · Effective 2025-01-01 · Cal. Stats. 2024 Ch. 879; Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1367.01
California prohibits health insurers from using AI or algorithms to deny, delay, or modify medical care — only a qualified physician can make a coverage denial. The law applies to all California-regulated health plans, including commercial, Medi-Cal managed care, and Knox-Keene plans.
-
In effect
CA AB 1008 (CCPA + AI)
CA · Effective 2025-01-01 · Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.140; AB 1008 (Stats. 2024, ch. 853)
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.
-
Blocked / in litigation
CA AB 1836 (challenged)
CA · Effective 2025-01-01 · Cal. Civ. Code §3344.1 (as amended by AB 1836); MPA v. Bonta (E.D. Cal., pending)
California AB 1836 extended postmortem right of publicity to AI digital replicas of deceased personalities. A First Amendment challenge filed by the Motion Picture Association is pending in federal court.
-
In effect
California AB 1836 (bans unauthorized AI digital replicas of dead performers)
California · Effective 2025-01-01 · Cal. Civ. Code 3344.1 (AB 1836, Stats. 2024)
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.
-
In effect
California AB 2602 (vague AI voice/likeness contract clauses unenforceable)
California · Effective 2025-01-01 · Cal. Civ. Code 1745.5 (AB 2602, Stats. 2024)
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.
-
In effect
SB 1120 (CA Physicians Make Decisions Act)
California · Effective 2025-01-01 · Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1367.01; Cal. Insurance Code § 10123.135 (SB 1120, Stats. 2024, ch. 1020)
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.
-
In effect
CA EO N-12-23 (GenAI)
CA · Effective 2023-09-06 · Cal. Exec. Order No. N-12-23 (Sept. 6, 2023)
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.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
CA AB 2148 no-AI school employees (2026)
CA · Effective 2027-01-01 · Cal. AB 2148 (2025-26 Reg. Sess.) — signed June 30, 2026; eff. Jan. 1, 2027
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.
-
In effect
SB 942 (AI Transparency Act)
California · Effective 2026-08-02 · Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757 et seq. (SB 942, as amended by AB 853)
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 delayed the start to August 2, 2026 and extended duties to large online platforms and capture-device makers (2027).
-
In effect
Executive Order N-5-26 - Trusted AI Procurement
California · Effective 2026-03-30 · Executive Order N-5-26 - Trusted AI Procurement
This newer California executive order directs DGS and CDT to develop trust-and-safety certifications for state AI contracting (covering CSAM/NCII, harmful bias, and civil-rights violations), reforms to bar contracting with entities that unlawfully undermine privacy or civil liberties, and CDT guidance on watermarking AI-generated media.
-
In effect
California AB 489 (AI can't use titles implying it's a licensed clinician)
California · Effective 2026-01-01 · Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 4999.9 (AB 489, 2025)
This law stops AI technology from pretending to be a licensed health care provider. AI systems and the companies behind them cannot use titles, letters, or terms that falsely suggest the AI holds a health care license or that its services come from a licensed human professional. It extends an existing ban on impersonating licensed health professionals so that it clearly covers AI providers.
-
In effect
California AB 316 (defendants can't blame the AI for acting on its own)
California · Effective 2026-01-01 · Cal. Civ. Code 1714.46 (AB 316, 2025)
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.
-
In effect
California SB 243 (companion chatbots: AI disclosure + suicide-safety protocol)
California · Effective 2026-01-01 · Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 22601 et seq. (SB 243, 2025)
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.
-
In effect
California SB 524 (AI-written police reports must be disclosed + audited)
California · Effective 2026-01-01 · Cal. Penal Code 13663 (SB 524, 2025)
This law brings transparency to the use of AI in police reports. When a law enforcement report is generated wholly or partly by AI, the report must carry a per-page disclosure identifying the AI program used, along with the officer's signature verifying they reviewed it and that the facts are true. Agencies must keep the first AI-generated draft and an audit trail showing the user, data, and media involved, and vendors are barred from sharing or selling agency data except for the agency's own purposes.
-
In effect
California SB 361 (data brokers must report sharing data with GenAI developers)
California · Effective 2026-01-01 · Cal. Civ. Code 1798.99.82 (SB 361, 2025)
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.
-
In effect
California AB 723 (real estate ads must disclose AI-altered images)
California · Effective 2026-01-01 · Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 10140.8 (AB 723, 2025)
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.
-
In effect
California AB 325 (bans anticompetitive use of shared pricing algorithms)
California · Effective 2026-01-01 · AB 325 (2025), amending the Cartwright Act (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 16700 et seq.)
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.
-
In effect
AB 2013 (Training Data Transparency)
California · Effective 2026-01-01 · Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3110–3111 (AB 2013, Stats. 2024)
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.
-
In effect
SB 53 (Frontier AI Safety)
California · Effective 2026-01-01 · SB 53 (Stats. 2025)
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.
-
In effect
Guidance for the Safe and Effective Use of Artificial Intell
California Department of Education · Effective 2026-01-01 · Guidance for the Safe and Effective Use of Artificial Intelligence in California Public Schools
California's education department issued voluntary guidance for K-12 districts covering human-centered AI, AI literacy, equitable access, academic integrity, data privacy (FERPA/COPPA/CCPA/SOPIPA), and procurement.
-
In effect
LA Metro AI Weapons-Detection Pilot Expansion (Evolv/pillar
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) · Effective 2025-02-27 · LA Metro AI Weapons-Detection Pilot Expansion (Evolv/pillar scanners plus AI-CCTV mobile detection)
LA Metro's board voted 10-0 to expand a one-year weapons-detection pilot using AI-powered pillar scanners and AI-CCTV mobile detection to identify concealed weapons on riders at busy stations and on buses.
-
In effect
CSU AI-Empowered University System initiative and systemwide
California State University (CSU System) · Effective 2025-02-04 · CSU AI-Empowered University System initiative and systemwide ChatGPT Edu deployment
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.
-
In effect
CA AG Bonta AI legal advisory
CA · Effective 2025-01-13 · CA DOJ Legal Advisory (Jan. 13, 2025)
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.
-
In effect
Attorney General Bonta Legal Advisories on the Application o
California · Effective 2025-01-13 · Attorney General Bonta Legal Advisories on the Application of California Law to AI
California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued two legal advisories clarifying that entities developing, selling, or using AI must comply with existing California consumer-protection, civil-rights, competition, data-privacy, and election-misinformation laws, plus new AI laws effective January 1, 2025, with a second advisory targeting healthcare entities.
-
Blocked / in litigation
CA AB 2655 (deepfake takedown)
CA · Effective 2025-01-01 · Cal. Elec. Code §§ 20510–20517; AB 2655, Ch. 261, Stats. 2024
California passed a law requiring large online platforms to label or remove materially deceptive AI-generated content related to elections, and authorized candidates and election officials to sue for injunctive relief and damages. A federal court has blocked enforcement of key provisions while First Amendment litigation proceeds.
-
In effect
California SB 981 (platforms must let users report & remove deepfake nudes)
California · Effective 2025-01-01 · Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Ch. 22.7 (SB 981, Stats. 2024)
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.
-
In effect
California SB 926 (crime to create & share realistic fake nudes of real people)
California · Effective 2025-01-01 · Cal. Penal Code 647 (SB 926, Stats. 2024)
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.
-
In effect
California AB 1831 (CSAM laws now cover AI-generated/altered material)
California · Effective 2025-01-01 · Cal. Penal Code 311, 311.2, 311.11, 311.12 (AB 1831, Stats. 2024)
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.
-
In effect
California AB 2885 (one statewide statutory definition of 'AI')
California · Effective 2025-01-01 · AB 2885, Stats. 2024 (definition codified at Cal. Gov. Code 11546.45.5)
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.
-
In effect
California AB 2905 (robocalls must disclose an AI-generated voice)
California · Effective 2025-01-01 · Cal. Pub. Util. Code 2874 (AB 2905, Stats. 2024)
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.
-
In effect
California AB 3030 (GenAI patient messages must carry an AI disclaimer)
California · Effective 2025-01-01 · Cal. Health & Safety Code 1339.75 (AB 3030, Stats. 2024)
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.
-
In effect
California SB 896 (state AI risk analysis + AI disclaimers on gov communications)
California · Effective 2025-01-01 · SB 896, Stats. 2024 (Generative Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act)
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.
-
In effect
California AB 2355 (AI-generated political ads must disclose the AI use)
California · Effective 2025-01-01 · AB 2355, Stats. 2024 (amending the Political Reform Act of 1974)
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.
-
In effect
California AB 2655 (big platforms must block/label election deepfakes)
California · Effective 2025-01-01 · Cal. Elec. Code 20510-20520 (AB 2655, Stats. 2024)
Large online platforms with at least 1 million California users must identify materially deceptive AI-generated political content about California elections and either block it or label it during set windows around an election. They must also give California residents a way to report content that was not handled. The Attorney General, district attorneys, city attorneys, and affected candidates or election officials can go to court to force compliance.
-
In effect
Cruise SF Pedestrian Incident
CA · Effective 2024-10-31 · In re GM Cruise LLC — NHTSA Consent Order (Sept. 2024); confidential personal-injury settlement
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.
-
Blocked / in litigation
CA AB 2839 (enjoined)
CA · Effective 2024-09-17 · Cal. AB 2839 (2024); Kohls v. Bonta, No. 2:24-cv-02527 (E.D. Cal.)
California AB 2839 banned materially deceptive AI-generated election content within 120 days of an election. A federal court preliminarily enjoined enforcement on October 2, 2024 in Kohls v. Bonta, finding likely First Amendment violations. The case was fully briefed at the Ninth Circuit as of March 11, 2026.
-
Blocked / in litigation
CA AB 2655 (enjoined)
CA · Effective 2024-09-17 · Cal. AB 2655 (2024); Kohls v. Bonta, No. 2:24-cv-02527 (E.D. Cal.) — struck Aug. 29, 2025 (Babylon Bee LLC and X Corp. consolidated as co-plaintiffs)
California AB 2655 required large online platforms to block or label deceptive election deepfakes. Permanently enjoined on August 20, 2025 in Kohls v. Bonta (E.D. Cal.) on Section 230 preemption grounds — the first permanent injunction of a state platform deepfake law.
-
Blocked / in litigation
AB 2839 (Election Deepfakes)
California · Effective 2024-09-17 · Cal. Elec. Code § 20012 (AB 2839); Kohls v. Bonta, E.D. Cal.
This law banned knowingly distributing materially deceptive AI-generated deepfakes of candidates and election officials in the months around an election. Federal courts blocked it on First Amendment grounds, and it is currently unenforceable.
-
In effect
Huang v. Tesla
CA · Effective 2024-04-08 · Huang v. Tesla, Inc., No. 19CV346663 (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa Clara Cty.)
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.
-
In effect
California GenAI Procurement Guidelines and Toolkit
California · Effective 2024-03-21 · California GenAI Procurement Guidelines and Toolkit
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.
-
In effect
CA AG Bonta
CA · Effective 2024-01-26 · CA AG Bonta — CCPA Investigative Sweep of Streaming Services (2024-01-26)
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.
-
In effect
California AB 302 (state must inventory its high-risk automated decision systems)
California · Effective 2024-01-01 · Cal. Gov. Code 11546.45.5 (AB 302, Stats. 2023)
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.
-
In effect
CCC systemwide AI guidance and HUMANS responsible-AI framewo
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office · Effective 2024-01-01 · CCC systemwide AI guidance and HUMANS responsible-AI framework
The California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office issues systemwide AI guidance built on its HUMANS framework (human-centered, privacy, algorithmic-discrimination protections, notice and explanation, safety) governing AI in instruction and student support.
-
In effect
CA Bar GenAI Guidance
CA · Effective 2023-11-16 · State Bar of California, COPRAC Practical Guidance (Nov. 16, 2023)
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.
-
In effect
UC Responsible AI Principles and AI Council governance frame
University of California (UC System) · Effective 2021-10-01 · UC Responsible AI Principles and AI Council governance framework
UC was the first US university system to adopt Responsible AI Principles and stand up a systemwide AI Council that issues guidance, training, and risk assessments for AI use across its campuses.
-
In effect
AB 602 (Deepfake Intimate Images)
California · Effective 2020-01-01 · Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.86 (AB 602, 2019); Cal. Penal Code § 647(j)(4)
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).
-
In effect
CA SB 1001 BOT Act (2018, historical framing)
CA · Effective 2019-07-01 · Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17940-17943 (SB 1001, 2018)
Signed by Governor Brown on September 28, 2018, California SB 1001 was the first U.S. state law requiring bots to disclose they are not human when used to incentivize a sale or influence a vote. Still in effect 2026 at Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17940-17943. The first state bot-disclosure law and direct precursor to NJ Bot Disclosure Act (2019), federal Bot Disclosure Act of 2018 (S. 3127, died), and modern chatbot disclosure laws (UT SB 226, NE LB 525, etc.).
-
In effect
California Bot Disclosure Act (bots must self-identify in sales/election messaging)
California · Effective 2019-07-01 · Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17940-17943 (SB 1001, Stats. 2018)
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.
-
In effect
BART Surveillance Technology Ordinance
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) · Effective 2018-09-13 · BART Surveillance Technology Ordinance
BART became the first transit district in the country to adopt a CCOPS-style ordinance requiring board approval, a surveillance impact report, a use policy, and annual reports before acquiring surveillance technology.
-
In effect
CA AB 856 (2015 drone trespass)
California · Effective 2016-01-01 · Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.8(b)
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.
-
In effect
CA SB 1298 (2012 AV authorization)
California · Effective 2013-01-01 · Cal. Veh. Code §§ 38750 et seq.
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.
-
Repealed / replaced
CCPA Original (AB 375, 2018)
CA · Effective 2020-01-01 · Cal. AB 375 (2018), 2018 Cal. Stats. ch. 55 — substantially superseded by Prop 24 (CPRA) and 2025 CPPA ADMT regs
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.
-
Expired
CA AB 730 (2019, expired)
CA · Effective 2020-01-01 · Cal. AB 730 (2019), former Cal. Elec. Code §§ 20010-20012 — expired Jan. 1, 2023
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).
-
Vetoed
CA SB 1047 (vetoed)
CA · Cal. SB 1047 (2023-24 Reg. Sess.) — vetoed Sept. 29, 2024
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.
-
Expired
CA AB 2930 (died)
CA · Cal. AB 2930 (2023-24 Reg. Sess.) — held on suspense file Aug. 31, 2024
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.
-
Expired
CA AB 3211 (died)
CA · Cal. AB 3211 (2023-24 Reg. Sess.) — died on suspense
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.
County and city AI rules in California (63)
-
In effect
Monterey Park Data Center Ban (Measure NDC)
Monterey Park, CA · Effective 2026-06-02 · Monterey Park, Cal., Measure NDC (June 2, 2026); Municipal Code amendment
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.
-
In effect
Berkeley Government FR Ban (2019)
Berkeley, CA · Effective 2019-11-14 · Berkeley Mun. Code Ch. 2.99 (Ord. 7,676-N.S., 2019)
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.
-
In effect
Oakland Government FR Ban (2019)
Oakland, CA · Effective 2019-08-15 · Oakland Mun. Code Ch. 9.64 (2019, expanded 2020)
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.
-
In effect
SF Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance (2019, first-in-nation)
San Francisco, CA · Effective 2019-07-15 · S.F. Ordinance No. 107-19 (2019); S.F. Admin. Code ch. 19B
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.
-
In effect
Oakland Surveillance Ordinance & FR Ban
Oakland, CA · Oakland, Cal., Mun. Code ch. 9.64
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.
-
In effect
Indio CA data center urgency moratorium extension (July 14, 2026)
Indio, CA · Effective 2026-07-14 · City of Indio, CA urgency data center moratorium, extended by unanimous council vote July 14, 2026
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.
-
In effect
LAPD lets Flock contract expire (Jul. 11, 2026)
Los Angeles, CA · Effective 2026-07-11 · LAPD Flock Safety contract expiration, July 11, 2026 (138 cameras; largest US department to end a Flock contract)
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.
-
In effect
Imperial County Data Center Moratorium (45-day, adopted June 16, 2026)
Imperial County, CA · Effective 2026-06-16 · Imperial County, Cal., urgency interim ordinance (adopted June 16, 2026)
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.
-
In effect
Imperial CA Data Center Moratorium
Imperial, CA · Effective 2026-06-03 · City of Imperial, Cal., Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 834 (adopted June 3, 2026; 45-day initial term)
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.
-
In effect
Berkeley CA "The Berkeley Rule" AI Policy (2026)
Berkeley, CA · Effective 2026-03-10 · City of Berkeley, "The Berkeley Rule" and AI Use Framework for City Government (City Council action March 10, 2026)
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.
-
In effect
San Jose ALPR 30-day retention safeguards (2026)
San Jose, CA · Effective 2026-03-10 · City of San Jose ALPR Use Policy Amendment (City Council unanimous vote, March 10, 2026)
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.
-
In effect
Sonoma County CA AI Use Guidelines for County Government
Sonoma County, CA · Effective 2025-10-14 · Sonoma County Administrator policy (2025) (2025-10-14)
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.
-
In effect
Riverside County CA Sheriff ALPR Policy & Retention
Riverside County, CA · Effective 2025-07-22 · RCSD ALPR Policy (2025) (2025-07-22)
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.
-
In effect
San Diego algorithmic rent price-fixing ban (Ord. O-21955, May 2025)
San Diego, CA · Effective 2025-06-12 · San Diego Ord. O-21955, adopted May 13, 2025, eff. June 12, 2025
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.
-
In effect
San Mateo County CA AI Use & Governance Policy
San Mateo County, CA · Effective 2025-06-10 · San Mateo County Manager policy (2025) (2025-06-10)
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.
-
In effect
Ventura County CA Sheriff ALPR Policy
Ventura County, CA · Effective 2025-05-20 · VCSO ALPR Policy (2025) (2025-05-20)
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.
-
In effect
Orange County CA Sheriff ALPR Use & Retention Policy
Orange County, CA · Effective 2025-04-15 · OCSD ALPR Policy (2025) (2025-04-15)
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.
-
In effect
Oakland GenAI Policy
Oakland, CA · Effective 2024-12-01 · City of Oakland ITD, Interim Security Guidelines for AI Usage (2024)
City of Oakland Information Technology Department policy on city employee use of generative AI tools, with disclosure rules and prohibitions on entering sensitive data.
-
In effect
San Jose AI Reviews Board
San Jose, CA · Effective 2023-08-01 · City of San Jose, AI Reviews Board (2023)
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.
-
In effect
San Diego Surveillance Tech Ordinance
San Diego, CA · Effective 2022-08-23 · San Diego Mun. Code ch. 2, art. 10, div. 41 (Ord. O-21492, O-21493) (2022)
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.
-
In effect
Palo Alto Surveillance Technology Ordinance
Palo Alto, CA · Effective 2021-04-26 · Ord. 5485 (2021-04-26)
CCOPS-model ordinance requiring council approval and annual reports for police/city surveillance technology.
-
In effect
Santa Cruz Surveillance Technology and Community Safety Ordinance
Santa Cruz, CA · Effective 2020-06-23 · Ord. 2020-09 (2020-06-23)
First U.S. city to ban predictive policing; also bans city use of facial recognition.
-
In effect
Alameda Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance
Alameda, CA · Effective 2019-12-17 · Ord. 3247 (2019-12-17)
Council adopted a surveillance-oversight ordinance with an explicit prohibition on city use of face-recognition technology.
-
In effect
Davis Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Art. 26.07)
Davis, CA · Effective 2018-03-20 · Ord. 2510 (2018-03-20)
Requires council approval, impact reports, and use policies before any city acquisition or use of surveillance tech (early CCOPS).
-
In effect
SF delivery-robot permit (2017)
San Francisco · Effective 2018-01-21 · S.F. Pub. Works Code § 794
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.
-
In effect
Santa Clara County Surveillance Ordinance
Santa Clara County, CA · Santa Clara County, Cal., Ordinance Code div. A40 (NS-300.897, 2016)
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.
-
In effect
Cypress CA police drone purchase (~$138k/3yr, Jul. 2026)
Cypress, CA · Effective 2026-07-14 · Cypress, CA City Council unanimous vote (Jul. 2026) authorizing ~$138,000/3-year police drone purchase with $70,000 foundation donation
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.
-
In effect
Stanton CA authorizes OC Sheriff DFR 3-0-2 (Jul. 13, 2026)
Stanton, CA · Effective 2026-07-13 · Stanton, CA City Council 3-0-2 vote, July 13, 2026, authorizing OC Sheriff drone-as-first-responder program
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.
-
In effect
Coachella Data Center Moratorium
Coachella, CA · Effective 2026-06-04 · Coachella, Cal., 45-day data center moratorium (adopted June 4, 2026)
On June 4, 2026 the Coachella City Council unanimously approved a temporary 45-day moratorium on new data center applications and terminated its agreement with Stronghold Power Systems, which had proposed a 400-plus-acre, six-data-center 'Coachella Valley Technology Campus' on the city's east side. Council members said they will pursue zoning and other tools toward a possible permanent ban and revisit the issue July 9, 2026.
-
In effect
Generative and Agentic AI in SFUSD (staff guidance)
San Francisco Unified School District, CA · Effective 2026-01-20 · Generative and Agentic AI in SFUSD (staff guidance)
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.
-
In effect
Oakland Unified School District
Oakland, CA · Effective 2025-09-10 · Oakland Unified School District — AI Acceptable Use Guidelines (2025-09-10)
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.
-
In effect
Fresno USD AI Guidance
Fresno, CA · Effective 2025-09-09 · Fresno USD AI Guidance (2025-09-09)
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.
-
In effect
AUHSD AI Guidance
Anaheim, CA · Effective 2025-09-03 · AUHSD AI Guidance (2025-09-03)
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.
-
In effect
Santa Monica Algorithmic Rent-Setting Ban
Santa Monica, CA · Effective 2025-06-24 · Santa Monica City Council ordinance banning algorithmic rent-setting software, adopted approx. June 24, 2025
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.
-
In effect
Culver City CA
Culver City, CA · Effective 2025-04-28 · Culver City CA — Generative AI Use Policy for City Staff (2025-04-28)
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.
-
Proposed / pending
Ordinance prohibiting use of algorithmic rent-setting device
Berkeley, CA · Effective 2025-03-11 · Ordinance prohibiting use of algorithmic rent-setting devices (Berkeley City Council, March 11, 2025; suspended 2025 pending RealPage litigation)
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.
-
In effect
San Diego Unified School District
San Diego, CA · Effective 2024-12-10 · San Diego Unified School District — Generative AI Use Guidelines (2024-12-10)
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.
-
In effect
San Francisco Unified School District
San Francisco, CA · Effective 2024-11-12 · San Francisco Unified School District — Generative AI Use Guidelines (2024-11-12)
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.
-
In effect
Ordinance prohibiting sale or use of algorithmic devices to
San Francisco, CA · Effective 2024-10-14 · Ordinance prohibiting sale or use of algorithmic devices to set rents (Administrative Code / Rent Ordinance Section 37.10C)
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.
-
In effect
Santa Clara County CA Office of Education
San Jose, CA · Effective 2024-10-10 · Santa Clara County CA Office of Education — AI Guidance for Member Districts (2024-10-10)
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.
-
In effect
Glendale CA
Glendale, CA · Effective 2024-09-17 · Glendale CA — Generative AI Use Policy (City Manager Directive) (2024-09-17)
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.
-
In effect
Long Beach CA
Long Beach, CA · Effective 2024-07-09 · Long Beach CA — Generative AI Guidance (Administrative Guidance, not a formal Council Acceptable Use Policy) (2024-07-09)
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.
-
In effect
San Diego GenAI Policy
San Diego, CA · Effective 2024-07-01 · City of San Diego Admin. Reg., Generative AI Use (2024)
San Diego administrative policy governing employee use of generative AI tools, with disclosure, data-handling, and prohibited-use rules.
-
In effect
SFPD Unmanned Aircraft System (Drone) Program authorized und
San Francisco, CA · Effective 2024-05-16 · SFPD Unmanned Aircraft System (Drone) Program authorized under Proposition E (SF Admin Code 96I.2)
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.
-
In effect
LAUSD BUL-151113.0
Los Angeles, CA · Effective 2024-04-08 · LAUSD BUL-151113.0 — Guidelines for Authorized Use of AI (2024-04-08)
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.
-
In effect
Fresno PD FR Policy
Fresno, CA · Effective 2024-04-01 · Fresno PD Policy Manual, Facial Recognition Technology (2024)
Fresno Police Department policy on facial recognition technology requiring supervisory approval and treating matches as investigative leads only.
-
In effect
SF Generative AI Guidelines
San Francisco, CA · Effective 2023-12-11 · CCSF, Generative AI Guidelines (Dec. 2023, rev. July 2025)
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.
-
In effect
Santa Cruz County AI Policy
Santa Cruz County, CA · Effective 2023-09-19 · County of Santa Cruz, AI Policy (Sept. 19, 2023)
Santa Cruz County adopted one of the earliest county-level AI policies in the US, approved in September 2023 and incorporated into the county's procedures manual. It governs how county employees may use AI (including generative AI), with safeguards for sensitive data and human accountability for outputs.
-
In effect
San Jose GenAI Guidelines
San Jose, CA · Effective 2023-07-25 · City of San Jose, Generative AI Guidelines (June 12, 2023)
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.
-
In effect
Privacy Protection and Technology Transparency Policy govern
Chula Vista, CA · Effective 2022-11-01 · Privacy Protection and Technology Transparency Policy governing the Real-Time Operations Center
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.
-
In effect
Orange County SD Policy Manual, Policy 308 - Unmanned Aerial
Orange County, CA (Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department) · Effective 2021-03-01 · Orange County SD Policy Manual, Policy 308 - Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
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.
-
In effect
LAPD Facial Recognition Policy
Los Angeles, CA · Effective 2021-01-12 · L.A. Board of Police Commissioners facial recognition use policy (Jan. 2021)
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.
-
In effect
Oakland City Council Drone Use Policy plus expanded biometri
Oakland, CA · Effective 2020-12-16 · Oakland City Council Drone Use Policy plus expanded biometric-surveillance and predictive-policing bans (amended Surveillance Transparency Ordinance)
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.
-
In effect
Amendments to the Surveillance and Community Safety (CCOPS)
Oakland, CA · Effective 2020-12-15 · Amendments to the Surveillance and Community Safety (CCOPS) Ordinance prohibiting predictive policing analytics
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.
-
In effect
Ordinance banning municipal use of predictive policing and f
Santa Cruz, CA · Effective 2020-06-23 · Ordinance banning municipal use of predictive policing and facial recognition technology
Santa Cruz became the first U.S. city to bar its police department from using predictive policing (and facial recognition) technology unless the City Council finds by resolution that it is peer-reviewed, unbiased, and protective of civil rights.
-
In effect
Facial Recognition Policy (Riverside Cal-ID / RCSD)
Riverside County, CA (Riverside Cal-ID Biometric Identification Network / RCSD) · Effective 2020-03-23 · Facial Recognition Policy (Riverside Cal-ID / RCSD)
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.
-
In effect
Amendment to Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance (Mu
Oakland, CA · Effective 2019-07-16 · Amendment to Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance (Municipal Code Ch. 9.64) banning city/police face recognition
Oakland's City Council amended its surveillance ordinance to bar all city agencies, including police, from acquiring, using, or accessing facial recognition technology.
-
In effect
San Francisco Acquisition of Surveillance Technology Ordinan
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA/Muni) · Effective 2019-05-14 · San Francisco Acquisition of Surveillance Technology Ordinance (facial-recognition ban covering Muni/SFMTA)
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.
-
In effect
Chula Vista Police Department Drone as First Responder (DFR)
Chula Vista, CA · Effective 2018-10-01 · Chula Vista Police Department Drone as First Responder (DFR) Program and UAS Policy
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.
-
In effect
San José AI Policy
San Jose, CA · City of San José Policy Manual § 1.7.12; GenAI Guidelines (2023, as updated)
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.
-
In effect
Long Beach GenAI Guidance
Long Beach, CA · City of Long Beach, GenAI Guidance v1.3; AI Strategy (2025)
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.
-
Expired
Santa Cruz City Council votes 6-1 to terminate Flock Safety
Santa Cruz, CA · Santa Cruz City Council votes 6-1 to terminate Flock Safety ALPR contract
The Santa Cruz City Council voted 6-1 to terminate its Flock contract with 30 days' notice after reports that plate data had been searched by out-of-state agencies on behalf of federal law enforcement including ICE in violation of state law.
-
Proposed / pending
Calipatria CA Data Center Moratorium (introduced)
Calipatria, CA · City of Calipatria, Cal., Ordinance No. 26 (introduced May 12, 2026; five-year framing, CEQA-bounded)
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.
California city guides
- Alameda
- Anaheim
- Bakersfield
- Berkeley
- Berkeley Ca
- Calipatria
- Chula Vista Ca
- Coachella
- Culver City
- Cupertino
- Cypress
- Davis
- Fresno
- Glendale
- Imperial
- Indio
- Irvine
- Long Beach
- Los Angeles
- Monterey Park
- Mountain View
- Oakland
- Oakland Ca
- Palo Alto
- Pasadena
- Riverside
- Sacramento
- San Diego
- San Francisco
- San Francisco Ca
- San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Sfmta Muni
- San Francisco Unified School District Ca
- San Jose
- Santa Clara
- Santa Cruz
- Santa Cruz Ca
- Santa Monica
- Stanton
- Stockton
- Sunnyvale
Browse the full directory · Browse by topic · Submit a correction